Several European countries considered leaders in climate protection owe their apparently good emissions reductions to biomass. These could look very different in the future if carbon accounting under the Emissions Trading System (ETS) were based on science and real climate impacts. While the European Commission is working on an overhaul of its central climate policy instrument, the Science Council is proposing a radical new standard for the European Academies.
“Labeling forest biomass as renewable has a perverse impact on the climate. A large part of the biomass used in Europe is anything but CO2 neutral. Current accounting rules under the Emissions Trading Scheme allow certain power plants and countries to shine as climate pioneers, even though they actually harm the climate,” says Prof. Michael Norton, EASAC Environmental Program Director.
The work of EASAC and many other scientists has shown that swapping coal with biomass in power plants often does not reduce, but increases net emissions to the atmosphere, when the entire life cycle is properly accounted for. The negative climate impacts could last for many decades and thus increase the risk of exceeding the Paris Climate Agreement targets, Norton explains. “Current carbon accounting rules under the ETS that allow emissions from biomass piles to be ignored give forest biomass a free ride – despite the huge climate impacts. From a scientific point of view, not correcting this error is climate hypocrisy.”
The scientists call on EU lawmakers to introduce a new requirement that net carbon emissions from biomass power stations are properly accounted for and explained under the emissions trading system.
It should not be possible to simply assume that millions of tons of carbon from a power plant stack are 'zero'. The ETS needs to be reformed to link accounting to actual CO impacts2 levels in the atmosphere. This requires calculating the 'carbon payback period' for each biomass plant and the supply chain. Regulators need to know how long it will take for the initial perverse effects of biomass on the climate to be overcome and net reductions in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have been achieved. “Since recent estimates are that 1,5 °C may be exceeded in 10-20 years, an acceptable payback period should not exceed 5 to 10 years,” explains Norton.
The concept would require the most harmful facilities to report their emissions in the same way as those that use fossil fuels.
“I would expect this to have an impact on how we look at countries like Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Sweden, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and others that use a lot of biomass. This sets up such countries to meet their renewable energy targets with less climate-damaging biomass. But much more would be achieved in tackling climate change if the huge subsidies currently given to biomass could be diverted to technologies that actually helped the climate,” concludes Norton. Prof. Norton's submission on behalf of EASAC to the Commission's consultation on the Emissions Trading Scheme and an overview of the use of biomass for electricity production can be accessed here.
Click here for the original article
