Our Forests Aren’t Fuel Q&As Q: What is biomass? A: Biomass is a broad term that refers to many forms of plant-based sources of energy. It covers everything from agricultural and forestry residues to dedicated energy crops, such as perennial grasses, to whole trees. Biomass can be used to make liquid biofuels that serve as alternatives to oil, or to produce heat or electricity to power our homes. Q: Isn’t biomass considered a clean form of alternative energy? A: Biomass energy can be clean or very dirty, depending on how and where it is produced. It can be produced in ways that reduce global warming pollution or in ways that increase it. It can help clean up the air, water, and soil and protect wildlife, or it can degrade our lands, forests, and water, threaten biodiversity, and harm public health. Power companies in the United States and Europe are expanding their use of trees—known as woody biomass—as a fuel source to replace fossil fuels. These companies claim that burning trees instead of coal will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However, recent scientific studies have discredited bioenergy from whole trees as a clean, renewable fuel. Specifically, data shows that burning trees to produce electricity actually increases carbon pollution for decades when compared to coal and other fossil fuels. Q: Why does burning trees release more carbon than fossil fuels? A: Just like fossil fuels, when trees are burned in power plants, the carbon they have accumulated is released into the atmosphere. However, because freshly cut wood is nearly half water by weight, a lot of energy is required to boil off this water before useful energy can be produced. This makes biomass plants far less efficient than those burning fossil fuels. In other words, trees contain less potential energy per unit of carbon emissions than coal and other fossil fuels, so you need to burn many more trees to produce the same amount of energy. This results in 40 percent more carbon emissions at the smokestack per unit of energy generated. Second, cutting down trees for energy production disrupts vital carbon sinks and impedes ongoing forest carbon sequestration—not just on the forest floor, but deep down in the soil. From the perspective of the atmosphere, diminishing a carbon sink has the same impact as creating an equivalent-sized smokestack.

Q: But trees grow back. Doesn’t that regrowth reabsorb all the carbon that was released, making the whole project carbon neutral? Replanting trees doesn’t make up for the loss of established forests. New studies have found that when whole trees are harvested for biomass energy production the amount of carbon in the atmosphere increases for decades even if more trees are replanted than cut down. A 2012 study examined the climate impacts of using biomass from Southern forests for electricity production in the US and EU i. It looked at the energy demand of 39 existing and proposed biopower and wood pellet facilities in the Southeast and assessed how the carbon emissions impacts of meeting that demand with biomass compared to using coal or natural gas. The study concluded that based on current trends, wood-fueled bio-power in the Southeast US and EU would increase atmospheric carbon for 35 to 50 years compared to fossil fuels. Q: What does the “Our Forests Aren’t Fuel” campaign aim to achieve? A: Burning trees for energy makes climate change worse and threatens our forests. It's a dirty process—and it's time to tell industry leaders to stop this practice. This quietly growing trend in energy production takes us backwards at a time when we must invest resources in truly clean and modern energy sources like wind, solar, and geothermal. We hope to raise awareness about this practice amongst policymakers and the general public, invite utilities and wood pellet manufacturers to step up and show leadership by choosing alternatives to burning trees, and ensure that policies aimed at supporting clean energy flow towards fuels that truly meet that standard. Q: Is there a right way to produce biomass energy on a large scale? A: Quickly shifting our power sector away from coal and other fossil fuels is critical. There is a limited role for wood residuals—for example, tops and limbs from logging operations, provided strict sustainability standards are adopted—or sustainably grown agricultural materials that would otherwise end up in a landfill or burned. However, the right way to achieve this shift is through investments in energy efficiency and 21st century energy technologies like wind, solar, and geothermal, not destructive whole tree bioenergy. The best example of a smart biomass policy can be found in Massachusetts. Massachusetts realized that giving renewable energy credits to bad bioenergy projects under its Renewable Portfolio Sandard undermined its goal of encouraging investment in clean energy sources. In response, the state established standards that are driving the market to appropriate sources of biomass rather than whole trees. The Massachusetts biomass regulations are now a blueprint for other states and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to consider. Q: Isn’t biomass more of a European issue? A: Europe is the most visible consumer of tree-burning biomass energy and European demand for woody biomass is growing fast. But what many don’t realize is that European utilities source much of their wood from North American forests. The result of this new demand has been the

explosive growth of North American wood pellet exports, most of which originate in Southern forests. In the US Southeast, there are twenty-four pellet facilities currently operating, and sixteen additional plants planned for construction in the near-term. But it’s not just European utilities driving the market for wood pellets. Some of the largest utilities in the US – such as Dominion Resources – are increasingly turning to tree-burning biomass. The massive fuel needs of these energy companies could double logging rates in the Southeast, threatening some of the most biologically-diverse forests in the world. Q: Don’t new markets for trees encourage landowners to maintain and replenish forests instead of converting them for agricultural land or development? A: No. New markets for small diameter timber will lead to increased clearcuts and unsustainable forestry practices, such as the conversion of naturally biodiverse forests to tree plantations: large tracts of land treated with herbicides and chemical fertilizers and planted with only one species of tree that is ideal for cutting and burning again in the future. Traditionally, most landowners would leave the smaller diameter trees in a natural forest to mature and become profitable. New biomass markets will create an incentive for landowners to profit sooner by harvesting and selling younger trees for energy production, jeopardizing forest biodiversity. Q: Aren’t forest landowners and forest products companies already required to comply with multiple laws and regulations in the US? A: In the southeastern US, forestry on private land is conducted with no regulations whatsoever on many fundamental forestry practices. Large-scale clearcutting is routine. There are no laws or regulations that protect old growth forests and endangered forests; conversion of natural forest ecosystems to plantations is permitted throughout the region and is typically carried out with the extensive use of chemical herbicides; and wetland logging is permitted, despite the existence of the Clean Water Act. There are no laws or regulations to protect species and their habitats aside from the federal Endangered Species Act, which provides emergency protections only once a species has become threatened or endangered with extinction and only if the species is known to occur. Most southern states lack regulations requiring notification before cutting, regeneration after cutting, and management planning. No southern state has requirements to limit the cumulative impact of logging operations and removals of forests exceed growth in several parts of the region. Most “Best Management Practices” are voluntary and not binding, and have been widely documented to allow damage to ecosystems. Q: Doesn’t the pellet industry rely almost exclusively on residues from existing logging operations? A: Evidence demonstrates the opposite: biomass logging is occurring in natural forests, with high carbon stocks, expressly for the purposes of pellet production. Recent investigative reports by the Wall Street Journal ii and BBC iii have documented that Enviva, the largest exporter of wood pellets from the Southern US (and a supplier to both Drax Power in the UK and Dominion Resources in the US), is sourcing whole logs from clearcuts of mature wetland forests. Independent of these reports, photos taken near Enviva’s flagship Ahoskie, North Carolina facility (see below) show a log yard of exclusively whole tree trunks, many of which have swollen

bases measuring up to approximately two feet in diameter, indicating mature trees from wetland forests. This evidence suggests pellet suppliers are sourcing whole trees expressly for biomass production, and in many cases from some of the most ecologically sensitive areas in the world.

Photograph from nearby Enviva Ahoskie, North Carolina facility, taken by Southern Environmental Law Center. Moreover, the projected growth in the Southeast pellet industry cannot be sustained by using only residues that are secondary to logging operations for lumber or pulpwood. Already in 2012, the Southeastern US emerged as the world’s largest exporter of wood pellets for biomass electricity generation. Export volumes reached an estimated 1.75 million tons in 2012, increasing over 60% year-over-year with US export volumes more than doubling over that same time-frame, and are expected to jump to 5.7 million tons in 2015, according to the North American Wood Fiber Review. iv Q: Some argue that the new biomass industry creates jobs and helps struggling economies. Will what you’re proposing negatively impact these benefits? A: No, what we’re suggesting will support jobs and local economies. You don’t need to cut down entire forests to produce wood pellets. There are sustainably sourced alternatives like reclaimed wood from municipal and commercial operations, urban and right-of-way trimmings, sawmill and forest residues. We’re not asking these facilities to shut down, but rather to change the way they operate. Q: What is your response to skeptics who say tree harvesting is a property rights issue, and that property owners should be able to do whatever they want on their land? A: We believe that it’s important to develop markets for products and ecosystem services that increase the carbon stored in forests and protect critical wildlife habitat. These would provide

landowners with incentives for forest protection, restoration and conservation—not harvesting their trees to burn for energy. Protecting forests is critical to the clean air, clean water and healthy ecosystems on which entire communities depend. Q: Utilities claim the wood they’re sourcing for biomass comes from sustainably managed forests and have positive environmental impact. Why are they wrong? A: Biomass energy companies such as Drax and Enviva have made numerous sustainability claims, relying on “self-certification”—programs under which industries develop and monitor environmental performance without participation and oversight from environmental partners or independent organizations—or certifications like the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI), which fall well short of ensuring sustainable forestry practices. These claims have been roundly discredited as greenwashing. Though they might come with a nice sounding label, SFI and other certifications used by the forestry industry actually allow for destructive forestry practices, including large-scale clearcutting, logging of endangered forests, conversion of natural forests to plantations, and widespread use of toxic chemicals. Q: Your campaign emphasizes forests in the Southeastern US. Are other regions vulnerable to the negative impact of biomass? A: Harvesting any trees to burn for energy, regardless of where they grew, has damaging effects on climate and valuable ecosystems. However, right now the US Southeast is the region most threatened by the biomass industry. Its accessibility to ports and domestic utilities makes it the leading region supporting the growth of biomass energy. At the same time, the Southern US has the highest concentration of rare and endangered species in the nation, many of which depend on forests to survive. The biomass industry further threatens this precious wildlife. i

Biomass Supply and Carbon Accounting for Southeastern Forests, February 2012. http://www.biomasscenter.org/images/stories/SE_Carbon_Study_FINAL_2-6-12.pdf ii See: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324082604578485491298208114 iii See: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22630815 iv “Global Timber and Wood Products Market Update,” Wood Resources International LLC, news brief, October 11, 2012 (accessed July 31, 2013).