the bioenergy blind spot

15-Jul-25

Bioenergy looks clean on paper, yet most models treat it as instantly carbon neutral. That shortcut hides the time lag in forest carbon cycles. The result is a carbon debt that piles up long before any benefit appears. A recent Québec analysis shows the mistake can derail net‑zero plans for 2050.

Model builders miss other signals because bioenergy emissions sit in the land‑use ledger while energy emissions sit elsewhere. The split invites double counting or, just as likely, no counting at all, and it leaves scenario work with a large blind spot.

Assumptions about biomass supply add another error. Many studies freeze supply in place and ignore changes in forest practice, market swings, or climate shocks. They then misjudge how much feedstock is truly available, which feeds into weak investment and policy calls.

Data quality drags the issue further. Land‑use statistics are coarse, supply‑chain numbers are thin, and the combination undermines confidence in every conclusion.

What to do next is straightforward: (1) merge land‑use and energy accounting so carbon flows match from forest to furnace, (2) fix biomass inputs by standardising terms, using supply curves that move with price, and adding energy‑content ranges for each feedstock, (3) stop granting biomass instant neutrality and track the payback period for each source, (4) break the reporting silos and collect land‑use data at finer scale.

Current models oversimplify reality and can mislead climate strategy. Invest in integrated modelling, share data across sectors, and drop the idea that biomass is carbon free by default. Better models will lead to better climate outcomes.