Essay by Eric Worrall
European greens have apparently noticed that chopping down forests causes environmental harm.
EU limits subsidies for burning trees under renewable energy directive
MEPs vote on amendment to phase down share of wood counted as renewable but reject calls for complete phaseout
Jennifer Rankin in Brussels Thu 15 Sep 2022 02.00 AEST
The European parliament has called to end public subsidies for the environmentally destructive practice of burning trees for fuel, but campaigners warned the plans risked being “too little, too late”.
Voting on an amendment to the EU’s renewable energy directive, MEPs called to “phase down” the share of trees counted as renewable energy in EU targets. But they swerved setting any dates to reduce the burning of “primary wood”. They rejected calls for a complete phaseout of a form of energy generation that scientists have warned releases more carbon into the atmosphere than burning gas or coal.
The EU wants to expand renewable energy as fast as possible, as it seeks to accelerate the green transition and end dependence on Russian fossil fuels. MEPs voted for 45% of EU energy to come from renewable sources by 2030.
Behind this headline target, Europe’s dash for bioenergy has caused growing alarm. More than 500 scientists last year called on EU and world leaders to end subsidies for wood burning.
…
According to the European Commission, the EU spent €13bn (£11bn) in bioenergy subsidies in 2020, down from €17bn the previous year. NGOs say most of those subsidies go to wood-burning power plants, but could be better targeted on support for clean technology, such as heat pumps.
…
Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/sep/14/eu-limits-subsidies-for-burning-trees-under-renewable-energy-directive
I can’t help wondering if a €13-17 billion annual subsidy for chopping down trees and burning them was what the original founders of the environmental movement had in mind, when they first started having their green action group meetings.
Please don’t shoot the messenger but this article is reporting that:
“The existing UK sustainability governance framework for bioenergy is world-leading. It includes stringent criteria for land use and greenhouse gas emissions. These sustainability regulations, which are independently audited, ensure that not only is biomass used in the UK sourced from stable or growing forests, but that the lifecycle emissions for biomass electricity generation (NB including the whole supply chain) represent a significant emissions saving over fossil fuels. Typically, biomass represents a >80% reduction compared to coal and >70% reduction compared to gas.”
https://capx.co/politicians-cant-be-short-sighted-on-energy-security/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=13%2F09%2F22++(Copy)
I don’t know about the forests but the UK buys boat loads of wood from Texas and we are happy to sell it. Mesquite trees are horrible water sucking weeds and the wood chip business helps reclaim productive grasslands.
Too many people confuse environmentalism with climate change. There is a great deal that can be done to protect our natural environment whilst ignoring climate alarmism. Not burning forests and food crops for biofuel could be a good place to start.
I repeat my question:
The now common US practice of not using forests for anything productive, and not thinning them, eventually leads to massive forest fires.
Is this better than thinning and managing forest, and using the removed wood, or at least the part of the wood not good for timber, as fuel for electricity generation and heating the more reasonable approach? Why?