
EPA Declared That Burning Wood Is Carbon Neutral
In 2018, the EPA Declared That Burning Wood Is Carbon Neutral.
Yesterday [April 23, 2018], the Environmental Protection Agency announced that it would begin to count the burning of “forest biomass”—a.k.a. wood—as carbon neutral. The change will classify burning of wood pellets a renewable energy similar to solar or wind power.
[But] Even if a tree is planted for every tree converted to fuel pellets, trees regrown on plantations don’t store the same carbon as natural forests. One recent study suggests it would take 40 to 100 years for a managed forest to capture the same amount of carbon as a natural forest. And since most plantation forests are harvested at 20 year intervals, they will never make it to the carbon-neutral point.
“Unless forests are guaranteed to regrow to carbon parity, production of wood pellets for fuel is likely to result in more CO2 in the atmosphere and fewer species than there are today,” William Schlesinger, President Emeritus of the Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies writes for Science.
Doomberg picked up on this idea in an extensive set of Tweets.
Doomberg Tweet Thread
- In the second half of the 16th century, Britain plunged into an energy crisis. At the time, the primary source of energy driving the British economy was heat derived from the burning of wood, and Britain was literally running out of trees.
- As the supply of wood dried up, its price began to soar and inflation set in, compounding the problem and spreading it to all corners of the economy. With imports from continental Europe insufficient to close the growing supply gap, the resulting crisis was dire.
- And then they discovered coal. Well, they didn’t exactly “discover” coal – it had been known for centuries that coal could be a useful fuel – but they did learn that coal could replace wood in many important applications. They also recognized that they had a lot of it.
- With a higher energy density than wood, coal is a superior fuel that enabled meaningful improvements in the British economy. Trees could be preserved for construction purposes, homes could be more efficiently heated, and companies could leapfrog their competitors.
- It is now well understood that the wide adoption of primary fuels with high energy density enables a better standard of living. Transitioning to higher density fuels is something that usually occurs spontaneously in an economy unless politicians interfere.
- It took little encouragement from the British government for its economy to realize the benefits of coal over wood – the inherent advantages of the material and the phenomenon of creative destruction were sufficient.
- In another example, the history of propulsion technology at sea is marked by a completely sensible journey up the energy density ladder. Wind power gave way to coal, which was displaced by diesel, which ultimately gave way to nuclear technology in military vessels.
- Given this, it might surprise our followers to learn that the European Union and Britain are incentivizing a return to the primitive concept of burning wood for energy on a massive scale.
- Not only are they going back to the future, but they also claim doing so is carbon neutral (spoiler alert: it isn’t, not even close). Nearly 40% of Europe’s so-called renewable energy is currently obtained by combusting wood, much of it coming from forests in the US.
- In a farce so perverted and obscene that it can only be the work of bloated and arrogant bureaucracies, a carbon accounting loophole is causing huge amounts of CO2 to be pumped into the atmosphere today that will take decades to abate using natural means.
- All across the US Southeast, massive industrial feller bunchers are cutting down and stacking mature trees with ruthless efficiency. The resulting logs are loaded onto trailers and hauled by diesel-powered trucks to wood pellet factories.
- Once there, the logs are milled, dried, and pressed through specialty extruders at high pressure, all of which require significant primary energy and raise local pollution issues. The resulting pellets are transported to coastal ports where they are loaded onto cargo ships.
- The diesel-powered cargo ships make their way across the ocean, emitting CO2 along each of their several thousands of miles traveled. Once in Europe, the pellets are burned, emitting more CO2 per unit of heat generated than any other fuel source currently used at scale.
- We are meant to believe THIS process is somehow carbon neutral. The loophole that enables this orgy of deforestation boils down to how and where emissions are counted. In the current framework, burning wood is zero-carbon at the point of combustion.
- From the perspective of Britain and the EU, the wood pellets they burn were immaculately conceived – the manner in which the pellets arrived at their power plants is not relevant to their carbon emission calculations.
- By burning “carbon neutral” wood pellets and decreasing their use of coal, European environmentalists get to brag to the rest of us about what wonderful stewards of this shared planet they are, all while being among its worst offenders.
- Further, the fact that mature trees sequester huge amounts of CO2 compared to newly planted saplings is ignored, making the premature death of that generation irrelevant to the political calculations of environmental impact.
- The time value of carbon emissions does not matter to the European environmental elite, despite their repeated hand wringing about how urgent the carbon crisis is, what little time we have to reduce emissions, and the devastating consequences of not acting immediately.
- Studies show that the burning of mature US trees absolutely overwhelms the carbon impact of all electric vehicles ever sold in the UK. All the economic sacrifices made in the name of minimizing our impact on the climate are turned into a mockery by this one insanity.
- To the credit of some 800 scientists from virtually all disciplines, serious efforts to reverse course have been made. In 2018, a letter was penned that accurately pointed out the environmental bankruptcy of the current biomass accounting policy. They were ignored.
- Back in the US, publicly traded companies like Enviva are rushing to meet Europe’s virtually insatiable demand for “carbon neutral” wood. There’s lots of happy talk about responsible forest management, good corporate citizenship, low-impact supply chains, and so on.
- Enviva recently announced it is expanding into Germany. On its last earnings call, the company’s CEO proudly announced the signing of the first in a series of agreements with a German utility operator.
- Germany – a country proactively shutting down nuclear power plants despite suffering a massive energy crisis – is back to burning wood for power on an enormous scale. For the planet, of course. You could not make it up if you tried.
- A single pellet of uranium fuel no bigger than your fingertip provides as much energy as a ton of coal (and certainly even more wood). How many trees will be clearcut before this boondoggle of absurdity is stopped?
Hey, let’s cut down old growth forests and 200 year old oaks, then replace them with lodgepole pines harvested after 20 years and call it an even carbon deal.
While we are at it, let’s criticize Brazil for doing similar things to their rain forests.
This post originated at MishTalk.Com
Please Subscribe!
Like these reports? I hope so, and if you do, please Subscribe to MishTalk Email Alerts.
Subscribers get an email alert of each post as they happen. Read the ones you like and you can unsubscribe at any time.
If you have subscribed and do not get email alerts, please check your spam folder.
Mish


the comparisons need to be between land use. A old growth forest has some benefits a clear cut has some benefits and a sustainably managed forest has other benefits. If people are in an area coppicing and cutting on 7 year rotations on can use the acre a year cut for some annual food production. Humans are never going to be zero impact nor should they be. In my opinion a human can work with nature to improve it. Our failure is a consequence of many things. But clearly overshoot weighs heavily on this, but that doesnt alter the basic morality of a human carving out a life for himself and his family
heat generated than any other fuel source currently used at scale.”
My argument is that wood CAN be carbon neutral. Obviously, moving wood from the USA to Europe isn’t very smart.
Burn local.
I’ve heated with wood my entire life, from the age of zero to now the age of 44. Burning wood absolutely can be carbon neutral, if done sustainably. I burn wood, toss the ashes in the forest behind me which takes those nutrients, combined with carbon from the air and makes new trees. Completely 100 sustainable. Totally carbon neutral. I get heat for free (plus a little effort).
There are now more trees in the USA than there were 200 years ago and carbon mass is increasing rapidly in the USA. This can be easily verified from satellite images taken years ago to today. Yes yes, I know, there weren’t satellites 200 years ago, but we also have land records and know that forest is increasing in size and range in the USA. Even the size of harvested logs is increasing, meaning that forests don’t just have more trees, they have more mass than in previous years.
There’s basically no old growth forests left in the USA and anything harvested today was planted years ago, meaning that whatever damage occurred to the old growth forests, has already happened. No one is cutting old growth forests today in Europe and the USA, no one. What is happening is completely sustainable.
Yes, clear cutting a plot without replanting ever again will not be carbon neutral, but that’s not happening in the USA. In fact, more forests are being planted than harvested, meaning that yes, wood is more than carbon neutral in the USA. It’s becoming a net carbon sink.
None of your points were valid, none of them, because they are based on the false notion that trees aren’t being replanted and that carbon mass is decreasing. It’s not.
However, wood used in a carbon neutral way can supply SOME of the needs without adding any carbon.
Yes and if every human used as much oil as americans what would happen.What would happen it every human piled into the UK? What about the amazon?What if every human bought a tesla?Yes its time to plant trees, but the 70s was a more appropriate time to start. Whenever I recommend it on economics blogs I get blank stares if not hostility. Perennial agriculture is the only solution to our overshoot problem and even it at this point looks like it would come up short.
The appeal to magical solutions worked in the 70s 80s and 90s but its time to put down the hoop dreams and buy a saw and shovel. Innovation does not overcome the laws of thermodynamics and the universe isnt obligated to supply human’s with cheap energy forever
Wood, biomass, oil, gas, wind, solar, hydro, nuclear, tide power, geothermal, etc. Every piece can be used to reduce emissions. If you do not heat with wood then you are heating with oil. There are lots of people, including myself, who use wood exclusively for heat that also do so in a carbon neutral way. There’s plenty of room in America for expansion with wood that is sustainable due to all the waste in the system and ways of thinking. Why not at least try to max out the use of wood? For every piece of wood used for fuel there is less oil burned, so if carbon is a problem (and I have my doubts), you are reducing it with wood, at least somewhat. Some is better than nothing.
It takes 2 full grown trees to heat a home. You can plant two trees in 10 minutes. There is no existential threat from not planting enough trees in the USA. Everyone does it and there are far more trees in America now than before the Revolutionary war, due to the wonder called irrigation and capitalism.
Swales is a form of irrigation, only it’s a once and done thing. And you need a form of capitalism to build swales. They aren’t cheap.And it used to be that a person could travel from Eastern Kansas and walk all the way to Colorado and not see a single tree. Now, there are millions of them everywhere in that distance, all across the plains. How? Irrigation, cities planting them along side sidewalks, etc.Irrigation has asbolutely increased the number of trees in the USA. Old farms have been abandoned, Eastern clearcutting has been managed and reduced as a result of greater efficiency. There are more trees in America today than when Columbus landed. Now, the type of tree has changed. There are very very few old growth forests left with giant trees that held a lot of carbon per tree, but there is still more tree cover today than in the past due to the wonder of irrigation.
If you harvest trees on a 20-40 year schedule, like many foresters do, you start year one off by clear cutting a plot. Those trees lose all their carbon. However, the other 39 plots all increase in carbon storage by an equal amount. You add zero carbon to the air. Zero. Since MORE trees are planted each year than are harvested in the USA because of the profit motive to grow trees, growing trees is currently a net carbon sink. The worthless part of the tree is left to rot in the field and is often picked up by those who heat their homes with wood.
I grew a firewood business this way. Heating your home with wood is more than carbon neutral….it’s a net carbon sink.
Based on your prior experience, do fireplace grate heat exchangers work well? I really want a fireplace insert but my wife will not agree on that because she loves having an open fireplace, even though the efficiency is very low. We were wondering if a grate heat exchanger like those sold by HastyHeat will help bump up the heating efficiency of our seasoned wood.
I use a wood insert. It works very well to heat a 2000 sf home with only a little oil filled heater in the very back of the house the fire has trouble reaching.An open fire will heat the room it’s in and nothing else, due to the heat being sucked back up the flu. OPen fireplaces are great for ambiance, but not much else. They can even be incredibly dangerous is used in conjunction with a central HVAC that is turned on. Ever see a HVAC suck a fire into the room instead of the fireplace? It happens. If you use AC, use a minisplit that will not suck air out of the fireplace and burn your house down.
But they use the profits from that one tree they cut down to plant two trees.
Wood is completely carbon neutral, at least in the USA. In fact, there’s more trees today than 200 years ago and wood biomass is on the increase in the USA.
There are no old growth forests outside of national parks and such. No one is cutting old growth forest down, no one.
there’s more trees today than 200 years ago and wood biomass is on the
increase in the USA.”
And yes, trees absolutely can be carbon neural, or even carbon negative, like here in the USA. Here’s how:
1. Trees are usually planted with 20-40 years plots, staggered so there are harvests each year.
2. Year one=the tree is logged. All the carbon is used from this tree. However, the other 39 plots all have added carbon, equivalent or greater than the tree lost in year. There is currently a net gain in carbon mass from this in the USA. Places like Brazil are of course clear cutting old growth forests which is a net carbon loss. However, I’m speaking only to the USA.
And yes, it’s true that if you ship the wood it’s going to take oil to do so, but wood CAN be done in a carbon neutral way. And many of Mish’s points are just not true for the USA. Forests are not shrinking, they are rapidly expanding.
I also grow a lot of the food I eat using no fertilizers and no pesticides. I produce waaaaaay more per square foot than the local farmers do, because I have extremely healthy soil from wood ash compost. More people need to do this.