Incorrect data sustain the claim of forest-based bioenergy
being more effective in climate change mitigation than forest
In our letter to the editor of GCB Bioenergy we show, that burning of fresh stemwood that both increases the atmospheric greenhouse gas concentration and reduces functional natural carbon stocks as well as sinks is not reasonable.
The urgent need for effective solutions to climate change accelerates and upscales the debate on the ongoing role of forest ecosystems and the impact of forest-based bioenergy on carbon sequestration. Numerous studies have already questioned the mitigation effectiveness of this option. Nevertheless, wood industries and several researchers still claim that timber harvesting is an effective contribution to a reduction of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The recent Opinion piece by Schulze et al. (2020) represents another case, which has been criticized by Kun et al. (2020) for using an incorrect metric
and by Booth, Mackey, and Young (2020) for being underpinned by invalid assumptions. Additionally, it is necessary to add that Schulze et al. (2020) base their findings on major errors in data use and calculations.
Read more in our letter to the editor (on the right).
Torsten Welle, Pierre L. Ibisch, Jeanette S. Blumroeder, Yvonne E.-M. B. Bohr, Loretta Leinen, Tobias Wohlleben, Knut Sturm
Incorrect data sustain the claim of forest-based bioenergy being more effective in climate change mitigation than forest conservation
GCB Bioenergy. 2020;00:1–2. ,DOI: 10.1111/gcbb.12738