The European Union鈥檚 proposals for revising its renewable energy policies are greenwashing and don鈥檛 solve the serious flaws, say environmental groups.
The EU gets 65 per cent of its renewable energy from biofuels 鈥� mainly wood 鈥� but it is failing to ensure this bioenergy comes from sustainable sources, and results in less emissions than burning fossil fuels. Its policies in some cases are leading to deforestation, biodiversity loss and putting more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than burning coal.
鈥淏urning forest biomass on an industrial scale for power and heating has proved disastrous,鈥� says Linde Zuidema, bioenergy campaigner for . 鈥淭he evidence that its growing use will increase emissions and destroy forests in Europe and elsewhere is overwhelming.鈥�
Advertisement
On 30 November the European Commission unveiled for the period up to 2030. On the surface, these proposals address some of the issues with existing renewable energy policies.
But environmental groups who have been analysing the proposals say that the changes will make little difference.
鈥淚t鈥檚 almost worse than doing nothing,鈥� says Sini Erajaa, the bioenergy policy officer for , who describes the changes as greenwashing.
Burning biomass
For instance, one proposed change is to apply the EU鈥檚 sustainability criteria to biomass used in heat and power plants whose output is 20 megawatts or more. 鈥淭his means, for instance, that electricity and heat from biomass have to produce at least 80 per cent fewer greenhouse gas emissions compared to fossil fuels by 2021 and 85 per cent less by 2026,鈥� states.
You might think this will ensure that burning biomass does not result in higher greenhouse gas emissions than fossil fuel use, but far from it. That statement is misleading because it does not make clear that the EU鈥檚 method for calculating emissions assumes burning biomass produces no CO2 at all. 鈥淓missions from the fuel in use shall be taken to be zero for biofuels and bioliquids,鈥� states a 2009 directive.
The assumption is that these emissions don鈥檛 have to be counted because the growth of plants soaks up as much CO2 as is emitted when they are burned. But this assumption is not true on the timescales that matter for limiting climate change. Burning wood can result in higher emissions than burning coal.
This fact is not controversial. Buried deep in the EU鈥檚 own is an acknowledgement that burning forest biomass is not carbon neutral, and that using some forms of forest biomass can increase emissions.
鈥淏iogenic emissions remain high (higher than emissions from fossil fuels) beyond a policy-relevant timeframe for sawn wood, stumps, coarse dead wood,鈥� it states on page 106.
Carbon neutral?
But because the EU doesn鈥檛 count these emissions, it is claiming carbon reductions for activities that are sometimes increasing emissions 鈥� what New 杏吧原创 has recently revealed as 鈥渢he great carbon scam鈥�.
For instance, the EU is not just burning small bits of wood waste for energy, which can indeed reduce emissions. Whole trees are being felled for energy and often in an unsustainable way, say campaigners.
A recent report by Birdlife and other groups in Europe and beyond. Supposedly protected forests are being cut down in Slovakia and Italy, for instance.
Campaigners want the EU to abandon its drive to use ever more bioenergy, particularly forest bioenergy. 鈥淲e are not saying bioenergy has no role to play,鈥� says Erajaa. 鈥淏ut it will have to be smaller.鈥�
When asked about these criticisms, a spokesperson for the European Commission said it is committed to making sure the biomass used for energy throughout the EU is sustainable.
The draft proposals now go before the European parliament for review, so there is still a chance to amend them. But countries and industries raking in profits from bioenergy subsidies are fighting to prevent meaningful reform.
