Burning Wood May Do More Harm Than Good

Of all the sources of renewable energy, one type invariably dredges up more debate than any other-biomass. Granted, the term biomass does cover a lot of topics and a lot of different controversies-from food versus fuel to the unintended consequences of anaerobic digestion. But perhaps the most enduring of all the biomass conundrums is this one-to burn wood or not to burn wood. Now Rob Hopkins, founder of the Transition Movement, is igniting the debate once more. And he's rethinking the installation of a stove at his house.

This isn't a new topic here on TreeHugger. Daniel has already written about one study claiming that burning biomass may be worse than coal (although this was hotly disputed by the biomass energy industry), and John has written about the astounding amount of wood it takes to heat a home. But in general it's long been somewhat assumed by most greens that burning wood to heat your home, as long as you do it efficiently, has got to be greener than using fossil fuels. After all, trees are only releasing the carbon that they absorb when they grow-so the net input of CO2 into the atmosphere is negligible. Right?

Sadly, assumptions can be a dangerous thing. Rob Hopkins, who I previously interviewed about the birth of the Transition Movement, reports that he had only been weeks away from installing a wood burning stove on his home in Totnes, in the South West of England when he read a study published by the Association for Environmentally Conscious Builders called Biomass: A Burning Issue.

In it, the studies authors (Nick Grant and Alan Clarke, both of whom heat their homes with wood) set out to explore whether wood can really be considered a sensible, sustainable approach to heating homes. Among their findings are that while wood does indeed only release CO2 that it has recently sequestered, "recently" is still a relative term. Pointing out that we need to cut CO2 emissions now, not in 30 years, the authors argue that burning wood directly undermines more beneficial uses for it that keep that carbon locked up for centuries-whether that be building with it, making furniture, or presumably even burying it in the ground. Instead, they argue, we would be better placed burning natural gas efficiently, and letting our woodlands act as a buffer to absorb the carbon that is released.

View the Original article