Congress is about to make a huge climate change mistake, and there is little time left to stop it.
Lawmakers are moving toward a compromise on a wide-ranging energy bill, but the U.S. Senate version includes an amendment that would encourage deforestation and increase the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Seven senators, including Angus King and Susan Collins, sponsored the amendment. In response, more than 60 scientists and three professional societies signed onto a letter, pointing out a serious factual error in the proposed legislation. The irony is that all seven backers of the amendment accept the reality of climate change.
The amendment would mandate that all federal agencies treat the burning of wood from forests as a “renewable energy resource” that is “carbon neutral,” meaning it does not add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. Reality is more complex, but forest bioenergy certainly is not carbon neutral. The carbon footprint of bioenergy should be measured scientifically on a case-by-case basis rather than broadly specified by legislation.
Forest bioenergy may at first appear to be nearly carbon neutral because, while burning wood for energy releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, a comparable amount of carbon dioxide is later removed from the atmosphere if the wood that was burned is fully regrown. Not all forests are sustainably managed, however, and, even if they are, it takes 50 to 100 years for new trees to grow and absorb the released carbon dioxide, which meanwhile remains in the atmosphere and continues to warm the planet.
And this assumes that new trees reach maturity, despite the increasing challenges of fire, insects and drought. In addition, forest soils release carbon dioxide when disturbed, and the process of preparing wood for use as fuel takes significant energy, further adding to greenhouse gas emissions.
By treating forest bioenergy as carbon neutral when it isn’t, this amendment would encourage deforestation and worsen climate change. That’s why dozens of scientists and eight of the nation’s major environmental groups, including the Sierra Club, the League of Conservation Voters and the Natural Resources Defense Council, urged the Senate to reject the amendment as “an environmentally damaging and scientifically indefensible approach to biomass policy.”
Globally, forests and soils absorb an amount of carbon dioxide equal to about one-quarter of annual emissions from all sources, including fossil fuels, forest losses and soil degradation. If we are to have any hope of avoiding unmanageable warming and sea level rise, it’s essential we dramatically reduce fossil fuel emissions, regrow forests that have been cut and restore and expand forests that have been degraded.
Expanding instead of burning forests as we phase out fossil fuels would help to stabilize atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. It would also protect biodiversity, prevent flooding and maintain the many additional benefits provided by forests to the millions who enjoy these productive ecosystems.
As scientists, we need to send a clear message to policy makers about the critical role forests and soils play in removing heat-trapping carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
As scientists, we also know that legislating fact — especially when those facts are wrong — is never a good idea.
Philip Duffy is president and executive director of the Woods Hole Research Center in Falmouth, Massachusetts.