Facts vs. Opinions – Questionable Claims from the ICIJ (International Consortium of Investigative Journalists)
In the reporting on bioenergy that ICIJ published in early March, several articles pitted facts against opinions, giving the impression that opinions and subjective interpretations dominate the public debate. However, such emotional messages about the use of bioenergy are not desirable for achieving our climate goals. Now more than ever, we must stick to a science-based narrative to accelerate the phase-out of fossil fuels.
Harvest sites are not evidence of deforestation
The description of the wood pellet industry was a prime example of ignoring science and presenting arbitrary conclusions as reality. Take the southeastern US, for example, where scientific studies show that forest inventories have doubled since the 1950s and wood used for pellet production accounts for less than 4% of all harvests. According to the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement (NCASI), for every ton of wood harvested from working forests in the southeastern U.S., approximately 1,75 tons grow back annually. Despite this, aerial photographs and de-contextualized images of harvest sites, alongside claims made by an eNGO activist, dominated the article, suggesting to the reader that something is wrong with an area that is fully sustainable and contributing to mitigating climate change. A harvest site is not evidence of deforestation. Forest management always involves felling, regeneration and thinning operations and the key question is whether regrowth is balanced with harvesting – which is allowed – and whether forest areas are converted to other uses – which is not the case.
Bioenergy from sustainably managed forests is an important instrument to combat climate change
Detailed assessments of greenhouse gas emissions required by legal obligations show that using pellets from this area in European power stations leads to a 2% to 70% reduction in CO80 emissions. Nevertheless, based on arguments that have no scientific basis, it is claimed that this practice increases CO2 levels. It should be noted that the IPCC, as the leading scientific authority on climate change, representing thousands of climate scientists, has clearly stated in several reports that the use of bioenergy from sustainably managed forests is an important means of tackling climate change.
Furthermore, some articles claimed that the declining role of German forests as carbon sinks is a result of overharvesting, when in fact it is related to overcrowded forests and old trees that grow in a slower place and thus absorb less CO2. Another reason for the declining carbon sink functionality of forests is climate change, which has led to widespread damage to spruce forests. These forests need to be converted into mixed forests with deciduous trees to increase both biodiversity and resilience to climate change. But this requires more harvests, not fewer. Research shows that increased harvesting and replanting, accelerating the transformation of Europe's widespread spruce monocultures into resilient mixed forest stands, could lead to 12 billion tonnes of CO2 savings by 2050.
These savings would result from replacing concrete and steel as building materials with wood and from using the residues from harvesting and processing for energy, replacing fossil fuels.
Romania is one of the largest areas of surplus forest growth
A particularly drastic example of misleading reporting concerned pellet production in Romania, where reporting focused on a small producer amid claims from an identified source that the wood used for production does not come from storm damage but from harvested trees apparently not suitable for sawmills. Their attempts to portray this circumstance as scandalous is a great demonstration of sensational journalism. What is used here in forestry terms is called industrial roundwood: wood that is cheap because the quality is so low that it cannot be used in sawmills. 13% of European pellet production is based on industrial roundwood, low-quality wood that could otherwise only be used for toilet paper or newspaper, while 87% is based on sawmill by-products. So where is the threat to sustainability?
According to FAO data, Romania has one of the largest areas of excess forest growth in Europe, with harvests of only 20 million m3 compared to an annual growth of 58 million m3 in forest inventory. Of the 600.000 tons of pellets produced in Romania, 70% come from a large company that uses exclusively residues from its sawmill.
The story of “burning forests for energy” is fiction
Illegal logging and deforestation must be prevented at all costs
Yes, there is deforestation and the consequences are catastrophic. But it is not happening in Europe or North America, but in Africa, South America and parts of Southeast Asia. Yes, there is illegal logging and this is both a criminal offense and a potential threat to forests and yes, law enforcement and certification systems should do everything they can to detect and stop such practices. But neither deforestation nor illegal logging has anything to do with modern use of bioenergy, neither in Europe nor in America. The value of energy wood is often only a third of the value of sawlogs or less. As a result, forest plots are harvested to produce high-quality sawlogs, not bioenergy. Low-quality wood is an unavoidable byproduct of harvesting and wood processing. The story of “burning forests for energy” is fiction.
Bioenergy will not easily replace fossil fuels due to the enormous amounts of these resources we use today. But in a world that has learned to use energy much more efficiently than today, it will be an important resource, providing about the same amount of energy as wind or solar energy.
Achieving net zero emissions is impossible without using bioenergy. It is clear that the use of bioenergy must always respect the limits of sustainability and will require careful attention in a world that has certainly shown too little respect for sustainability in the past. Publishing information that suggests that the use of bioenergy is unsustainable and that contradicts the facts, and claiming “scientific proof” of what has been disapproved by the broad scientific community, may be well-intentioned in this context. However, it is not helpful in our shared quest to rapidly reduce greenhouse gas emissions and transform our economies to keep our planet livable, both for people and for the endangered diversity of plant and animal life.
Source: Bioenergyeurope.org
