Biofuel Watch

Biofuelwatch briefing about the impacts of irish government support for Hydrotreated Vegetable Oil

Tarbert Power Plant (currently burning Heavy Fuel Oil), Photo: Charles W. Glynn

Click here to download the full report

Summary:

Despite well-established fraud and sustainability concerns, the Irish government is pushing ahead with supporting HVO bioliquids as part of the solution for the country’s grid and heating. This is a retrograde step that harms the climate, rainforests and communities in Southeast Asia,, all while costing taxpayers money.

 

World’s largest biomass certifier allows forest destruction and rising emissions under the guise of clean energy PRESS RELEASE

July 31, 2025 (SEOUL, TOKYO, LONDON) – A new international report released today warns that forests worldwide are being cut down and burned for energy, and falsely labeled as “sustainable.” The Sustainable Biomass Program (SBP), the world’s most prominent certifier of biomass, is approving wood linked to forest destruction as climate-friendly fuel, despite science showing it emits more carbon than coal.

Power companies worldwide burn wood pellets for energy, while governments funnel billions in subsidies based on the false claim that forest biomass is low-carbon and sustainable. Nearly 100% of wood burned at the UK’s Drax Power Station, the world’s largest biomass plant, is SBP-certified, despite documented environmental impacts in the United States and Canada.

The report, “Sustainable Biomass Program: Certifying the Unsustainable”, uncovers that SBP enables destructive logging, greenwashes high-carbon biomass — all while helping energy companies claim they are going green. Over 85% of industrial wood pellets used in Europe are SBP-certified.

Authored by forest policy expert Richard Robertson and reviewed by Dr. Peter Wood, forestry faculty and lecturer at the University of British Columbia, the report reveals that the SBP routinely fails to protect nature, climate, and communities.

The report was jointly published by environmental organizations in the UK, Japan, and South Korea — the top three importers of biomass wood pellets — and comes amid growing criticism of each country’s continued support for forest biomass. The governments have begun rolling back support: the UK has halved subsidies for Drax Power Station, Japan has ended support for new large-scale biomass projects, and Korea is phasing out key incentives. Yet forest biomass remains heavily subsidized and central to national strategies, diverting public finance away from truly clean renewables like wind and solar.

A case study from British Columbia and Alberta, Canada, illustrates how these flaws result in the logging of primary and old-growth forests, with the wood later certified as “sustainable” under SBP.

The report outlines the following core failures:

• No forest audits: SBP certifies wood pellet mills without site visits, relying on paperwork and using weak risk-based forest certifications (e.g., FSC/PEFC Controlled Wood) intended to avoid the worst forest practices, not to assess forest sustainability.

• Carbon blind: SBP ignores smokestack emissions, allowing companies to offset immediate forest carbon losses with long-term recovery that may take decades.

• Old-growth logging approved: SBP accepts wood from logged-over primary and old-growth forests, despite habitat degradation and high carbon impact.

• No consent: SBP undermines the rights of Indigenous communities to say no to logging their forests.

Environmental groups behind the report are calling on governments to: 

• End subsidies for forest biomass and exclude it from renewable energy and green finance frameworks.

• Prohibit sourcing from primary forests and Intact Forest Landscapes.

• Treat biomass combustion emissions as identical to fossil fuel emissions in national and EU energy and carbon pricing policies.

• Mandate due diligence on environmental and human rights impacts across all timber trade.

QUOTES

Richard Robertson, forest certification and governance expert (Canada):

“Our analysis shows that SBP certification fails even its own low bar for sustainability. Policymakers must stop using it to justify burning forest as a climate solution. It’s time for governments to move beyond weak certification schemes like SBP and promote forests as vital protectors of climate and biodiversity, not as fuel sources. The EU and UK and now Japan and South Korea must stop relying on SBP as a proxy for forest sustainability and drop biomass from renewable energy policy in line with their global climate and biodiversity commitments.”

Almuth Ernsting, Researcher and Campaigner at Biofuelwatch (UK):

“SBP serves no practical purpose other than to greenwash a highly destructive industry. It allows pellet and energy companies to claim they are ‘sustainable’ even if they source wood from the clearcutting of old growth and primary forests in Western Canada, from timber concessions in Malaysia that are linked to rainforest clearance and peat drainage, or from coastal hardwood forests in the Southeastern USA that form a vital part of a global biodiversity hotspot.”

Sayoko Iinuma, Researcher at the Global Environmental Forum (Japan):

“The Japanese government’s fuel standards for biomass power generation recognize SBP as proof of sustainability, allowing power plants that burn these wood pellets to receive public subsidies. However, this report shows that SBP permits the mixing of uncertified wood, the use of raw materials from primary forests, and ignores the urgent emissions reductions needed to meet the Paris Agreement targets. Despite clear evidence that biomass energy increases greenhouse gas emissions and degrades forest biodiversity, SBP merely paints it as ‘sustainable.’ We hope this report contributes to reducing public support for high-carbon, low-efficiency biomass power.”

Hansae Song, Forests & Land Use Lead at Solutions for Our Climate (South Korea):

“For over two decades, wealthy nations have poured renewable energy subsidies into the false solution of forest biomass, burning the world’s last remaining forests at the exact moment we need them most. Relying on biomass leads to degraded forests, delayed energy transitions, and rising emissions. Asia’s emerging economies must not repeat these mistakes. This report makes clear: there is no such thing as ‘sustainable biomass’ at scale. Governments must resist industry attempts to hijack climate policy and show real progress heading into this year’s global climate negotiations.”

Matt Williams, Senior Forest Advocate at Natural Resources Defense Council (global):

“SBP — a scheme set up by the biomass industry itself — has never been anything more than bioenergy companies marking their own homework. In the UK we know that burning trees in power stations isn’t good for the planet — just look at Drax in Yorkshire, the world’s largest biomass power plant. Burning the world’s forests can never be sustainable, no matter what labels it has: cutting down the Earth’s lungs stops them absorbing carbon and makes climate change worse. Calling forest biomass sustainable is climate racketeering worth billions.”

Roger Smith, Japan Director at Mighty Earth (global):

“Indigenous Peoples are the best protectors of the forests we all rely on as carbon sinks to help cool our rapidly warming world, and yet SBP largely ignores the rights of those communities to say no to logging on their lands. SBP also overlooks the impact of wood pellet production on impoverished black communities in the US Southeast who suffer serious health problems from air pollution from the pellet plants. SBP’s inadequate approach is failing people, destroying forests and propping up a biomass industry that is not carbon neutral, it’s a carbon nightmare.”

Peg Putt, Coordinator at Biomass Action Network, EPN International (global):

“The fig leaf that SBP certification represents can no longer protect big biomass from exposure. Governments and energy retailers must recognise and act upon the fact that concerns about climate impacts, destruction of natural treasures, and failure to uphold human rights throughout the supply chain of wood fueled energy are real and not conveniently dispensed with by this dodgy certification as they have been keen to believe.”

What is “biomass”?

Biomass energy refers to burning organic materials such as wood to generate electricity or heat. While promoted as renewable, scientists warn that burning trees releases more carbon dioxide (CO₂) than coal per unit of energy produced — and destroys forests that would otherwise absorb CO₂ from the atmosphere. Biomass is now undermining global climate and biodiversity goals — just as countries prepare new climate pledges ahead of COP30.

ENDS. 

Solutions for Our Climate (SFOC) is an independent nonprofit organization that works to accelerate global greenhouse gas emissions reduction and energy transition. SFOC leverages research, litigation, community organizing, and strategic communications to deliver practical climate solutions and build movements for change.

For media inquiries, please reach out to Yi Hyun Kim, Communications Officer, yihyun.kim@forourclimate.org.

Joint report by Solutions for Our Climate, Global Environmental Forum, Mighty Earth, Biofuelwatch, and Biomass Action Network of the Environmental Paper Network Click here to download the report Executive Summary

Faced with pressure to meet climate commitments and reduce reliance on fossil fuels, many countries have turned to forest biomass as an alternative source of heat and electricity. Biomass now constitutes a significant portion of the energy mix in the European Union, United Kingdom, Japan, and South Korea.  However, burning wood for energy accelerates the destruction of the world’s biodiverse and carbon-rich forests, which are already under severe pressure. Decades of research in climate and forest sciences have made it clear that large-scale biomass use exacerbates the twin crises of climate change and biodiversity loss.

In response to mounting criticism, governments have sought evidence that biomass they support is ‘sustainable’ and contributes to lowering greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The biomass industry responded by creating the Sustainable Biomass Program (SBP) to assure that wood pellets and chips used for energy are sourced sustainably. However, SBP is a private certification scheme developed by the very industry it purports to regulate. It is backed by powerful market incentives in the form of government subsidies, not to restrain the industry, but to promote it. Evidence shows that this structural conflict of interest has resulted in weakened standards and superficial compliance mechanisms that encourage practices far removed from true sustainability.

Sustainable Biomass Program: Certifying the Unsustainable investigates the claims made by SBP through a review of its standards, policies, and procedures. This report finds that  SBP’s portrayal of biomass as a climate-friendly alternative to fossil fuels is misleading on several grounds:

• SBP certifies pellet mills and traders without field audits of forest management practices or direct engagement with logging companies. Unlike other forest certifications, SBP relies on desk-based Risk Assessments and broad screening tools that detect only illegal or grossly unacceptable sources, not genuine sustainability.
• SBP misrepresents the credibility of other certification systems. It treats FSC “Controlled Wood” and PEFC “Controlled Sources” as if they were fully certified sources. In reality, these categories undergo only minimal risk assessment. SBP uses this lower-tier wood to label entire biomass supply chains, including wood from uncertified forests, as sustainable, effectively lowering the bar for what counts as ‘sustainable forest management’ (SFM).
• SBP’s climate impact claims rely on flawed carbon accounting. The scheme assumes that emissions from burning wood are offset by forest regrowth over decades, ignoring the urgent emissions reductions required by 2030 to meet the Paris Agreement. SBP permits sourcing from areas with net carbon losses and uses national averages instead of site-level data, allowing companies to offset
  carbon-rich forest losses with regrowth in less carbon-dense areas.
• SBP fails to mitigate smokestack emissions from burning biomass, deferring this responsibility to energy regulators. By ignoring the fact that biomass emits more CO₂ per unit of energy than fossil fuels, SBP enables operators to claim carbon neutrality’. Current accounting methods fail to trace these emissions back to the land use sector, and the energy sector avoids bearing the cost of climate mitigation associated with biomass use.
• SBP treats ‘forest residues’ as low-risk by default, certifying them even when they originate from primary forests. The framework allows producers to categorize whole logs as residues or byproducts without meaningful oversight, masking the environmental damage of such sourcing.
• SBP inadequately addresses Indigenous peoples’ rights. While it acknowledges the need for consultation, SBP still allows certification to proceed even when free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) has not been obtained, sidestepping the rights of Indigenous communities.

SBP accepts wood from all sources and certifies it as ‘sustainable’

SBP allows whole logs to be used as biomass fuels

Benefiting from these systemic flaws, SBP offers a convenient mechanism for regulators and utilities to fulfill reporting requirements. Biomass producers can claim sustainability even when sourcing wood from uncertified forests, so long as it appears low-risk on paper. Neither the degradation of forests nor the emissions from burning biomass are properly accounted for, thus creating an accountability gap where no
one assumes responsibility for the climate impacts. The case of British Columbia and Alberta, Canada— explored in Part 2 of this report—demonstrates how these systemic failures unfold on the ground.

Despite its name, SBP does not ensure sustainable sourcing of biomass fuels. It endorses industry practices that fall short of other sustainability certification systems and international SFM norms, while contributing to the perception among policymakers, investors, and the public that forest biomass is a renewable energy source. The reality is that the world is already extracting far too much from standing forests. Any additional pressure from exploitative bioeconomy schemes risks derailing global climate and biodiversity goals.

Burning our last remaining forests is not a climate solution, it is a dangerous distraction that narrows the path to a safer future. SBP, in turn, is not fit for purpose.

Für eine zukunftsfähige und langfristig bezahlbare Wärmeversorgung in Stade –
Wärmeplanung ohne Altholzkraftwerk beschliessen! Offener Brief von NABU, ROBIN WOOD und Biofuelwatch

Bitte hier klicken um den Brief zu lesen

 

Bundesfördermittel für Stader Wärmewende in Gefahr / Umweltorganisationen fordern in offenem Brief an Stadtverordnete eine Wärmeplanung ohne Altholzkraftwerk Gemeinsame Pressemitteilung von ROBIN WOOD, Biofuelwatch und NABU

17. Juli 2025 –

Die Umweltorganisationen ROBIN WOOD, NABU und Biofuelwatch haben heute in einem offenen Brief an die Stadt Stade appelliert, in ihrer Wärmeplanung auf das geplante Altholzheizkraftwerk der Hansekraft in Bützfleth zu verzichten und stattdessen in eine zukunftsfähige und langfristig bezahlbare Wärmeversorgung in Stade zu investieren.

Die Stadt Stade hat zwar bereits im März ihre Kommunale Wärmeplanung beschlossen. Bisher beinhaltet der Plan jedoch zwei mögliche Szenarien für die zukünftige Wärmeversorgung der Stadt: eines mit, das andere ohne das geplante größte Altholz- und sogar dem größten Holzkraftwerk in Deutschland. Die Unterzeichner*innen des Briefes warnen nun davor, dass die Holzverbrennung und der Neubau des Kraftwerks nicht nur klimaschädlich seien, sondern auch zu einer Explosion der Wärmekosten für die Anwohner*innen führen könnten, da Bundesfördermittel nicht genutzt werden könnten. Die Stadt sollte daher auf Fernwärme aus dem Kraftwerk – unabhängig von dessen Genehmigung und Bau – verzichten.

Aus einer Anfrage des NABU an das Bundesamt, das für die Fördermittelvergabe für Wärmenetze verantwortlich ist, geht hervor, dass die Stadt Stade bisher einem Irrtum aufgesessen ist: Ein hoher Anteil von Wärme aus dem Verbrennen von Altholz ist demnach nicht mit der „Bundesförderung für effiziente Wärmenetze” (BEW), auf die auch die Stadt Stade setzt, zu vereinbaren. Im Brief heißt es:

„So können Fördermittel für die Machbarkeitsstudie sowie auch die Betriebskostenförderung für Geothermie und Großwärmepumpen nur abgerufen werden, wenn der Anteil von Biomasse im Zielnetz unter 15 Prozent liegt. Zwischenzeitlich darf er die 25 Prozent (bei Netzen über 50 km Länge) nicht überschreiten. Entgegen den Aussagen der Stadt Stade zahlen alle Altholzsortimente auf diesen Anteil ein, auch A IV-Altholz, wie uns die Bafa bestätigte.“

Laut einer Antwort an die örtliche Bürgerinitiative ging die Stadt bislang davon aus, dass Wärme aus der Verbrennung von Altholz der Kategorie A IV nicht in die Biomassegrenze der BEW-Förderung eingerechnet würde und implizierte sogar, dass man die Grenze durch die Verschmischung der Altholzkategorien umgehen könne. A IV-Sortimente umfassen mit Holzschutzmitteln behandeltes Altholz und Altholz, das aufgrund seiner Schadstoffbelastung nicht den anderen Kategorien der Altholz-Verordnung zugeordnet werden kann.

Das eigentliche Ziel der Wärmeplanung, nämlich die Dekarbonisierung der Wärme, würde außerdem mit einem Holzkraftwerk nur auf dem Papier erreicht, da bei der Holzverbrennung real mindestens genauso viel CO2 freigesetzt wird, als wenn Kohle verbrannt würde. Im offenen Brief heißt es hierzu:

 „Der Wechsel von einem kohlenstoffhaltigen Energieträger zu einem anderen kann nicht als Fortschritt gewertet werden. Heutzutage stehen klimafreundliche und saubere Technologien zur Verfügung, darunter Solarthermie, Großwärmepumpen, Geothermie und Power-to-Heat mit überschüssigem Windstrom.“ 

Zusätzlich zu den gravierenden finanziellen Risiken sei auch die Versorgungssicherheit nicht garantiert. So seien Holzkraftwerke anfällig für Störfälle wie Brände und es sei außerdem mit einer erhöhten Emissionsbelastung im näheren Umfeld zu rechnen, wie im offenen Brief dargelegt wird:

„Die räumliche Nähe von Chemietanks, die unter der Störfallverordnung unter die höchste Risikokategorie fallen, und Holzlagern und -verbrennungsanlagen klingt in Anbetracht der vielen Feuer im Zusammenhang mit Holzkraftwerken besorgniserregend. Auch die Lärmbelastung und Luftverschmutzung im laufenden Betrieb werden zunehmen, was auch die örtliche Bürgerinitiative stark bewegt.“

Der offene Brief endet mit einem Appell an die Stadt, sich gegen das Altholzkraftwerk auszusprechen und eine kommunale Wärmeplanung ohne klimaschädliche Holzverbrennung zu beschließen.

Offener Brief der NGOs an Ratsmitglieder der Hansestadt Stade v. 17.07.2025

Mehr Informationen zu dem geplanten Altholzkraftwerk in Stade-Bützfleth sind in diesem Infopapier von NABU, DUH, Biofuelwatch und ROBIN WOOD zu finden (Stand: Nov. 2024).