Chatham house published a report in February of 2017, which stirred a controversy among researchers, policy makers and practitioners within the wood fuel – biomass sector of the ‘renewable energy’ industry. It highlighted the different arguments on the debate about production of electricity and heat from wood, using non-traditional, modern technologies. One side of the debate argues that the use of wood fuel for generation of electricity and heat is relatively cheap and flexible, compared to other renewable energy sources which help to contribute significantly to global climate change. The other side of the debate argues that an increased use of wood fuel for generation of electricity and heat especially at industrial scale, for commercial purposes, releases more greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere than the fossil fuels that the wood fuels replace. There have been extensive arguments on either side of the debate, however. Chatham house concluded that wood – biomass for energy purposes cannot be automatically carbon-neutral under all circumstances. The reality is that wood fuel biomass generally emits higher levels of carbon dioxide and methane than fossil fuels during its combustion, and from its supply chain of harvesting, collecting, processing and transportation.
While not trying to go into the technicalities of the arguments, the simple point that the Chatham House report was making was that the rate at which forest resources are exploited for energy purposes cannot account for carbon neutrality even with afforestation programmes to replace the forest resources that are so exploited. To my mind, what is most obvious is the disregard for the principles and pillars of sustainability by that section of the debate that argues that it is okay to burn wood at any scale for electricity and heat production; and that this is carbon neutral and helps in achieving reduced carbon emissions. It is quite a skewed way of looking at solutions and justifying unsustainable practices and processes that continuously disrupt the ecosystem and biodiversity. It is interesting to note that while cities such as London, New York, and countries such as China, India, Pakistan, Kenya and Nigeria have embarked on very ambitious tree planting programmes to replenish lost forests and grow new ones which will help keep cities healthy, ecosystems rich, and provide needed carbon sinks for our earth, other actors are interested in the cutting of trees elsewhere for electricity and heat production. Sometimes a section of the argument blames the land use system – agricultural and development processes for the activities that provide some of the wood for use wood to the electricity sector. While this may be true, unregulated use of wood biomass for commercial electricity generation at industrial scale would create an increase in demand for technologies and wood resources which will also lead to indirect and direct pressure on forest resources. It is not surprising that there is still a lot of appetite for forestry exploitation and lack of responsibility to do the right thing to protect our environment. Rather, blame techniques and solutions that lead to social injustice are employed.
READ ALSO: ExxonMobil plans to Layoff 1,600 staff
The politics of management of wood biomass especially in sub Saharan Africa and other developing countries took an interesting turn in 1974 during the global fuel crisis. A World Bank and Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) report of the United Nations concluded that the poor populations that were using wood fuel for domestic purposes were responsible for dwindling forest resources in sub-Saharan Africa. Meanwhile, the industrial use of the same wood fuel for drying tea, tobacco, brick making, bread and charcoal making was not considered to have equal or even more responsibility for the over-exploitation of forest resources. The use of land for agriculture and other development activities was equally not to blame, rather it was the weak, poor and vulnerable of the society that were blameworthy. This led to measures that reduced demand for wood resources for use in domestic purposes, but not for industrial purposes. It therefore encouraged advancements in technologies used for industrial burning of wood biomass for commercial purposes as renewable energy, without adequate regard to sustainability. Unless the primary definition and understanding of renewable energy resources are resources that can be replenished continuously through natural processes, which in reality, is how renewable energy is defined and perceived by most of the actors in the sector. Holistically, renewable energy resources should also be perceived from sustainability perspectives of social, economic, environmental, cultural, political and technological concerns that border on where the energy resource is generated, where it is utilized, its impact on the supply and demand spaces, and its global impact. This should be a fine holistic balance/equilibrium that must be reached.
For instance, hydro power is highly regarded as a renewable energy resource, however, at closer examination of its trade-offs and impacts, it is clear that it usually creates significant environmental and sociocultural challenges. Hydro power normally leads to destruction of important biodiversity and ecosystems, social injustices – abuse/denial of the ancestral rights of local communities, especially if policy makers and project developers are not sustainability orientated and driven. Equally, the increasing interest in the use of agricultural food crops to produce biofuel is a thing of concern, especially when millions of people go hungry and there are concerns about a future food crisis. The production processes for these biofuels are highly energy intensive, and contribute significantly to carbon emissions and entrenchment of certain unjust and unfair sociocultural, economic practices including land ownership and management practices that are not sustainability oriented and do not lead to sustainable development.
The point being made is that the renewability of an energy resource is not the only attribute or factor that policy makers and practitioners should consider in formulating policies, plans, rules and regulations that govern the utilization of certain energy resources especially wood biomass, water, agricultural and food crops to produce energy services – electricity and heat. Proper guidance should be put in place to ensure that utilization of energy resources that can be replenished naturally also meet important environmental, social, economic, technological, political and cultural sustainability standards. Use of resources, especially energy resources, must strive to lead to sustainable development as much as possible.
Okafor Akachukwu
Akachukwu is a Mandela Washington Fellow (Public Management, University of Maine) and a Science Policy Research Unit (SPRU), University of Sussex trained Energy Policy, Innovation and Sustainability Expert. Email: akachukwu_okafor@yahoo.com
