Using biomass to substitute fossil resources is seen as one of the sustainable ways to tackle climate change. Yet not all biomass projects can be a priori declared beneficial. A climate impact assessment, such as life cycle assessment or carbon footprint, is crucial for a science‐based policy recommendation. However, those assessments can often be incomplete, especially since many of those adopt an assumption that biogenic CO2 emissions cause no harm to the climate and do not need to be accounted. Such a simplistic “neutrality assumption” can lead to inaccurate results and thus to undesired consequences. This article synthesizes and further develops the diverse argumentation against the “neutrality assumption,” especially regarding the complexity of biomass production, differences in the timing of emission, allocation procedure, and climate change characterization methodology. Thus, the article draws a broader picture of the complex issue of biomass projects and argues for more comprehensive assessments.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.