Happy Nice Mall

In recent years, Europe’s power stations have reduced their use of coal by burning something else instead: millions of tons of wood, mostly imported from the United States.

A controversial European Union policy called the Renewable Energy Directive made this transition by counting biomass (organic materials such as wood, burned as fuel) as renewable energy and subsidizing its use. A trans-Atlantic industry developed, logging was done in American forests and the material was pelleted and then shipped to Europe. But critics have long argued that subsidies actually have little climate benefit and should be scrapped.

Late Tuesday in Brussels, a committee of the European Parliament voted to make significant changes to both how the union subsidizes biomass and counts emissions from burning it – policies that have significant implications if passed by the entire Parliament. It’s part of a broader package of climate policies that will change not only the way Europe generates electricity in the coming years, but also how it meets the European Union’s targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

“This vote is a historic breakthrough,” said Martin Pigeon, forests and climate campaigner with Fern, a nonprofit group focused on European forests. “For the first time, a major EU regulator is making it clear that one of the EU’s most climate-damaging policies of the past decade, one that promotes the burning of forests in the name of renewable energy, must stop.”

Wood, of course, differs from oil or coal in that trees can regrow and extract planet-warming carbon dioxide from the air. But it takes an average century For carbon dioxide emissions from burned wood to be reabsorbed in a growing forest, the carbon dioxide released during this time contributes to global warming. Burning wood to generate electricity also releases more carbon dioxide More than fossil fuels to produce the same amount of energy. However, under previous European Union rules, emissions from biomass were not included in the bloc’s greenhouse gas reduction commitments.

Other changes proposed this week would eliminate most public financial support for biomass, including both direct subsidies and indirect measures such as rebates or tax credits. The rules also start counting emissions from biomass and “some “green”“financing.

Bas Eickhout, a Dutch politician and member of the European Parliament who advocated the revisions, said they would take an important step in defining “primary woody biomass”, which is essentially wood harvested directly from forests. (The definition adopted this week provides exceptions for wood from trees damaged by fires, pests and diseases.) “This will reduce incentives to burn wood for energy,” said Mr. Eickhout, encouraging the use of industrial waste. instead of untreated wood, scrap or sawdust, as well as shifting the focus entirely to other forms of renewable energy.

But not everyone is happy with the proposed changes. A Swedish-led coalition of 10 European Union member states said this winter that changes will 55 percent by 2030Compared to 1990 levels.

“These frequent changes in the legal framework undermine the stability of the market and hinder the willingness to invest in renewable energy,” said Swedish energy minister Khashayar Farmanbar, one of the letter’s authors. He added that reducing biomass availability would make Europe’s energy transition more difficult, “including rapidly removing fossil fuels from Russia.”

Representatives of the wood pellet industry also raised objections. “Excluding primary biomass will undermine efforts to ensure European energy security, raise energy prices for consumers and push the EU’s climate targets far away,” the US Industrial Pellet Association, an industry group, said in a statement.

Biomass has grown tremendously over the past decade. Before 2009, when the Renewable Energy Directive categorized it as renewable, almost no European energy came from biomass. Since then, it has turned into a blast 10 billion dollars a year industry and now producing around 60 percent What the European Union sees as renewable energy.

Although these wood-burning plants will no longer be eligible for subsidies, they will be allowed to continue operating under the revised policy. Last year was the first year in Europe that biomass was profitable without government support. This raises concerns about continued wood burning, said Mary S. Booth, an ecologist and director of Partnership for Policy Integrity, a nonprofit group that promotes data-driven policy. “Burning wood emits carbon,” she said. “Basic physics.”

The effects of Tuesday’s changes could extend across the Atlantic to the southeastern United States, where most of Europe’s biomass is located. harvest. More than a million acres of American forest have been cut for biomass, climate risks like floods and landslides.

Still, this week’s vote is just the first step in a long process. After leaving the Environment Committee, the proposed changes will need to be adopted by the European Parliament this summer, leaving time for lobbying and further changes. If the measure passes, national governments will still need to legislate the changes.

In addition to forest products, changes in food and fodder crop biofuel standards were also accepted by the committee. Mr. Eickhout also advocated changes that would limit the use of biofuels in transport, citing current rises in food prices. This week, the committee called for products like palm and soy to be phased out as early as next year. These are usually land use changesincluding deforestation.