A Biomassacre Down Under

A Bio­mas­sacre Down Under 

A new report out of Aus­tralia, Bio­mas­sacre: How Log­ging Australia’s Native Forests for Bioen­er­gy Harms the Cli­mate, Wildlife and Peo­ple, by Mar­kets for Change, high­lights the harm to forests, cli­mate, wildlife and human health from log­ging native forests for indus­tri­al-scale bioenergy.

Instead of being a clean, green solu­tion to wean Aus­tralia off of fos­sil fuels, bio­mass incineration—including liq­uid bio­fu­els, bio­mass pow­er and wood pellets—from native forests will “seri­ous­ly threat­en our sur­viv­ing for­est heritage…actually exac­er­bate cli­mate change” and will come “at the cost of gen­uine clean, renew­able ener­gy,” such as solar and wind power.

Often referred to as “dead koala pow­er” because of its impact on the habi­tat of this icon­ic threat­ened species, the major­i­ty of Aus­tralians have his­tor­i­cal­ly opposed native for­est bio­mass ener­gy, as evi­denced by a 2001 Mor­gan Poll find­ing that “88% of peo­ple opposed the use of native for­est for wood-fired pow­er.” A fol­low up Galaxy poll in 2010 revealed that “77% of Aus­tralians want an end to the log­ging of Australia’s native forests in order to con­serve their car­bon stores.”

Obvi­ous to any­one who received a pass­ing grade in their 8th grade Earth Sci­ence class, cut­ting and burn­ing car­bon-stor­ing forests for bioen­er­gy not only won’t get us out of cli­mate change, but will actu­al­ly make things worse. Pro­tect­ing forests, rather than log­ging them, is the best way to mit­i­gate cli­mate change, accord­ing to Bio­mas­sacre, since for­est “ecosys­tems play a fun­da­men­tal role in the glob­al car­bon cycle—keeping car­bon on the ground and out of the atmosphere.”

The report debunks the bogus 20th cen­tu­ry “bio­mass is car­bon neu­tral” myth pushed by the bio­mass indus­try, remind­ing us that, “in many cir­cum­stances, for­est bio­mass com­bus­tion emits more green­house gas­es than fos­sil fuels per unit of ener­gy pro­duced.” While the bio­mass indus­try insists that car­bon emis­sions from burn­ing bio­mass don’t count the way emis­sions from fos­sil fuels do, the real­i­ty is that the atmos­phere doesn’t care where the car­bon comes from. “Large emis­sions are cre­at­ed imme­di­ate­ly” by burn­ing bio­mass, says the report, “yet many decades and even cen­turies are required to regrow and recap­ture car­bon into a restored for­est,” and cli­mate sci­en­tists main­tain that we don’t have that much time to wait.

Mean­while, oth­er stud­ies paint a bleak­er pic­ture by demon­strat­ing a “per­ma­nent” increase in atmos­pher­ic car­bon from cut­ting and burn­ing trees for bio­mass ener­gy.  The bio­mass car­bon issue is par­tic­u­lar­ly rel­e­vant to Aus­tralia, which pos­sess­es some of the “most car­bon dense forests in the world.” The report deter­mines that the “high­est known den­si­ty” of for­est car­bon in the world is found in the eucalpy­tus forests of Victoria.

Bio­mas­sacre cal­cu­lates that “retain­ing the cur­rent car­bon stocks of the 14.5 mil­lion ha [hectares] of nat­ur­al euca­lypt for­est in south-east­ern Aus­tralia would equal 25.5 bil­lion tonnes of car­bon diox­ide,” which would be the same thing as avoid­ing 460 mil­lion tons of car­bon diox­ide emis­sions per year for the next 100 years, or “almost 80% of Australia’s net green­house gas emis­sions for 2008.”

The bio­mass indus­try typ­i­cal­ly argues that forests can always be replaced by tree farms, how­ev­er the report clar­i­fies that “nat­ur­al undis­turbed forests in south-east­ern Aus­tralia con­tain around 40–60% high­er car­bon stocks than those of mono­cul­ture plan­ta­tions or of forests sub­ject to indus­tri­al log­ging.” Study after study from around the world has demon­strat­ed that intact, nat­ur­al forests are far supe­ri­or cli­mate buffers than logged and inten­sive­ly-man­aged monocrop tree plantations.

While the bio­mass indus­try has large­ly giv­en up the pre­tense that they only use for­est “waste” to feed their mas­sive incin­er­a­tors, the report reminds us that “wood­chip­ping has been an enabler and dri­ver of native for­est log­ging, with a mas­sive­ly dam­ag­ing impact on nat­ur­al forests.”

Even when the bio­mass indus­try isn’t direct­ly com­pet­ing with lum­ber qual­i­ty wood by choos­ing “low grade” trees to chip for fuel, Aus­tralian sci­en­tists say that “efforts to remove large quan­ti­ties of defec­tive stems and logs will be ‘val­ue-sub­tract­ing’ for some ele­ments of the bio­ta and key eco­log­i­cal process­es.” In oth­er words, the for­est doesn’t care how straight its trees are—they’re still pro­vid­ing essen­tial ecosys­tem ser­vices includ­ing pure water, clean air, fer­tile top­soil, flood­ing and ero­sion con­trol, wildlife habi­tat, and a liv­able climate.

120,000 hectares of for­est would need to be logged to feed a 30 megawatt native for­est bio­mass pow­er incin­er­a­tor, accord­ing to the cal­cu­la­tions in the report. Native Aus­tralian species such as koala, black cock­a­too, wedge tailed eagle, and Leadbeater’s pos­sum are all threat­ened by log­ging for biomass.

Bio­mas­sacre also makes men­tion of the “dan­ger­ous emis­sions of tox­ic sub­stances and fine par­tic­u­lates” from bio­mass incin­er­a­tion, list­ing “at least five known human car­cino­gens and at least 26 chem­i­cals cat­e­gorised as haz­ardous air pol­lu­tants,” includ­ing nitro­gen oxides, par­tic­u­late mat­ter and heavy metals.

The report con­tests the indus­try asser­tion that burn­ing bio­mass from native forests would be an eco­nom­ic boon. Instead, it coun­ters that bio­mass incin­er­a­tion is “heav­i­ly reliant on gov­ern­ment finan­cial assis­tance” and “poor for job creation.”

After years of push­back by cam­paign­ers against the neg­a­tive envi­ron­men­tal impacts of native for­est bioen­er­gy, the Aus­tralian Gov­ern­ment removed all “wood waste” from native forests from the Cli­mate Change Authority’s Renew­able Ener­gy Tar­get (RET), “to ensure that the RET did not pro­vide an incen­tive for the burn­ing of native for­est wood waste for bio-ener­gy, which could lead to unin­tend­ed out­comes for bio­di­ver­si­ty and the destruc­tion of intact car­bon stores.”


Posted

in

by


EJ Communities Map

Map of Coal and Gas Facilities

We are mapping all of the existing, proposed, closed and defeated dirty energy and waste facilities in the US. We are building a network of community groups to fight the facilities and the corporations behind them.

Our Network

Watch Us on YouTube