Woody biomass has long been recognized as a source of cheap, economical fuel, from the low-tech, campfire variety to the kind that produces energy via co-generation plants.
With continually rising fossil fuel prices and growing concerns over carbon emissions, the notion of renewable energy produced from local forests (generally by combusting small diameter trees or waste produced by timber harvest) is becoming increasingly alluring for cash-strapped rural communities and rate-weary energy consumers.
Further sweetening the appeal, energy generated from renewable biomass would qualify for tax incentives under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, and would stand to benefit from provisions for renewables in the current House and Senate climate bills. However, despite what seems like tremendous promise, many concerns still linger over the ramifications of biomass extraction for our nation’s forests.
Can woody biomass solve some of our energy and climate woes?
It can help if produced under the right conditions, says Laurie Wayburn, president of the Pacific Forest Trust. As quoted in this week’s New York Times Global Business Edition, Wayburn emphasized the great potential of using woody biomass to address some of the most intransigent problems facing our nation’s forests, climate and rural communities.
The current versions of climate legislation in the House and the Senate regard emissions from woody biomass as “carbon neutral,” which means that these emissions would be exempted from emission caps in federal legislation. However, this treatment hinges on the presumption that the carbon released by burning trees will be reabsorbed by the regrowth of additional trees. Such a premise assumes that every tree cut and combusted will indeed grow back—an assumption that is not guaranteed.
Additionally, presumptive “carbon neutrality” ignores the timing of biomass emissions, which are immediate, while sequestration of those emissions through reforestation may require decades or even centuries to fully recoup emitted carbon. Such an approach also doesn’t consider the indirect emissions associated with the production of biomass, such as the clearing of natural lands for biomass plantations, which could release vast amounts of carbon into the atmosphere.
As fossil fuels continue to become more expensive, many environmental groups fear that increasing pressure will be put on harvesting forests for biomass—especially if emissions from biomass combustion are not accounted for under federal climate regulation. Unsustainable levels of timber harvest in our nation’s forests can jeopardize critical ecosystem functions, such as the provision of clean water, habitat and biodiversity.
However, if done correctly, with transparent and accurate accounting of associated emissions, biomass can provide landowners with important financial incentives for retaining their land in forest—rather than succumbing to conversion and development pressures—while providing an important source of clean, renewable energy.
This will require accurate accounting of carbon emissions to ensure that woody biomass is used in a manner that underscores—not undermines—climate, community and environmental objectives.
Anton Chiono
Policy Associate
bxApage
bxAinline
With continually rising fossil fuel prices and growing concerns over carbon emissions, the notion of renewable energy produced from local forests (generally by combusting small diameter trees or waste produced by timber harvest) is becoming increasingly alluring for cash-strapped rural communities and rate-weary energy consumers.
Further sweetening the appeal, energy generated from renewable biomass would qualify for tax incentives under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, and would stand to benefit from provisions for renewables in the current House and Senate climate bills. However, despite what seems like tremendous promise, many concerns still linger over the ramifications of biomass extraction for our nation’s forests.
Can woody biomass solve some of our energy and climate woes?
It can help if produced under the right conditions, says Laurie Wayburn, president of the Pacific Forest Trust. As quoted in this week’s New York Times Global Business Edition, Wayburn emphasized the great potential of using woody biomass to address some of the most intransigent problems facing our nation’s forests, climate and rural communities.
"Some forestry experts say that biomass can be sustainable — if programs are small scale and carefully managed. Laurie Wayburn, president of the Pacific Forest Trust, a nonprofit organization in California, said it was possible to manage forests sustainably for both the natural ecosystem services they provide — like water storage and cleaning, biodiversity, and habitat — and for such products as timber, paper pulp and biomass."However, while hailed as a “climate friendly” energy source, Wayburn cautions that careful accounting will be necessary for woody biomass to serve as an effective tool for reducing carbon emissions in the atmosphere.
The current versions of climate legislation in the House and the Senate regard emissions from woody biomass as “carbon neutral,” which means that these emissions would be exempted from emission caps in federal legislation. However, this treatment hinges on the presumption that the carbon released by burning trees will be reabsorbed by the regrowth of additional trees. Such a premise assumes that every tree cut and combusted will indeed grow back—an assumption that is not guaranteed.
Additionally, presumptive “carbon neutrality” ignores the timing of biomass emissions, which are immediate, while sequestration of those emissions through reforestation may require decades or even centuries to fully recoup emitted carbon. Such an approach also doesn’t consider the indirect emissions associated with the production of biomass, such as the clearing of natural lands for biomass plantations, which could release vast amounts of carbon into the atmosphere.
As fossil fuels continue to become more expensive, many environmental groups fear that increasing pressure will be put on harvesting forests for biomass—especially if emissions from biomass combustion are not accounted for under federal climate regulation. Unsustainable levels of timber harvest in our nation’s forests can jeopardize critical ecosystem functions, such as the provision of clean water, habitat and biodiversity.
However, if done correctly, with transparent and accurate accounting of associated emissions, biomass can provide landowners with important financial incentives for retaining their land in forest—rather than succumbing to conversion and development pressures—while providing an important source of clean, renewable energy.
This will require accurate accounting of carbon emissions to ensure that woody biomass is used in a manner that underscores—not undermines—climate, community and environmental objectives.
Anton ChionoPolicy Associate
Posts
