The EU and UK are backing the wrong horse in the race to net zero

Adriana Lima
By Adriana Lima 8 Min Read
origin 1A biogas plant behind a wind turbine in Nauen, Germany, October 2012 ©AP Photo/RockedBuzz by way of Euronews

Bioenergy has been in the headlines lots over the final 12 months, particularly relating to the reform of EU guidelines on how burning forest wooden qualifies as “renewable energy”.

It has all the time been far-fetched to depend on burning bushes – which emit extra CO2 than coal when burned and take a long time to regrow – as a method to “reduce” emissions.

But local weather coverage could also be about to go additional astray with a brand new concentrate on biomass vitality with carbon seize and storage, or BECCS, as a method to take away CO2 from the ambiance (in local weather phrases, get “emissions negative”).

BECCS is a superb instance of losing cash on a hopeless expertise. The thought is to take CO2 emissions from burning biomass – which in the EU and UK primarily comes from forests – focus them and pump them underground into geological formations.

The declare is that this course of will suck CO2 out of the air. After all, this has an comprehensible enchantment to politicians: Who would not need to take away carbon from the ambiance by producing electrical energy?

A new biomass mapping tool can pinpoint the carbon of a single 30-metre tree
100 charities urge the EU to end the use of some biomass as ‘renewable’ energy.

But do you see the drawback? There is nothing about taking decades-old carbon saved in a tree and parking it underground that can produce “negative emissions.”

It could stop emissions from getting into the ambiance, as is theoretically potential with carbon seize and storage when used with coal, but it surely is not going to cut back atmospheric CO2 over a major timescale for local weather mitigation.

Indeed, selling the clearing of extra forests might enhance CO2 emissions, as a result of deforestation causes a lack of carbon from forest ecosystems.

Craving and writing checks

International carbon reporting requirements verify that BECCS utilizing forest biomass is not going to plausibly take away net CO2 from the ambiance in line with the EU and UK’s ‘net zero’ emissions targets by 2050, however policymakers , who are in a rush to carry ahead local weather mitigation efficiency to the subsequent act, are nonetheless speeding with incentives for BECCS.

In the EU, the Renewable Energy Directive and the Carbon Removal Act each promote BECCS. Politicians are already writing checks too, together with (thus far) €180 million in public funding for the Stockholm Exergi plant in Sweden which guarantees to take away 7 million tonnes of CO2 in ten years.

This is nearly €26 million per tonne of CO2 eliminated, however it is just a small fraction of the greater than €15 billion per 12 months that the EU presently allocates in bioenergy subsidies.

Both the EU and the UK have been warned by numerous unbiased consultants, the IPCC and their very own scientific advisors that burning forests for gasoline isn’t “carbon neutral” and that BECCS powered by forest biomass is not going to produce unfavorable emissions.

origin 1Rishi Sunak holds the funds field in London, March 2021Toby Melville/AP

The figures enhance when you think about that EU local weather fashions predict round 250 million tonnes of CO2 eliminated per 12 months by 2050 (about the similar quantity of CO2 emitted by half the vehicles in the EU).

Yet at no level in this orgy of wishful considering and check-writing has the EU carried out a crucial evaluation of whether or not BECCS might present any local weather profit: it seems to be an announcement merely taken on religion.

In the UK the story is kind of the similar. Although scientists and NGOs have bombarded the authorities with proof that burning bushes is rising carbon air pollution and damaging forests; regardless of a government-commissioned examine displaying the similar factor, the UK authorities has revealed a biomass technique which doubles the use of biomass and BECCS.

Renewables welcome the electricity integration plan, look for more details
‘Unstoppable’ shift to clean energy will see demand for fossil fuels peak before 2030, says IEA

In response, given the authorities’s failure to assess whether or not biomass and BECCS can really contribute to local weather motion, we now have filed a lawsuit to get them again to the drafting board. We ponder whether the time has come to deliver the same case in the EU.

Large-scale greenwashing at the state degree

Politicians don’t perceive the science behind biomass and BECCS, and are simply led by the biomass business’s guarantees of miracle local weather options.

Both the EU and the UK have been warned by numerous unbiased consultants, the IPCC and their very own scientific advisors that burning forests for gasoline isn’t “carbon neutral” and that BECCS powered by forest biomass is not going to produce unfavorable emissions.

It’s time to deliver the curtain down on the present efficiency of local weather coverage and concentrate on actual, science-based options to cut back emissions.

origin 1European Energy Commissioner Kadri Simson speaks to the media on her arrival at a gathering of EU vitality ministers in Brussels, September 2022AP Photo/Virginia Mayo

Yet the EU and UK present billions in subsidies per 12 months for bioenergy and are getting ready additional large funding packages for BECCS.

It’s state-level greenwashing on a grand scale, telling the public that the authorities is decreasing carbon air pollution with new applied sciences, whereas throwing taxpayer cash at an costly waste of time.

We are all beginning to see the penalties of the local weather emergency. We do not have time to waste on options that do not ship outcomes.

COP28 could phase out fossil fuels without us knowing it
Nuclear, hydrogen and bioenergy: what does the new EU agreement on renewables mean for Member States?

Carbon seize and storage expertise could have a job to play in decreasing emissions, but it surely can not and is not going to ship the “negative emissions” that governments declare and depend on.

It’s time to deliver the curtain down on the present efficiency of local weather coverage and concentrate on actual, science-based options to cut back emissions.

Dr. Mary S. Booth is the founder and director of the Partnership for Policy Integrity, and Elsie Blackshaw-Crosby is the managing legal professional of The Lifescape Project.

At RockedBuzz by way of Euronews, we consider that each one opinions matter. Contact us at [email protected] to ship proposals or contributions and participate in the dialog.

Share This Article
Leave a comment