Facts matter, debunking the carbon neutral and other myths

As we have seen, burning wood releases copious amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2). Additional CO2 is released from the soil long after the trees have been logged as well as during the processing and transportation of the wood. But all this CO2 is conveniently wiped from the climate ledgers thanks to an accounting sleight of hand. Energy wood is considered “carbon neutral” simply because forests regrow. Regrowing trees, the argument goes, will recapture the CO2 released when the wood was burnt, but it takes minutes to burn wood and decades or centuries for trees to grow back, setting up a “carbon debt”. Which is why it is “simplistic” to call forest biomass carbon neutral and renewable according to the European Academies’ Science Advisory Council (EASAC), which represents 27 National Science Academies of the EU member states, plus Norway and Switzerland.

And it really doesn’t matter whether the carbon in wood was previously removed from the atmosphere as the trees grew. A molecule of CO2 added to the atmosphere today has the same impact on the climate whether it comes from fossil fuels millions of years old or biomass grown last year. When trees are burned, the carbon they contain is released, immediately increasing atmospheric CO2 above what it would have been had they not been burned.Burning trees also destroys the very mechanism that cleans our air and removes CO2 efficiently and for free.

Let’s debunk a few more myths. 

Only “inferior” wood is burnt, we are told, but 74% of all our hardwood went up in smoke in 2022. Were two thirds of our beeches, ash and other deciduous trees really “inferior”? Didn’t they filter water, shelter countless species, provide shade in the last heatwave, protect us from natural hazards and capture carbon? And do you really believe that forests should be “rejuvenated” and made “climate resilient”? Even senescent trees continue capturing CO2 and such big, old trees contain a lot more carbon than the saplings that replace them. “Rejuvenating” forests actually reduces carbon stocks, disrupts ecosystems and lowers forest resilience by increasing the risks of biotic and abiotic damage.  

Another commonly advanced argument is that if we don’t burn wood, it would simply rot in the forest and release CO2 anyway, but rotting is a slow process which also creates valuable habitats and ultimately soil, which is another resource the world is running out of. 

Finally it is often argued that if forests are managed “sustainably” then it is OK to burn the annual growth. But take your pension fund which, if you have invested wisely, should be growing year on year. If I skim off this annual growth, doesn’t this make you poorer? 

Our forests are our pension funds. And those of our children. Burning trees and destroying forest carbon sinks makes us all poorer.