The Burning Question: Does Forest Bioenergy Reduce Carbon Emissions? A Review of Common Misconceptions about Forest Carbon Accounting

Abstract

Critical errors exist in some methodologies applied to evaluate the effects of using forest biomass for bioenergy on atmospheric greenhouse gas emissions. The most common error is failing to consider the fate of forest carbon stocks in the absence of demand for bioenergy. Without this demand, forests will either continue to grow or will be harvested for other wood products. Our goal is to illustrate why correct accounting requires that the difference in stored forest carbon between harvest and no-harvest scenarios be accounted for when forest biomass is used for bioenergy. Among the flawed methodologies evaluated in this review, we address the rationale for accounting for the fate of forest carbon in the absence of demand for bioenergy for forests harvested on a sustained yield basis. We also discuss why the same accounting principles apply to individual stands and forest landscapes.

Assessment of Energetic, Economic and Environmental Performance of Ground-Coupled Heat Pumps

“…Their impact on particulate matter (PM 10 and PM 2.5 ), NOx and COV [76,77] has become hardly sustainable both in urban areas (e.g., Thessaloniki [78]) and in larger regions (e.g., the Po Plain in Italy [79]). Moreover, the supply chain of wood logs and pellets and hence their global environmental impact are critical, as demonstrated in various LCA studies [80,81]. If compared to biomass boilers, the electric energy production related to GCHP emits significantly less NOx (80-94%) and almost eliminates the particulate.…”

A Review of the Role of Vegetal Ecosystems in CO2 Capture

“…In fact, such emissions could reduce or even eliminate the reduction of the CO 2 of replaced fossil fuels. Nowadays, scientists agree that these GHGs must be included in calculating the carbon footprint of different bioenergy crops, taking into account soil conditions and agronomic management practices [34][35][36].…”

Economic Impact of Net Carbon Payments and Bioenergy Production in Fertilized and Non-Fertilized Loblolly Pine Plantations

“…(1) where, Nn is the amount of CO2e left after n years of harvest (Mg), N0 is the amount of CO2e left in the tree biomass at the time of harvest (Mg), n is the years after harvest (0 to 100 years), and hl is the half-life of each wood product (100 and 2.6 years respectively, for lumber derived from sawtimber and paper products derived from pulpwood [23]). Using Equation (1), the amount of CO2e emitted from the decay of products each year after harvest through 100 years was determined using Equation (2). (2) where, C(n) refers to the CO2e emissions from the decay of sawtimber (or pulpwood) at year n (Mg), Nn is the amount of carbon left after n years of harvest (Mg), N(n−1) is the amount of carbon left after (n − 1) years of harvest (Mg).…”

“…Though the extent to which GHG emissions are reduced is very context specific (e.g., forest type, forest management, and harvesting practices), woody biomass utilized for energy is part of the biosphere and can eventually be recaptured by new forest growth-except for the relatively small amount produced by fuel consumed for management, harvesting, processing, and transporting [2]. In contrast, using fossil fuels for energy production is a one-way process through which the carbon stored in the fossil fuels is released into the atmosphere.…”

“…To what extent woody bioenergy can be a viable strategy in reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is a debated topic among policymakers, society, and researchers [1][2][3]. Though the extent to which GHG emissions are reduced is very context specific (e.g., forest type, forest management, and harvesting practices), woody biomass utilized for energy is part of the biosphere and can eventually be recaptured by new forest growth-except for the relatively small amount produced by fuel consumed for management, harvesting, processing, and transporting [2].…”