Abstract: Biomass energy is expected to play a major role in the substitution of renewable energy sources for fossil fuels over the next several decades. The US Energy Information Administration (EIA 2012) forecasts increases in the share of biomass in US energy production from 8 percent in 2009 to 15 percent by 2035. The general view has been that carbon emitted into the atmosphere from biological materials is carbon neutral—part of a closed loop whereby plant regrowth simply recaptures the carbon emissions associated with the energy produced. Recently this view has been challenged, and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is considering regulations to be applied to biomass energy carbon emissions. A basic approach for analyses of environmental impacts has been the use of life cycle assessment (LCA), a methodology for assessing and measuring the environmental impact of a product over its lifetime—from raw material extraction through materials processing, manufacture, distribution, use, repair and maintenance, and disposal or recycling. However, LCA approaches vary, and the results of alternative methodologies often differ (Helin et al. 2012). This study investigates and compares the implications of these alternative approaches for emissions from wood biomass energy, the carbon footprint, and also highlights the differences in LCA environmental impacts.

Abstract: Biomass, a renewable energy source, has been viewed as “carbon neutral”—that is, its use as energy is presumed not to release net carbon dioxide. However, this assumption of carbon neutrality has recently been challenged. In 2010 two letters were sent to the Congress by eminent scientists examining the merits—or demerits—of biomass for climate change mitigation. The first, from about 90 scientists (to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, from W.H. Schlesinger et al. May 17, 2010), questioned the treatment of all biomass energy as carbon neutral, arguing that it could undermine legislative emissions reduction goals. The second letter, submitted by more than 100 forest scientists (to Barbara Boxer et al. from Bruce Lippke et al. July 20, 2010), expressed concern over equating biogenic carbon emissions with fossil fuel emissions, as is contemplated in the Environmental Protection Agency’s Tailoring Rule. It argued that an approach focused on smokestack emissions, independent of the feedstocks, would encourage further fossil fuel energy production, to the long-term detriment of the atmosphere. This paper attempts to clarify and, to the extent possible, resolve these differences.

Abstract: The Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) of the Department of Agriculture has proposed regulations to implement the new Biomass Crop Assistance Program (BCAP). Authorized in the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, BCAP is designed to ensure that a sufficiently large base of new nonfood, nonfeed biomass crops is established in anticipation of future demand for renewable energyconsumption. BCAP “is intended to assist agricultural and forest land owners and operators with the establishment and production of eligible crops including wood biomass in selected project areas forconversion to bioenergy, and the collection, harvest, storage, and transportation of eligible material for use in a biomass conversion facility” (U.S. Department of Agriculture 2010, 6266). The program isproposed for a limited period of time. This paper examines some of BCAP’s implications for wood flows and for the various components of the forest industry, particularly wood growers and mill operators.

Abstract: This paper is based on a World Bank–sponsored effort to develop a global estimate of adaptation costs, considering the implications of global climate change for industrial forestry. It focuses on theanticipated impacts of climate change on forests broadly, on industrial wood production in particular, and on Brazil, South Africa, and China. The aim is to identify likely damages and possible mitigating investments or activities. The study draws from the existing literature and the results of earlier investigations reporting the latest comprehensive projections in the literature. The results provide perspective as well as estimates and projections of the impacts of climate change on forests and forestry in various regions and countries. Because climate change will increase forest productivity in some areas while decreasing it elsewhere the impacts vary for positive to negative by region. In general, productionincreases will shift from low-latitude regions in the short term to high latitude regions in the long term. Planted forests will offer a major vehicle for adaptation.