EU Parliament misses alternative to finish assist for wooden burning and crop-based biofuels


The European Parliament has voted on the revision of the EU Renewable Vitality Directive (RED III). Sadly, the Parliament missed the possibility to finish assist for burning forest biomass and to as a substitute redirect misguided subsidies to actual renewable vitality sources.

The revision was meant to permit for a extra fast growth of renewable energies, and proper destructive developments.

The outcomes imply that the EU will proceed to advertise the burning of forest wooden as a supply of renewable vitality to Member States. The cultivation of meals and feed crops for the manufacturing of biofuels  additionally continues to be supported. However each run opposite to local weather safety and nature conservation: Forests, that are essential carbon reservoirs, are reduce down for combustion in energy crops, intensive agriculture endangers biodiversity and meals safety is threatened when meals results in the tank of automobiles.

Whereas the result of the vote introduces some positives, corresponding to the top of subsidies for burning wooden in electricity-only installations, that is undermined by big loopholes: e.g. wooden burning can nonetheless be supported in electricity-only energy crops if these can not simply be transformed to mixed warmth and energy.

Black Woodpecker, copyright Glyn Sellors, from the surfbirds galleries

As well as, the combustion of major woody biomass – i.e. wooden instantly from the forest, not residues from sawmills or waste – will proceed to rely in direction of targets for renewable energies,as much as a cap. That is in direct battle with the advice of the European Parliament’s Setting Committee.

Opposite to business claims, a “ban” on wooden burning was by no means at stake. Eradicating forest biomass from the RED’s incentives would merely imply the EU would cease encouraging Member States to pay vitality firms to burn forests.

In relation to biofuels, the plenary vote made some main enhancements relating to biofuels produced with soy and palm, which is per the Deforestation Regulation. However, we are able to remorse that the excessive 7% most threshold on crop-based biofuels would imply that for some MS extra crops would go into biofuels, fuelling biodiversity loss and local weather change as a substitute of assuaging the present meals disaster.

Sadly, the well timed Inexperienced and S&D proposition for discount or particular restrictions on crop biofuels throughout instances of meals crises didn’t rally the required votes, exhibiting that almost all of MEPs sitting within the Parliament don’t care in regards to the residents they characterize and selected firms’ pursuits over meals affordability.

BirdLife Europe welcomes that the Parliament advocated considerably increased targets for renewable vitality than the EU Fee’s unique draft; specifically 45% by 2030 as a substitute of the unique 32%.

Within the forthcoming trilogue negotiations between the EU Council and Parliament, loopholes should be eliminated and the misguided assist for wooden burning and crop-based biofuels should be ended.

Ariel Brunner, Head of Coverage, BirdLife Europe: “The science is evident. Burning timber and crops for vitality destroys nature and exacerbates the local weather disaster. It shouldn’t be supported as a renewable vitality. Forests are our greatest weapon in opposition to local weather change. It’s disappointing that the Parliament right this moment agreed to a weak compromise that does little to guard them. MEPs and the EU governments will additional gas local weather change and biodiversity loss with such choices, rising the dangers of getting an unlivable atmosphere. Within the trialogue negotiations Parliament and Council should agree an finish to the assist for wooden burning and crop-based biofuels.”


Subscribe Us To Receive Our Latest News In Your Inbox!

We don’t spam! Read our privacy policy for more info.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here