We all know how do-gooder governments all over Europe and USA like to spend billions of dollars on every conceivable save-the-forests program worldwide.Well, it turns out they’re also spending billions on subsidising “green” wood-based bio-energy, which in fact is having the opposite effect, and thus contributing to the accelerated mass-destruction of forests worldwide. In the kooky world called “Green”, things always seem to work as follows:
1. Conjure up a fictitious future catastrophic problem, like AGW.
2. Demand governments enact programs designed to avert the catastrophe.
3. Watch these programs inflict real, massive environmental, social and economic damage right now.
Here’s yet another perfect glittering example from the world of Green. The Global Forest Coalition has released a damning report WOOD-BASED BIOENERGY: THE GREEN LIE, which shines much light on Europe’s latest green mega-folly.
Journalist Stephen Leahy reports on it here: Europe’s Green Energy Portfolio Up in Smoke.
Here are some excerpts:
* In Europe’s vaunted green energy revolution 68.5% of its renewable energy portfolio comes from biofuels and burning wood for energy,
*27 million tonnes of wood biomass will be needed annually to supply planned power stations in the UK (United Kingdom).
* At least one million hectares of forest annually will be needed to feed the dozens of planned wood-fired power plants in Britain alone.
* The Netherlands is burning one million tonnes of wood annually. Germany is burning up to 16.5 million tonnes – mostly imported – and plans to double this figure by 2020.
*Deforestation eats up 13 to 16 million hectares every year and is responsible for 20 percent of the global warming emissions.
Deforestation is already a big problem globally without the biofuels boom. Promoting the use of wood material for biofuel will only accelerate deforestation.
According to Anne Petermann, executive director of the Global Justice Ecology Project:
We have an enormous deforestation problem already, there is no way massive increases in wood to feed bioenergy furnaces could ever be sustainable.
Leahy writes that particulate emissions from wood-burning are worse than coal, putting public health at risk. Biomass burning emits more fine particulates than coal. These invisible particles can damage lungs and make asthma worse.
Then there is all the energy and emissions involved in cutting, processing and shipping wood many thousands of kilometres from Africa, South America and Canada.
Helena Paul of science watchdog EcoNexus
Wood biomass energy is twice as crazy an idea as maize ethanol was.
Not only are wood-based biofuels ecologically disastrous, but they are also economically unwise:
Subsidies in Britain will cost taxpayers about three billion dollars a year for the biomass power plants now under construction or planned, reports Robert Palgrave of Biofuelwatch.
Journal Science has bioenergy lands covering half of the planet’s arable lands by 2065.
Helena Paul sums it up:
The potential for disaster is absolutely enormous if this takes off in Europe and America.
Someone ought to remind Ms Paul what led to these disastrous policies in the first place. One may suggest that it was the green movement’s overzealous drive to save the planet from a highly exaggerated manmade climate change claim, all fueled and fanned by the media and kook green groups.