just 15 months after our first delegation to Europe, our second trip across the pond proves that our message got through. Today, decision makers are clear that the use of our forests for fuel is an area of big concern. We no longer need to debate whether it is just waste wood or residuals; they all understand that the wood pellet industry and utilities are using whole trees.
Flawed European policies meant to reduce carbon emissions and fight climate change have large utilities rapidly shifting from coal to wood at the expense of wildlife habitat and the impacts are being deeply felt by vital bird populations. Loss of mature hardwood forests is having a significant impact on bird populations that depend on these forests for breeding and survival. Many species hurt by this growing industry are already the focus of conservation initiatives to protect their declining numbers.
So, how is it that utility companies in Europe can get away with claiming offsets without having to verify and validate those claims? Why are they not held to the same globally-recognized set of standards as everyone else? Why do they get to take credit today for an offset that is not likely to accrue for decades into the future, if it even happens at all? Where is the legally-binding agreement to keep the carbon stored in the forest for 100+ years? And, perhaps most disturbing of all, how are the utility companies taking credit for (and reaping the value of) the carbon stored in someone else’s forests without paying the forest owners? This double standard is beyond troublesome.
