Alternative bio-facts? Biomass experts go on the offensive in response to U.K. report BIOMASS CANADIAN Volume 17 No. 2 Editor -Maria Church (416) 510-5143 [email protected] Editor -Andrew Snook (905) 713-4301 [email protected] Contributors -Gordon Murray, Taylor Fredericks, Lesley Allan Editorial Director/Group Publisher -Scott Jamieson (519) 429-3966 ext 244 [email protected] Market Production Manager Josée Crevier Ph: (514) 425-0025 Fax: (514) 425-0068 [email protected] National Sales Manager Ross Anderson Ph: (519) 429-5188 Fax: (519) 429-3094 [email protected] Quebec Sales Josée Crevier Ph: (514) 425-0025 Fax: (514) 425-0068 [email protected] Western Sales Manager Tim Shaddick [email protected] Ph: (604) 264-1158 Fax: (604) 264-1367 Media Designer -Angela Simon Circulation Manager Carol Nixon – [email protected] 450-458-0461 COO Ted Markle – [email protected] President/CEO Mike Fredericks Canadian Biomass is published six times a year: February, April, June, August, October, and December. Published and printed by Annex Business Media. Publication Mail Agreement # 40065710 Printed in Canada ISSN 2290-3097 Subscription Rates: Canada -1 Yr $49.50; 2 Yr $87.50; 3 Yr $118.50 Single Copy -$9.00 (Canadian prices do not include applicable taxes) USA – 1 Yr $60 US; Foreign – 1 Yr $77 US CIRCULATION Tel: (416) 442-5600 ext 3552 Fax: (416) 510-5170 [email protected] 80 Valleybrook Drive, Toronto, ON M3B 2S9 Occasionally, Canadian Biomass magazine will mail information on behalf of industry-related groups whose products and services we believe may be of interest to you. If you prefer not to receive this information, please contact our circulation department in any of the four ways listed above. No part of the editorial content of this publication may be reprinted without the publisher’ s written permission ©2017 Annex Business Media, All rights reserved. Opinions expressed in this magazine are not necessarily those of the editor or publisher. No liability is assumed for errors or omissions. All advertising is subject to the publisher’ s approval. Such approval does not imply any endorsement of the products or services advertised. Publisher reserves the right to refuse advertising that does not meet the standards of the publication. A recent report on the carbon neutrality of biomass has ruffled some feathers in the biomass community. The Impacts of the Demand for Woody Biomass for Power and Heat on Climate and Forests , a report created by Chatham House, a London, U.K.-based international affairs think tank, questions treating biomass as carbon-neutral at the point of combustion. The U.K.’s Renewable Energy Association (REA) appeared to be less than impressed. The REA responded by stating that the report had several misleading claims, including that carbon emissions from biomass energy production are generally at higher levels than from fossil fuels. The REA responded to this particular claim by stating the following: This misses the entire point of the use of biomass. Carbon contained in woody biomass is already part of the atmospheric cycle, whereas burning fossil fuels is adding carbon to the natural carbon cycle. Biomass is low-carbon because the carbon released during combustion is reabsorbed by the growing forests where it was sourced. Other claims in the report that the REA discounted include that it can take decades or even centuries to reabsorb carbon released by biomass power; that U.K.’s biomass use is resulting in decreased U.S. forest stock; that feedstock derives from harvesting whole trees; that when sawmill residues are diverted from use as wood products to use as energy, net carbon emissions will be higher as a result; and that biomass energy may be more likely to displace other sources of renewable energy rather than fossil fuels. The REA went on to state that the report “ignores the significant body of peer-reviewed academic studies that verifies the contributions from biomass power in mitigating greenhouse gas emissions and in supporting forest growth… The fact is that biomass cuts carbon, supports forests, and delivers reliable energy at a lower cost. This report just makes vague statements without evidence and repeats claims that have been analyzed many times and found wrong, which is disappointing.” The REA were not the only ones to quickly discount the report. FutureMetrics’ William Strauss, a well respected consultant in the wood pellet sector, responded by publishing a white paper called, “Alternative Facts” in the Recent Chatham House Paper, which focuses on discussions related to the sourcing of raw materials for industrial wood pellets. Strauss states that he is unsure if the author is “naïve about how the forest products industry operates or is purposefully presenting ‘alternative’ facts,” going on to call the study one-sided and wrong in its conclusions. Want to judge for yourself? Read about the Chatham House report, as well as the REA’s detailed response and FutureMetrics’ white paper by going online to www.canadianbiomass.ca. I never thought I would be using the term “alternative facts” in an editorial. How times have changed. Andrew Snook, Editor 4 Canadian BIOMASS www.canadianbiomassmagazine.ca FEBRUARY 2016
Canadian Biomass March-April 2017: Page 4
