90 RESULTS
Critique of the sustainability criteria for bioenergy proposed by the EU in 2017.
Current biomass policy frameworks are not fit for purpose and require substantial changes to ensure they contribute to mitigating climate change rather than exacerbating it.
Although most renewable energy policy frameworks treat biomass as carbon-neutral at the point of combustion, biomass emits more carbon per unit of energy than most fossil fuels.
Literature review of studies on the health impacts of biomass power plants, which concludes that there do appear to be negative effects. Much more research is needed - so far, it is very sparse.
Media article examining the critiques of biomass energy in France and the Gardanne power station in particular.
News article exploring arguments against biomass production in NSW.
Technical analysis of the French forestry sector that concludes that however they are managed, the carbon balance of using forests for energy would not break even until 2060-2080 at the earliest.
Review of the evidence about carbon impacts of biomass energy. It concludes that the experience with bioenergy production and the pressure it places on land, water, biodiversity, and other natural resources has raised questions about its merits. Bioenergy must be evaluated by addressing both the stocks and flows of the carbon cycle.
Report from the experts who advised the European Commission, outlining that the sustainability criteria in the new EU renewable energy directive are grossly inadequate and that EU Member States will need to implement measures at national level to ensure that bioenergy delivers GHG savings over fossil fuels.
Analysis of land-use changes to tackle emissions. It concludes that carbon removed from the atmosphere through BECCS could easily be offset by losses due to land-use change. If BECCS involves replacing high-carbon content ecosystems with crops, then forest-based mitigation could be more efficient for atmospheric CO2 removal than BECCS.
Negative impacts of the woody biomass industry on habitats and wildlife in the South Eastern United States.
Position statement laying out the dangers of forest biomass.
Legal document outlining why forest biomass should not be considered a renewable fuel.
Analysis challenging some of the assumptions that have been used in calculating emissions from the US bioenergy and wood pellet manufacturing sectors.
Highlights the inadequacy of safeguards in relation to forestry in the new European renewable energy directive.
Recent Posts
The capture of policy-making by the pulp and paper industry is driving mega-fires in Portugal and land grabbing in Mozambique
Featured Member: Forum Ökologie Papier (FÖP)
Statement of German NGOs on forest bioenergy
Paper giant APP evades voluntary forest protection pledges, binding safeguards by banks and buyers needed
Promising the moon: APRIL’s track record of empty promises and unmet pledges
New evidence of profit shifting in Indonesia’s pulp sector
APRIL’s Links with Supplier in Borneo Undercut “No Deforestation” Pledge
APRIL Group Keeps Destroying Peatlands and Natural Rainforests Amid Covid-19
Two sides of the same coin: How the pulp and paper industry is profiting from deforestation in the Amazon rainforest
Final Paper Reduction Rules by U.S. Department of Labor Will Save Billions of Dollars, Preserve Right to a Paper Option
