Wood preservation (carbon sequestration) or wood burning (fossil-fuel substitution), which is better for mitigating climate change?

Abstract

& Context The effective ways of using wood production with a view to mitigating climate change are still disputed. Currently, there are two major opposing conceptions. One proposes to increase the carbon stock in forests, in wood products or in some kind of long-term wood storage, thus giving primacy to carbon sequestration. The other invokes the concept of biomass carbon neutrality to assert that the substitution of wood for fossil fuels avoids carbon emissions. & Aim and method This paper contributes to this debate by comparing carbon footprints of heat generation when choosing wood or other fuels as alternatives. & Result On condition that wood can be preserved with sufficient durability to meet the time frame of the necessary transition towards carbon-free energy resources (decadal to centennial time scales), one can demonstrate that the use of fossil fuels, with the exception of coal, is still preferable. The reasons are that the intrinsic carbon emission factor for wood has the highest value among all fuels in common use and that reference to the concept of wood carbon neutrality neglects the possibility of storing carbon positively in wood for a long time. & Conclusion The conclusion is that to mitigate climate change it is better to store wood than use it as a fuel.

Does replacing coal with wood lower CO 2 emissions? Dynamic lifecycle analysis of wood bioenergy

“…In response, governments around the world are promoting biomass to reduce their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The European Union declared biofuels to be carbon-neutral to help meet its goal of 20% renewable energy by 2020, triggering a surge in use of wood for heat and electricity (European Commission 2003, Leturcq 2014, Stupak et al 2007. The United Kingdom subsidizes wood pellets for electric power generation and has become the world's largest pellet importer (Thrän et al 2017).…”

Incorrect data sustain the claim of forest‐based bioenergy being more effective in climate change mitigation than forest conservation

“…Numerous studies have already questioned the mitigation effectiveness of this option (e.g. Agostini, Giuntoli, & Boulamanti, 2014; Booth, 2018; Hudiburg, Law, Wirth, & Luyssaert, 2011; Leturcq, 2014; Searchinger et al, 2018; Ter‐Mikaelian, Colombo, & Chen, 2015). Nevertheless, wood industries and several researchers still claim that timber harvesting is an effective contribution to a reduction of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.…”

Reducing the environmental footprint of interior wood doors in non-residential buildings – part 2: ecodesign

“…Therefore, by accounting for carbon intake from forest and the following storage in wood products, obtained results may be expected to vary from the presented work. In addition, wood products in landfills have a slow rate of decomposition and deposition in landfills is widely considered as a mean to enhance carbon storage assuming that landfill gases are recovered properly (Larson et al, 2012;Leturcq, 2014;Sathre and O'Connor, 2010;Skog, 2008). In the present study, the door disposal in a sanitary landfill was not treated as carbon storage.…”