This is a debate post. The text is at the writer’s expense. If you want to participate in the debate, you can send your contribution to the Nation here.
For fossil fuels, the producer country must emit emissions during production, while the end user is charged with the emissions during the actual incineration. This is logical, and eelmen practice everywhere. The sum hosts net emissions to the atmosphere.
In the EU’s quota regulations, emissions from biomass burning are calculated at zero. The large coal-fired power plant DRAX in England is no wart closest to “green”, as they now mainly use timber as an energy source. On paper, Denmark is well placed in CO2 cuts, for the same reason. CO2 emissions from transport, largely from Canada, are not included either.
If we then have to count the uptake of CO2 in forests as a minus, the accounts do not go up. Zero emissions when burning ÷ uptake in the forest = minus CO2 in the atmosphere. Debit and credit do not balance, as they should in a cycle.
By counting the uptake in forests (or in other biomass) to zero, there is a balance in the accounts, but this is illogical. Plants absorb CO2 as they grow, and burning biomass emits CO2 – in fact more kWh is produced even with fossil fuels. The right thing must therefore be to lead the forest uptake to a minus, and the burning to a plus. But the EU hardly sees a tent with this.
The fight against CO2 emissions (climate fight) has lost its global focus. Now it is country for country that owes. It is all the more important that the countries that have net forest growth are allowed to record this as negative emissions, while the consumer countries must include the emissions in their accounts. For Norway, this would mean a lot, while Denmark, the UK and others would not appear fully so “green”.
During large forest fires, a large amount of CO2 is often extracted, which is released, preferably scaled towards passenger car emissions. When the same forest burns in a power plant, he does not emit CO2 at all. Understand it whoever can.