“The huge expansion in so-called ‘modern’ biomass, doubling the current levels by 2030 and
trebling them by 2050, is dangerous and unacceptable. It would exacerbate the climate crisis
whilst also harming communities and biodiversity, and we already have numerous examples of
its adverse impacts.”
“Planning to ally energy production from biomass burning with carbon capture and storage as
BECCS is both unhelpful, unrealistic, and does not in fact contribute to carbon removal from the
atmosphere as claimed. That claim is based on ignoring the carbon emissions at the
smokestack.”
Peg Putt, Coordinator – Biomass Action Network +61 418 127 580
The FAO’s modern biomass scenario is fanciful and dangerous:
- It proposes doubling current levels of use of solid biomass by 2030 and trebling by 2050 (from 6% total energy today, to 13% in 2030 and 18% in 2050). Solid biomass is essentially wood sourced from plantations and from natural forests. This is simply unsustainable. The sheer quantity overwhelms any claims to improved quality of wood production, which to date have been shown to be false in any case.
Emissive – not a climate solution:
- Biomass burning for energy is not carbon neutral as claimed by FAO. It is as at least as emissive as coal at the smokestack per unit of energy produced, although by carbon accounting convention these emissions are not recorded in the energy sector unlike those of fossil fuels.
- The immediate emissions take decades to recover that carbon from the atmosphere through regrowing trees (or centuries in the case of natural forests), but the plan is to keep on cutting to keep fuelling biomass generators. All the time the carbon emissions exacerbate the climate crisis
- No headway can possibly be made inside Paris Agreement timeframes of 2030 and 2050 for emissions reductions. It would take cessation of all cutting for biomass for full recovery to occur.
Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) – cannot result in negative emissions:
- The idea that use of CCS will result in drawing carbon from the atmosphere is based on the misapprehension that biomass energy itself is carbon neutral, which we have explained (above) is false.
- CCS itself is unproven at scale and should not be touted as a technological fix
Claimed properties of ‘modern’ biomass ignore the serious adverse impacts already being experienced:
- Respiratory ailments are claimed by the FAO apparently to only result from the burning of ‘traditional’ biomass. Yet health impacts on environmental justice communities of the US south are well documented, and repeated violations of air permit conditions regularly attract millions of dollars of fines with no remedy to the polluting facilities. Burning at scale does not reduce air pollution!
- Air pollution and respiratory impacts occur in relation to both wood pellet manufacture and and biomass combustion in centralised energy generators
- Land grabbing, forest destruction, and monoculture planation conversion are already occurring in the Global South for biomass energy. In Papua malnutrition is reported amongst the people, especially children, in a community affected by conversion of ancestral forests. In Ghana APSD plantations seriously affect the local community, their food and water supply and general quality of life. Indonesian government mandated plans to co-fire biomass with coal in 52 generators are estimated to affect 2,3 million ha for conversion to energy plantations
Marginal land to be used for ‘modern’ biomass production:
- is better dedicated to restoration of ecosystems for best impact in combatting climate change
- making it over to fast growing plantations impacts water availability, soil fertility and erosion.
It is time to go beyond burning. We can’t burn our way out of the climate crisis!
Back to News