Scientists Call to End Burning Trees for Energy
Global scientists warn that burning trees for bioenergy harms forests, biodiversity, and honest climate action, calling for an urgent transition.
Scientists Demand a Halt to Burning Trees for Energy
In a resounding appeal to global leaders, over 650 scientists have called for an end to using forests as fuel for energy production. Their message is clear: burning trees for biomass energy is accelerating the loss of biodiversity, undermining climate progress, and threatening the very forests the world is pledging to protect.
Setting the Stage: The Urgent Letter
Ahead of the historic UN biodiversity summit (COP15), renowned climate and biodiversity experts addressed an open letter to leaders of major economies, including the United States, China, the United Kingdom, European Union, Japan, and South Korea. Their core plea: stop the use of forest-derived bioenergy for electricity and heat, and instead rely on genuinely renewable sources like wind and solar.
- Addressed to top officials: including US President Joe Biden, China’s President Xi Jinping, and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen.
- Timing: Published just before COP15, a critical conference seeking a new global deal to protect at least 30% of Earth’s land and oceans by 2030.
The Debate Around Forest Biomass
Over the last decade, the energy sector has increasingly promoted biomass—burning organic matter such as trees—as a lower-carbon alternative to fossil fuels. This shift, especially prevalent in Europe, is propelled by ambitious net-zero targets and misleading carbon accounting practices that often label forest biomass as “carbon neutral.”
- EU and UK: The UK imported around 5.7 million metric tons of wood pellets from the US in 2019 alone, supported by billions in subsidies.
- Global push: The International Energy Agency estimates that bioenergy could make up a third of what’s counted as “low-carbon” energy by 2030.
Why Are Trees Burned for Energy?
Biomass producers argue that burning wood pellets releases only the carbon stored by the trees, and that regrowth would theoretically offset emissions. Proponents champion it as a way to repurpose forest residues and reduce waste while aiding rural economies.
- Main rationale: Biomass is often counted as renewable because trees can regrow, and emissions are not immediately counted at the smokestack.
- Hidden reality: Much of the wood burned is not from waste, but from whole trees, which store more carbon and provide vital wildlife habitat.
Challenging the Carbon Neutrality Myth
The scientists’ letter harshly critiques the idea that burning forest biomass is carbon neutral, calling it a dangerous misconception:
- Immediate emissions: Burning wood for energy instantly releases carbon stored in trees.
- Long carbon debt: Regrowing trees to reabsorb the lost carbon can take decades to centuries—time humanity does not have to meet climate targets.
- Net harm: For each unit of energy, burning wood often emits 2-3 times as much CO2 to the atmosphere as fossil fuels like coal, because wood is less energy dense and often needs to be transported long distances.
- Carbon accounting flaws: Current rules often don’t count emissions at the point of biomass burning, leaving massive “carbon holes” in tracking frameworks.
What others are reading
The Biodiversity Crisis: Beyond Carbon
Using forests for fuel goes well beyond climate implications—forests are irreplaceable homes for wildlife, and industrial logging for biomass can devastate ecosystems.
- Species at risk: Unique mammals, migratory birds, rare plants, and fungi depend on old, dead, and decaying wood to survive—all of which disappear when wood is harvested en masse for energy.
- Global hotspots threatened: The practice threatens the Southeast US coastal forests (a key biodiversity hotspot), boreal forests in Canada, Baltic forests in Europe, and even protected areas in the Carpathians.
- Loss of deadwood: Removing entire trees and dead wood erodes critical habitats and increases extinction risk for hundreds of species.
The Global Response: Mounting Scientific Consensus
This urgent call is not isolated. Similar letters and petitions have arisen globally:
- 2021: Over 500 scientists implored the European Union to halt wood burning and end misleading subsidies, supported by petitions with tens of thousands of citizen signatures.
- Expert warnings: The European Academies Scientific Advisory Council and other bodies warn that forest bioenergy increases emissions and worsens the biodiversity crisis.
A Deeper Look: The Flaws and Dangers in Current Biomass Policy
The Scale of Logging for Bioenergy
The appetite for wood pellets is so massive that it drives industrial logging at scales far beyond what forest waste could sustain.
- “For example, in 2019, approximately 5.7 million metric tons of wood pellets were exported from the United States to the UK, requiring the clearing of an area larger than the UK’s New Forest.”
Who Pays the Price?
- Forests: Old, carbon-rich, and biodiverse forests are targeted for harvest.
- Wildlife: Loss of habitat rapidly impacts rare and endangered species.
- Taxpayers: Billions in public funds go to subsidize bioenergy under the guise of climate action.
- Communities: Rural and indigenous communities witness the transformation of ecologically valuable lands into industrial logging sites.
Common Biomass Myths—And What Scientists Say
| Biomass Claim | Scientific Reality |
|---|---|
| Biomass is carbon neutral | Burning trees releases carbon rapidly, while regrowth takes decades or centuries |
| Only waste wood is used | In reality, much biomass comes from whole trees, not residues |
| Helps meet climate targets | Net emissions rise, undermining genuine progress and threatening international commitments |
| Forests will recover | Full ecosystem recovery—biodiversity, carbon, soil—can take generations, if ever |
True Renewable Solutions
The scientific community stresses that bold energy transition is not optional, but burning trees is not the solution. Long-term emissions reductions and biodiversity protection hinge on:
- Rapid expansion of wind and solar: Genuinely renewable; don’t destroy forests or emit net CO2 in short timeframes.
- Investment in energy efficiency: Lowering demand is faster and more impactful than replacing fossil fuels with biomass.
- Using waste wisely: Only minor, fast-decaying wood residues with no other uses should be considered for bioenergy, not whole trees or valuable logs.
- Protecting, restoring, and expanding forests: Letting forests thrive achieves both carbon drawdown and wildlife conservation together.
Calls to Action
Leading voices in the campaign, including Professor Alexandre Antonelli of Kew Gardens and Professor Jay Malcolm of the University of Toronto, insist that the energy transition must not come at nature’s expense.
- “Ensuring energy security is a major societal challenge, but the answer is not to burn our precious forests—calling this ‘green energy’ is misleading and risks accelerating the global biodiversity crisis.” (Prof. Alexandre Antonelli)
- “One of the biggest impacts of forest management is the erosion of dead wood habitat, placing hundreds of species at risk…. This destructive practice needs to be abandoned immediately.” (Prof. Jay Malcolm)
Policy Recommendations Urged by Scientists
- End subsidies and incentives for burning trees for energy under national and international renewable energy frameworks.
- Revise climate accounting to fully account for emissions from biomass burning.
- Redirect subsidies and public investment into non-biomass renewables, ecosystem restoration, and energy efficiency measures.
- Ensure biodiversity and climate policy are closely aligned, so that energy solutions do not drive environmental harm elsewhere.
- Implement land protection targets and enforce forest conservation commitments.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Q: Isn’t burning wood renewable and low-carbon?
A: While trees can regrow, burning whole trees releases carbon immediately and it may take decades or even centuries for regrowth to re-absorb it—meanwhile, emissions contribute to climate change.
Q: Do power plants actually use whole trees for biomass?
A: Yes, despite industry claims, much biomass energy is generated using whole trees or large logs, not just logging residues or sawmill waste.
Q: Are forests managed sustainably for bioenergy?
A: Many forests are not; large-scale logging frequently depletes biodiversity, removes deadwood crucial to wildlife, and degrades ecosystems.
Q: What are the real climate impacts of burning trees for energy?
A: For each unit of electricity or heat, emissions from burning wood can be two to three times higher than fossil fuels when measured at the smokestack, and the “carbon debt” from lost forests may last generations.
Q: What should countries do instead?
A: Invest in true renewable energy technologies (like wind and solar), rapidly phase out support for tree-burning, and prioritize forest protection and restoration for climate and nature.
Conclusion: Rethinking Our Path Forward
The warnings from the world’s scientific community are unequivocal: burning trees for electricity and heat is not a climate solution, but a double blow to the planet’s carbon sinks and its rich web of life. By realigning policy and public spending towards genuinely renewable sources and steadfast forest protection, humanity can act in time to curb both biodiversity loss and catastrophic climate disruption.
References
- https://www.ecowatch.com/tree-burning-energy-scientists-biodiversity-climate.html
- https://envirotecmagazine.com/2022/12/09/over-650-scientists-urge-world-leaders-to-stop-burning-forests-for-energy-on-eve-of-un-nature-summit/
- https://www.wwf.eu/?2128466%2F500-scientists-tell-EU-to-end-tree-burning-for-energy
- https://dogwoodalliance.org/2022/03/5-reasons-why-the-world-must-stop-importing-bioenergy/
- https://www.landclimate.org/over-500-scientists-to-world-leaders-do-not-burn-trees-for-energy/
Similar Articles
Read full bio of medha deb
