As Europe gradually get rid of dependence on coal, the EU is pinning its hopes on wood energy (also known as “biomass”) to fulfill their obligations under the “Paris climate agreement”. This is because in 2009 the EU committed to renewable energy by 2020 accounted for 20 percent and biomass included in the list of renewable energy sources. Some European countries, such as Britain, the biomass industry has been subsidized biomass industry has created a huge market. In the United States, Canada and Eastern Europe, trees, bark, tree tops and sawdust are pressed into pellets for use as fuel for power generation. 2014 biomass accounted for 40% of the EU renewable energy sources, is by far the largest renewable energy source, it is expected by 2020 this proportion will reach 60%.

Promote biomass energy from a simple, intuitive idea: Biomass is renewable, can achieve “carbon neutral”, it is sustainable. However, some scientists are now beginning to criticize that biomass “carbon neutral” is based on the calculation basis of false. Already runaway climate crisis, biomass energy is not carbon neutral, but are destroying valuable carbon sinks.

Drax Group, the UK’s flagship plant in the north of England Cricket absorbed nearly a quarter of global production, of which about two-thirds from the United States. Drax provide 10% of UK electricity grid, thanks to the government about 1.2 billion dollars annually huge subsidies to a large extent.

• Andy Kos Drax, CEO, compared with coal, wood burning power generation means 80% reduction of carbon dioxide emissions. However, Professor Emeritus of Tufts University, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate (IPCC) report co-author Bill Obama regeneration rate of speed by evaluating the carbon emissions of biomass energy and forest biomass think the question is not whether the final carbon neutral, but in the biomass carbon source and the time required for implementation. Burning biomass means that when we need to start quickly reduce carbon emissions, more rapid discharge of carbon into the atmosphere. Scholar Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) John Sterman found that biomass instead of coal for power generation, an average of 60-90 years to achieve carbon neutrality. In other words, burning wood will exacerbate the current climate change and its effects continued at least until 2100. If biomass for natural gas, need at least a few centuries to achieve carbon neutrality. Comparison, the wind turbine may be discharged within one year as the carbon compensate for manufacturing process fan.

Obama said: “carbon neutral and climate-neutral does not mean that even if ultimately carbon neutral, carbon has also floated a century in the atmosphere, which means that more methane release from permafrost, and more. the melting glaciers. even if we stop releasing carbon future, sea level rise will continue for centuries. climate impacts are irreversible. “

It is for this reason, Obama joined the group of nearly 800 scientists from around the world composed of a petition to the European Parliament, demanded an end to subsidies for biomass energy. Scientists say that in order to use wood to meet global energy demand growth of 3% of the world must be double the amount of commercial logging. The key moment in the need for States to “buy time” to address climate change, biomass energy equivalent of “betrayal” of valuable time to deal with the climate.