U.S. EPA says it will define wood as a 'carbon-neutral' fuel, reigniting debate
Weighing in on a fierce, long-standing climate debate, the head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in Washington, D.C., said yesterday the agency will now define wood as a "carbon-neutral" fuel for many regulatory purposes.
The "announcement grants America's foresters much-needed certainty and clarity with respect to the carbon neutrality of forest biomass," EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said at an event in Cochran, Georgia, The Washington Post reports. But many environmental groups and energy experts decried the move, arguing the science is far from settled on whether wood is a climate-friendly fuel.
As Science contributing correspondent Warren Cornwall reported last year, the forest products industry has long been pushing for the carbon neutral definition in a bid to make wood an attractive fuel for generating electricity in nations trying to move away from fossil fuels. The idea is "attractively simple," Cornwall reported:
The carbon released when trees are cut down and burned is taken up again when new trees grow in their place, limiting its impact on climate. ...
Yet moves by governments around the world to designate wood as a carbon-neutral fuel—making it eligible for beneficial treatment under tax, trade, and environmental regulations—have spurred fierce debate. Critics argue that accounting for carbon recycling is far more complex than it seems. They say favoring wood could actually boost carbon emissions, not curb them, for many decades, and that wind and solar energy—emissions-free from the start—are a better bet for the climate. Some scientists also worry that policies promoting wood fuels could unleash a global logging boom that trashes forest biodiversity in the name of climate protection.
(Score: 2) by Nuke on Thursday April 26 2018, @07:35PM (1 child)
AC wrote :
qzm replied :
AC's statement that it is only carbon neutral if you only burn as much as you grow, ie at the same rate, stands by itself. You don't need evidence, it is basic logic, equivalent to saying that the number of coins in your pocket will not increase if you spend them as fast as you receive them. If you do want evidence, I suggest comparing some old maps with modern ones here in the UK, or take a look at the Doomsday Book. Any very recent increases would be a temporary blip if there were to be a major move to wood fuel. That's in Europe anyway, otherwise visit Brazil or Malasia.
Trees dying naturally is irrelevent in this scenario because we are talking about harvesting them for fuel. No commercial forester is going to wait until a tree dies of old age before selling it for fuel.
qzm went on :
That is only while they are not widely used as fuel, but this new move is encouraging exactly that. I am in the UK where there are only small areas of forest remaining. Those areas would soon vanish entirely if they were harvested for fuel - the growth rate would fall far short of the potential burn rate. BTW, you said "areas planted" : but planted is a long way from being mature, 20-100 years in fact.
(Score: 2) by requerdanos on Thursday April 26 2018, @10:26PM
There is a large group of people who believe this, but I am not a member.
Equaling the "burning" and "growing" might release more carbon, might not, depends on many factors that that "evidence" would provide. There is not a magic rate number or ratio.
Reasons why not (result):
There is no "logical truism" involved in the maintenance and measurements of a complex, chaotic system and it's probably not helpful to suggest that there is. Assuming certain results without checking is already an enormous problem in this area, and I submit that more of it isn't a great thing.
I will say that if you plant trees to replace the ones you're setting on fire, then that makes equaling the "carbon storage" more likely, but only given that it takes it from "overwhelmingly unlikely" to "extremely unlikely, but probably not as far off as before".