The European Union is moving to limit the damage inflicted on the climate by its own biomass policies after voting for an exclusion of primary woody biomass subsidies and capping the amount that can count as renewable energy, drawing a mixed reaction from conservationists.
The vote by members of the European Parliament revises the EU’s Renewable Energy Directive, which critics have claimed encourages member states to burn more trees in the name of climate action, despite this practice increasing harmful emissions.
While the EU Parliament’s environment committee previously agreed to end support for burning trees entirely, the latest vote is seen as a compromise that will still regard woody biomass as a source of renewable energy.
Similar to the EU, in Australia, generating power by burning woody biomass is favoured by incumbent fossil fuel companies keen to keep their assets generating power beyond the demise of coal.
But the latest revisions in EU policy could see Australia take a leading role in ending forest as a source of renewable energy in the future.
As RenewEconomy reported last month, native forest biomass was excluded as a source of renewable energy from the Renewable Energy Act 2000 under the Labor Gillard government, but is now back included, thanks to amendment to legislation made by the Abbott government.
Australia’s federal climate and environment minister Chris Bowen said last week he was considering a recommendation to rule out the use of native forest biomass for renewable energy generation, under pressure from opponents to woody biomass from within his own party, as well as from The Greens.
In the EU, alone, scientists estimate that carbon emissions from burning woody biomass are now over 400 million metric tonnes per year – roughly equal to the combined CO2 emissions of Poland and Italy.
“EU bioenergy policies are a serious climate threat and for years have been a stain on EU climate leadership, but today marks a turning point for the first time an EU institution has recognised that burning trees might not be the best way of getting off fossil fuels and stopping runaway climate change.” said Alex Mason, head of EU climate and energy policy at WWF European Policy Office.
“But there’s still some way to go. A majority in the parliament is still in thrall to the biofuels lobby, and can’t seem to understand that growing crops to burn just increases emissions compared to fossil fuels,” Mason said.
Conservationists have also voiced concerns that the outcome of Wednesday’s vote will mean that the EU continues to promote the burning of forest wood as a source of renewable energy to member states.
“Burning trees and crops for energy destroys nature and exacerbates the climate crisis,” said Ariel Brunner, head of policy for Birdlife Europe. “It should not be supported as a renewable energy.”
He said  it was “disappointing” that the parliament “agreed to a weak compromise” that does little to protect tree populations.
While the outcome of the vote introduces an end to subsidies for burning wood in electricity-only installations, this is undermined by huge loopholes that mean wood burning can still be supported in electricity-only power plants if these cannot easily be converted to combined heat and power.
