You couldn’t make it up. Having for years rejected claims that industrial-scale burning of wood was not sustainable, climate obsessives now discover…exactly that. At least the media waited until the COP conference in Madrid ended, to avoid upsetting the delegates.
Experts horrified at large-scale forest removal to meet wood pellet demand, says The Guardian.
A few snippets from the article:
Climate thinktank Sandbag said the heavily subsidised plans to cut carbon emissions will result in a “staggering” amount of tree cutting, potentially destroying forests faster than they can regrow.
. . .
The planned biomass conversions – with Finland, Germany and Netherlands leading the way – would emit 67m tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere which would be unlikely to be reabsorbed by growing trees over the timescales relevant to meeting the Paris agreement, warned Sandbag.
. . .
“It’s impossible to believe coal companies when they argue that the switch to burning forests could be good for the climate”
. . .
Prof Michael Norton, a director at the European Academies Science Advisory Council, said large-scale forest removal to meet the demand for biomass would be “horrifying from a climate perspective” and already risks overshooting the Paris agreement targets.
…
Full report here.
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
[…] über Converting coal plants to biomass could fuel climate crisis, scientists warn — Tallbloke’s T… […]
This is the sort of thing thing that happens when a few brain dead lawyers conclude that biomass CO2 is to be defined as carbon neutral, whatever that means.
Converting coal plants to biomass could fuel climate crisis
Good job it’s a man-made myth then 🙂
Silly buggers
Well, at least some of the green blob has realised the stupidity of burning living forests rather than dead forests.
‘Experts horrified at large-scale forest removal to meet wood pellet demand’
Jillian gets to decide who the ‘experts’ are.
Drax has been burning wood pellets for 4 years. 4 years in is a little late to be ‘horrified.’ What has caused this new ALARM?
‘This new report is yet more evidence that the EU must use the new EU Green Deal to fix EU bioenergy rules’
Ahh . . . I see. Push the EU Red Deal.
I have a better idea: get out of the EU.
Gamecock,
“I have a better idea: get out of the EU.”
Something to amuse oneself while musing our muddied circumstances (on both sides of the Atlantic):
The practice of nation-states over the past 250-300 years (arbitrary) of different sizes (area/population) and administrative types have demonstrated advantages and disadvantages. Seems the bigger ‘they’ are, the harder ‘they’ fall. Once people have a taste of freedom of any sort, they want it and more, but aren’t always aware of the concurrent responsibilities.
EU case in point.
Seemed like a great concept initially. HOWEVER, not going there as this blog isn’t where this should be discussed, as it could possibly degenerate into non-verbal discussion, and more importantly, veer from its great information dissemination/exposure.
Research has shown that the time needed to reabsorb the extra carbon released can be very long, so that current policies risk achieving the reverse of that intended—initially exacerbating rather than mitigating climate change.
European Academies’ Science Advisory Council (EASAC) – 2019
– – –
Decades to grow a tree – minutes to burn one. Who knew?
“not going there as this blog isn’t where this should be discussed”
Mr. Johnson, the next post is https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2019/12/16/a-full-yorkshire-brexit/