10/16/2024 | Press release | Distributed by Public on 10/16/2024 02:27
NRDC's new modeling estimates carbon emissions under three different scenarios for procuring biomass, involving different levels of destructive clearcutting (high, medium, and no clearcutting). Even under the "no clearcutting" scenario, BECCS was carbon positive and contributed to climate change. In fact, when proper carbon accounting is employed, the cumulative emissions from BECCS alone could surpass the U.K.'s total emissions from all other sources by the late 2040s.
Moreover, providing biomass to feed projected U.K. demand through 2050 would require up to 18 million hectares of land. That's more than half of all the timberland in the U.S. Southeast, where the vast majority of the U.K.'s wood pellets come from. Not only would this destroy crucial forest habitat for imperiled species, such as the chimney swift, but it is simply not realistic to think that the U.K. would ever be able access that amount of wood. This would leave the U.K. dangerously dependent on alternative fuel imports, further threatening energy independence.
Finally, the wood pellet mills needed to create biomass produce air and water pollution and harm already vulnerable communities-which would worsen if the U.K.'s BECCS reliance rose to current projected levels. In particular, in the U.S. Southeast, pellet mills harm the health of impoverished communities of color by releasing dangerous air pollutants into the air.
What does all this mean for the U.K.'s climate and energy plans? The new Labour Party government can draw some simple conclusions:
The world's forests are rich in nature and carbon. The best thing for our climate is to leave them standing. Cutting them down, burning them, and capturing the carbon makes climate change worse.
Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage is a bad bet-one that would cost the British public billions and cost the new Labour government its reputation on nature and climate change.