• 4 minutes Ten Years of Plunging Solar Prices
  • 7 minutes Hydrogen Capable Natural Gas Turbines
  • 10 minutes World looks on in horror as Trump flails over pandemic despite claims US leads way
  • 13 minutes Large gas belt discovered in China
  • 1 hour COVID 19 May Be Less Deadly Than Flu Study Finds
  • 45 mins 60 mph electric mopeds
  • 4 hours So the President is on that Hydroxy
  • 1 hour Russia loses its chance to capture the EU gas market
  • 2 hours Payback Time: Republican Senators turn the tables on Democrats. The difference is the Republican investigations are legit.
  • 5 hours Why 2030-Isn.t-The-Magic-Year-For-Electric-Vehicles
  • 7 hours US-China tech competition accelerates: on Friday 05/15 new sanctions on Huawei, on Monday 05/18 Samsung chief visits China
  • 2 hours China to Impose Dictatorship on Hong Kong
  • 7 hours Monetary and Fiscal Policies in Times of Large Debt:
  • 4 hours Beware the Left's 'Degrowth' Movement (i.e. why Covid-19 is Good)
  • 9 hours DEFIANCE – There are More of Us Than Them
  • 5 hours Oil Capex Proportions
  • 14 hours Let’s Try This....

Burning Trees For Heating Won’t Help With Climate Change: UK Think Tank

A suggestion by the UK Committee on Climate Change to burn more wood and plant replacement trees as a sustainable alternative to fossil fuels has drawn criticism from think tank Chatham House, which says this is hardly the best approach to reducing emissions.

"Expanding forest cover is undoubtedly a good thing, if you're leaving them standing," energy expert Duncan Brack told the Daily Telegraph. However, Brack, who served as special adviser to the Department of Energy and Climate Change, suggested that burning wood for heating was not the most sustainable way forward. Calling wood burning a carbon neutral process is “highly dubious,” Brack added.

These claims, according to the Telegraph’s environment editor, Emma Gatten, rest on the assumption that the carbon footprint of chopping down trees and burning them is offset by planting new trees to replace them. This assumption excludes the fact that older trees absorb more carbon and that it takes time to replace a forest.

"You can leave trees standing and they will continue to absorb carbon for decades," Brack says. "But the biomass industry implicitly assumes that forests at some point stop reach a saturation point for carbon intake and can be harvested and simply replaced." 

The benefit of planting trees to mitigate the effects of climate change has been put to the test on a wider scale as well. A study released last year found that reforestation could work, but it had to be done at a massive scale.

We need to plant 25 percent more trees than there are on Earth right now, or more than half a trillion in total, the study found. This would reduce the amount of carbon in the atmosphere by a quarter, erasing 20 years of emissions. Yet it would not solve the climate problem on its own, without a sustained effort to cut emissions, commentators on the study said.

By Irina Slav for Oilprice.com

More Top Reads From Oilprice.com:



Join the discussion | Back to homepage



Leave a comment
  • Carlos Everett on January 24 2020 said:
    I would suggest you go back and read the study that was and still is supported by ABC News , a liberal paper, wherein the study published and listed in a July 5th, ABC News episode, that indicated, an expansion of reforestation of trees, would in the short term reduce the climate problem by 60% and more if the reforestation continued.

    This , so far, is the most economical way to solve climate change in the short term. No one is suggesting that we discontinue, wind and solar or other renewables, as it sounds like they will be cheaper on a per unit basis, which is a win/win for the consumer. However, lets fix the problem in the cheapest manner, then lets let fossil fuels and renewables battle it out to find the cheapest energy source.

Leave a comment

Oilprice - The No. 1 Source for Oil & Energy News