Burn Baby, Burn: Biomass Power Plants Devouring World’s Forests at Astonishing Rate

Misty eyed support for the wholesale slashing and burning of forests in power plants under the guise of ‘green’ energy shows how gullible we’ve become.

Mike Moore’s Planet of The Humans went after David Blood and Al Gore, rent seekers who’ve made $billions by stripping the world’s landscapes and wilderness in order to burn every scrap of timber they can, in subsidised ‘biomass’ fuelled power plants. Hence the gag about “Blood and Gore” as being the ideal name for their wicked little venture.

There’s a staggering level of audacity and cynicism amongst those who claim that strip-mining the landscape of every last shred of timber to fuel power plants is somehow more environmentally friendly than burning energy dense coal.

Justin Catanoso takes a look at what has to be the most absurd of all so-called ‘green’ schemes.

Are forests the new coal? Global alarm sounds with biomass burning
Justin Catanoso
1 September 2020

As the forest biomass industry is booming, so is the frequent cutting of standing forests to supply wood pellets to be burned in converted coal power plants, say experts.

The forest biomass industry is sprawling and spreading globally — rapidly growing in size, scale, revenue, and political influence — even as forest ecologists and climatologists warn that the industry is putting the planet’s temperate and tropical forests at risk, and aggressively lobbying governments against using wood pellets as a “renewable energy” alternative to burning coal. (Click here for an interactive map of the hundreds of major bioenergy burning power plants now operating worldwide.)

“We have repeatedly pointed out that… the large-scale substitution of coal by forest biomass [to produce electricity] will accelerate climate warming, and will increase the risks of overshooting Paris [Climate Agreement] targets,” Michael Norton, environmental director of the Science Advisory Council of the European Academies, said in a December 2019 statement issued to European Union countries.

“The reason is simple: when the forest is harvested and used for bioenergy, all the carbon in the biomass enters the atmosphere very quickly, but it will not be reabsorbed by new trees for decades. This is not compatible with the need to tackle the climate crisis urgently,” said Norton.

As the forest biomass industry expands rapidly in the US, Canada, Russia, Vietnam and Eastern Europe, so too does the threat to untold acres of natural forests and their biodiverse ecosystems needed for carbon sequestration and climate change mitigation in those same nations and regions, even as global warming is poised to set punishing new records in 2020.

“Our two biggest global environmental challenges — climate change and biodiversity loss — are inextricably linked, so keeping forests standing must be a priority of all governments,” said Natural Resource Defense Council Senior Advocate Sasha Stashwick, in an interview with BioEnergy Insight.

“Much of the wood burned in UK power plants is cut down and shipped from ecologically sensitive forests in the US Southeast. Those forests are efficient and powerful carbon-capture systems and support unique wildlife found nowhere else in the world,” said Stashwick. But they can’t serve that important purpose if the trees are cut and turned into wood pellets, and don’t grow back for decades.

In 2017 demand for industrial wood pellets exceeded 14 million tons. By 2027, demand is expected to more than double to over 36 million tons. The biggest increases in biomass burning by 2027 are expected in Europe, Japan and South Korea, with newly targeted source forests in Brazil, Mozambique and Australia. Image courtesy of Environmental Paper Network.

Biomass industry in full boom
With one possible exception in the Netherlands — where wood pellet burning is under examination as policy — today’s forest biomass industry is both refuting and shrugging off its environmental critics, and appears to be on a roll. That’s largely thanks to the so-called United Nations carbon accounting loophole that designates the burning of forests to generate electricity as carbon-neutral, despite recent hard science that shows otherwise.

Consider these news items, most published in just the past few months, sampling the industry’s explosive growth:

  • US wood pellet exports have more than tripled, from 1.9 million metric tonnes in 2012 to about 6.9 million metric tonnes in 2019; the first five months of 2020 outpaced the first five months of last year, according to Forisk Consulting, which analyses the industry.
  • Pellet maker Pinnacle Renewable Energy had a record second quarter (April-June 2020) for production and sales of forest biomass from British Columbia and Alberta, Canada. The company sold 620,000 metric tonnes of wood pellets for export during the three-month period, up 21 per cent over the previous quarter, and up 30 per cent when compared to the second quarter of 2019, according to public filings.
  • Maryland-based Enviva, publicly traded and the world’s largest producer of industrial-use wood pellets, spent $175 million to purchase its ninth plant in the US Southeast. Two more plants are under construction in Alabama and Mississippi and promise to be the largest pellet-producing facilities on earth. Eniva’s pellets are bound for burning at converted coal plants mostly in the UK, but increasingly Japan and South Korea.
  • North Carolina, the largest pellet-producing state in the US Southeast, just approved its fifth plant, this one in Robeson County, which already has a large Enviva plant; all pellets are exported. Despite opposition from the public and environmental groups, the NC Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) issued a permit to UK-based Active Renewable Energy Power, even as DEQ pledges to never use biomass to make energy for North Carolina.
  • UK-based Drax, the world’s largest user of wood pellets for energy production, has had a booming first half of 2020. It reported a win-win for investors with biomass energy generation up 16 per cent over the first half of 2019. Also, production at its own pellet-making plants in the US Southeast is up 15 per cent over 2019, with costs down 9 per cent. Drax continues to enjoy more than $1 billion annually in government subsidies because biomass is technically deemed a carbon-neutral energy source on par with wind and solar.
  • Subsidies for biomass energy generation are so great in South Korea that — as in the UK and EU — the Asian nation is reducing investments that would otherwise go to truly renewable energy sources like wind and solar, according to a new study. Russia and the US are supplying South Korea with pellets, but so too is Vietnam, Indonesia and Malaysia, whose biodiverse rainforests are already under extreme pressure from agribusiness and mining.
  • Japan, the world’s third-largest economy, must import nearly all its energy since the Fukishima nuclear disaster in 2011. To meet that need, it is converting more than 20 coal-fired power plants to co-fire with wood pellets and coal until a complete transition to pellets can be made. Vietnam, relatively new to pellet production, will likely clear cut thousands of acres of rainforest to meet Japan’s surging biomass demand. Pellet makers in Canada and the US are also gearing up to meet Japan’s soaring demand.
  • According to financial forecasters, global revenue for solid biomass is projected to nearly double from $221.7 billion in 2019, to $425.8 billion by 2027. Much of those profits will come from harvesting and burning trees — along with the spewing of carbon into the atmosphere, while meeting Paris Agreement national carbon targets on paper.

Operational and proposed biomass burning sites in U.S. and Canada. Click here for an interactive image of this map. Image courtesy of Energy Justice Network.

Click here for large scale version of this map and detailed list of Southeast U.S. forest biomass plants exporting wood pellets to Europe. Image courtesy of Southern Environmental Law Center.

Biomass defense and carbon loophole
Forest experts have argued for a decade that the biomass industry is the beneficiary of a flaw in the 1997 Kyoto Protocol that classified forest biomass burning as a renewable energy source.

The reasoning then was that the carbon released by burning wood pellets would be offset by the replanting of new trees — partly true, but with a huge caveat. Studies have shown that carbon neutrality, if enough new trees are planted to replace those pelletised, takes 50-100 years — a timeframe far too long given the accelerating pace of climate change. The UN itself says we have just ten years to make drastic emissions cuts or face catastrophic global warming impacts.

But today, with the UN’s full blessing, countries continue burning forest biomass without needing to count the actual carbon emissions produced against their Paris Agreement carbon reduction pledges, thus giving a false, on-paper-only accounting of reductions. Studies have shown that biomass actually pollutes more than coal because more biomass is needed using wood pellets to generate the same amount of energy as coal.

The biomass industry argues that its critics have it all wrong. In public hearings, statements and scientific reports of their own, the industry stresses that it is a green climate-friendly alternative to burning coal. The companies argue, for example, that they do not clear cut forests, but rather “manage” harvests in such a way that carbon sequestration is undisturbed, even as forest advocates tracking those same harvesting methods tell a far different story.

“While our industry welcomes robust scrutiny and debate on the issues,” said Seth Ginther, executive director of the US Industrial Pellet Association, in a statement, “it’s important for us to recognise and acknowledge that we have reached a tipping point where the overwhelming data, evidence and peer reviewed research points to the fact that sustainable biomass is part of the climate change solution.”

With EU countries required by law to reduce their carbon emissions annually, Ginther’s pro-biomass advocacy position appears to hold sway — not the contrary view held by forest ecologists and environmentalists. Nearly 60 per cent of renewable energy generated in the EU today comes not from wind or solar, but from burning biomass, mostly using wood pellets made out of whole trees and lumber waste.

Pushback in the Netherlands
In early July, environmentalists met with some success In their advocacy against biomass. The independent Dutch Social Economic Council (SER), made up of business leaders, academics and NGOs, recommended to the Dutch Parliament that it phase out the use of biomass for electricity and heat generation. The Netherlands gets 61 per cent of its renewable energy from biomass.

SER recommended that biomass still be used, though in smaller quantities for the production of innovative chemicals, bio-plastics and bio-concrete, instead of using fossil fuels for those limited purposes. The Dutch government will decide this fall how, or if, to incorporate these recommendations into its climate change mitigations laws. Those laws call for carbon emission reductions of 49 per cent by 2030.

Almuth Ernsting, with Biofuels Watch in Scotland, has been lobbying against biomass in the EU for 10 years. She called the SER solution an imperfect compromise, but told Mongabay, “If the Dutch government accepts the recommendations and implements them, that would send a really strong signal to other EU nations [on biomass]. The Netherlands is one of the big players within the EU and internationally. If [the SER report] gets translated into meaningful policy change, it will make a huge difference.”

That difference could save forests in Eastern Europe, according to Martin Luiga of Forest Aid Estonia: “Logging rates in Estonia are far too high to protect the climate. Most of our endangered species are forest-dwelling species, and there is widespread public concern about the intensity of logging. Nonetheless, the prevailing political mood is to further increase the harvesting volumes. Reducing demand for pellets would greatly help the situation and thereby protect Estonian forests.”

A RED review?
Rita Frost, campaigns director with the North Carolina, USA-based Dogwood Alliance, a forest-protection NGO, has likewise focused her efforts on shifting the Netherlands position on biomass. That includes targeting the EU’s Renewable Energy Directive (RED), which states that burning wood pellets is carbon neutral and a legitimate way to reduce carbon emissions.

“It goes back to the problem with the RED and the belief that there is [such a thing as] sustainable biomass,” Frost told Mongabay. “The industry has used that argument effectively in Sweden, Finland and the Netherlands, which have intensive forestry management practices. And when [those governments] look at the [wood pellet] supply coming from the US, they figure it must be okay. But with our work, and the work in the Baltic states, the picture is much different on the ground, where we have documented the extensive loss of forests.”

Environmental advocates have won some smaller victories in the past few years — prevailing on the UK to cap subsidies and expansion of its massive Drax pellet burning plant, while also seeing the EU put some new biomass plants on hold.

Also, as a matter of UK policy, subsidies to Drax for burning biomass, having started in 2007, are now set to end in 2027 unless the company successfully lobbies for an extension. Fourteen EU countries presently provide subsidies for bioenergy, but it’s unclear how long such taxpayer support will remain in place, according to research by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), an NGO.

Ultimately, biomass critics acknowledge that real change depends on the EU revising its Renewable Energy Directive (RED) and closing the carbon neutrality loophole. At the UN climate summit in Madrid last December, Franz Timmermans, executive vice president of the EU and a Dutch politician, told Mongabay that RED’s current biomass position needed to be reviewed because of recent scientific studies, perhaps in 2021.

“The issue of biofuels needs to be looked at very carefully,” Timmermans said in Madrid. “We have to make sure that what we do with biofuels is sustainable and does not do more harm than that it does good.”

Almuth with BioFuels Watch said she was encouraged by Timmermans’ comment, but stressed that much more work on the part of scientists and environmentalists is needed to shift public opinion and create political will in the face of a biomass industry steadily growing larger, wealthier and more influential.

“Any legal change to the RED would require the support of the majority of [EU] member states, or 15 or 27 countries,” Almuth said. “It will take a lot of awareness raising and campaigning to make that possible. That’s why the upcoming debate and political arguments coming this fall in the Netherlands over biomass and carbon neutrality is so important.

About stopthesethings

We are a group of citizens concerned about the rapid spread of industrial wind power generation installations across Australia.


  1. “even as global warming is poised to set punishing new records in 2020.”
    FAKE NEWS.. facts needed, not Soros funded Greta the Freta’s ideology!

  2. another Jim says:

    If California and Oregon harvested the duff, dead wood and overgrowth, they would have a greatly reduced fire hazard, and could make electricity from an otherwise wasted resource.

  3. Peter Pronczak says:

    Regardless of Global Warming or Climate Change, 65 million years of deep ocean temperatures have not increased, yet since 1880 to 2010 sea level has risen by about 20 centimetres: Robert Zubrin’s Merchants of Despair. Can this mean that upper surface water has risen, or that weather incurred land displacement into oceans is responsible?
    Were the ice on Greenland and Antarctica to melt it is estimated it would add about a further 70 metres to sea level rise. As ice floats it would probably be more prone to breaking up, floating away and melting.
    Add to that a large variation between low and high tides in various places, mainly greater in the northern hemisphere just over 12 metres in Alaska, there would be catastrophic affects.

    What naturally retains water other than plants? And as stated in the article large trees take 50-100 years to grow.
    In any way looked at, burning carbon dioxide absorbing forests would have to be as crazy as relying on the independence of wind and sun for energy.

    Is it possible that a majority of older people making many of these financial and life affecting decisions, originate from places where there has been concentrated use of now banned leaded petrol? There must be some reason for such odd decisions (to put it mildly) when it is known that schools in many places were permanently closed because of lead poisoning from exhaust fumes. Years of temporary closures have also happened from carbon monoxide poisoning including in the oil refining area of Altona in Melbourne. This was after Union Carbide was renamed Carbon Black after the Bhopal, India disaster leaked a different gas.

    Really can any of these populist decision makers be trusted when they make decisions based on public polling of those who let’s face it, most wouldn’t know their arse from their elbow?
    There’s something rotten in a lot more places than just the one that starts with ‘D’.
    Currently Australian environmental academics are complaining that government and businesses are ignoring their ‘expert’ opinion. So where is the information for the decision makers coming from?: Difficult to tell under the blanket excuse of “commercial in confidence”.

    • Graeme No.3 says:

      Peter Pronczak:
      It is possible that the upper levels of the oceans have warmed slightly and expanded, but measuring ocean rise is difficult what with lands rising or sinking. Take Europe, Sweden is rising by isostatic rebound after thousands of years buried by layers of ice. See the famous photo of the fort in Gotland built about 4-500 years ago which was an island, but is now joined to the mainland.
      Southern England is supposedly dropping slightly but (as an example) Pevensey Castle built by the Romans on a peninsula with waves near the castle walls, is now high and dry. So Harlech Castle in Wales where the Sea Gate is now isolated from the sea. And speaking of Romans, their known ports in England are shallow or siltered up. So too Ostia, the original port of Rome, which is now some miles from the Mediterranean as is the biblical port of Ephesus. It appears that sea rise is where you want to see it.

      • Peter Pronczak says:

        Granted, geophysics isn’t an exact science, with so many unexplained variables, I am on the side of global expansion rather than subduction maintaining size accounting for increased mass.

        London is only one place built on porous sinking foundation contributing to indisputable sea level rise due to displacement.
        Ice floats. Would this not compound the problem of an overall weathering effect?
        Regardless that Earth’s weather tends to an equilibrium over millennium, we are in the effects of decline toward a red dwarf Sun. Such decline tends to nullify re-balancing effects.
        Do you disagree?

        Sea level rise has been measured as increasing since 1880. That currents redistribute land is a none issue, whereas all manner of weathering land to sea is indisputable, including societal dumping.
        Where is evidence of substantial transfer of ocean matter to land mass other than the minor coastal examples quoted?
        Were Earth to be as smooth as a billiard ball, would we have weather?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: