Renewability revisited: on folly and swindle in peat energy politics

by Hans Joosten

Already in 1997 (IMCG Newsletter 3: 13 – 17) we discussed in depth the various sophisms used by the peat industry to classify peat as a renewable resource. In that analysis (“Peat and the art of energy tax evasion”), we concluded: “The arguments presented to classify peat as a biomass and a renewable resource are insinuative, inconsistent, and scientifically wrong. Deliberate use of such ‘pseudo-science’ to influence EU energy taxation policy is not a contribution to a factual discussion, but a cynical attempt to evade taxes.”

The rising levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are changing the climate. To avoid the negative effects of climate change we have to stabilise or reduce the greenhouse gas concentrations. Society is therefore more and more aiming at replacing fossil fuels with renewable alternatives. Whereas ten years ago leading members of the peat industry were still advocating the non-renewability of peat, the tides have now turned. The peat lobby is now trying to convince uncritical politicians that peat as a fuel is renewable and sustainable and “good for the climate”. The major instruments that are – opportunistically and with much success – applied in this process are unclear terms, false arguments, and doubtful assertions. Intent prevails over content. And therefore it is necessary to again pay attention to the ‘renewability’ of peat. Some fuel for thought and discussion…

Some recent developments

European Union

After seven years of discussions, the European Union directive 2003/96/EC has entered into force on the 1st of January 2004. This directive forms the legal base for energy taxation in the European Union.

Article 15 of the Directive allows Member States to apply exemptions or reductions in the level of taxation to electricity “generated from biomass or from products produced from biomass.” Various attempts have been made by the peat lobby to get the addition “such as peat” to this article (with the argument that peat is a “renewable biomass”), but it was not included in the final text. The EU wanted to restrict the concept of biomass to “the biodegradable fraction of products, waste and residues from agriculture, forestry and related industries, as well as the biodegradable fraction of industrial and municipal waste.” But the special status of peat got in in another way, in a pre-amble that states “In addition to the taxable products listed in paragraph 1, any other hydrocarbon, except for peat (italics HJ), intended for use, offered for sale or used for heating purposes shall be taxed at the rate for the equivalent energy product.”

Furthermore, the Directive allows zero or reduced levels of taxation, “where that will not be detrimental to the proper functioning of the internal market and will not result in distortions of competition,” for “energy products and electricity used for combined heat and power generation,” and for “electricity produced from combined heat and power generation, provided that the combined generators are environmentally friendly.” The latter concept may be applied according to national definitions “until the Council, on the basis of a report and a proposal from the Commission, unanimously adopts a common definition.” So the new Directive offers enough possibilities to assign a favourable tax category to peat.

Finland

In Finland peat is classified as a slowly renewable biomass fuel since the report “The Role of Peat in Finnish Greenhouse Gas Balances” (see IMCG Newsletter 2000/3) and the National Climate Strategy of 2001. Finland has taken the lead in international lobbying for this concept. Recently, for example, the country complained with the Statistics Division of the United Nations that peat extraction should not be treated as a part of mining, and that peat should be characterized as a “slowly renewable natural resource.”

(http://unstats.un.org/unsd/cr/ctryreg/ctrydetail.asp?id=221)

Sweden

Also the Swedish Peat Commission (2002) concluded that peat is a slowly renewable biomass fuel (see IMCG Newsletter 2003/1). On 3 April 2003, the Swedish Parliament passed a bill according to which electricity produced through wind power, solar power, geothermal energy, biofuels, and certain kind of hydropower shall be eligible for green certificates. Peat was included also in this group of environmentally friendly energy resources. One of the major arguments for this inclusion was that peat could otherwise not compete with coal in combined heat and power plants. Last November the European competition commissioner, Mario Monti, confirmed that the decision of the Swedish Parliament is compatible with the EU competition regulations and with the conditions for protection of the environment. As a result, on 1 April 2004 peat has been added to the Swedish electricity certificates system. The Swedish Peat Producers Society celebrates this as a victory. Now the peat industry is lobbying to more than double peat extraction volumes from the current levels of around 4 –5 million m³ a year to 11 –12 million m³ a year.

  Russia

In Russia, historically a major peat burner, the recent National Energy Strategy of the Russian Federation promotes the replacement of oil and gas by biomass fuel, and includes peat in its biomass concept. The Russian Ministry of Economy and Trade has recently applied for a grant of over 20 million US$ from the Global Environmental Facility (GEF) to fund its “Renewable Energy Program (RREP)” under the GEF focal area Climate Change (see also the contribution of Tatiana Minaeva in this Newsletter).

So on the one hand international conventions increasingly acknowledge the carbon storage and sequestration capacities of peatlands (Ramsar Convention November 2002, Convention on Biodiversity February 2004, see this Newsletter), whereas the burning of peatlands is propagated elsewhere. This global inconsistency asks for a thorough analysis of the arguments involved. A central issue is that the use of unclear defined terms frustrates a factual discussion and obscures factual decisions. We will attempt to lift the clouds by asking some questions and by providing some answers...

Is peat biomass?

That depends on how you define “biomass.” If you define biomass as mass originating from living organisms, peat is undoubtedly biomass. But so is coal, lignite, oil, and natural gas.

If you focus on “biodegradable” (as the EU does), peat is biomass, but so is lignite and oil. If you concentrate on “products, waste and residues from agriculture, forestry and related industries” (again EU) the question arises in what way and to what extent these industries (peat extraction?) have to be “related.”

In science, biomass is defined as the mass of living (bios = life) organisms or "living weight" (Odum 1971). In science, fuel peat is no biomass, as the peat comes from plants that died thousands of years ago.

The terms “biomass” and “biomass-fuel” as they are often used by the peat lobby are not given a clear content. The intent of using these terms is clear: it aims to separate peat from (other) fossil fuels and bring it closer to short rotation energy crops like straw and reeds.

Is peat a biological fuel, a biofuel?

Communication takes place by means of terms (words, names) that represent concepts (contents, objects, ideas, notions). In practice, you may connect any term to any concept as long as no confusion occurs. Using the term “biofuel” for the concept “peat” is non-advisable and confusing, because it is etymological nonsense. “Biological” means “pertaining to the science of life or to life and living things.” The prefix “bio-” means “associated with life.” Of course peat is “associated with life” as it stems from living organisms. But all carbon-based fuels are “associated with life” in that sense. Restricting the use of it to peat and not using it for other fossil carbon-based fuels is deceiving.

Is “biofuel” a sensible concept for peat with respect to climate change?

No, it is not. The terms biomass, biological fuel, or biofuel, as used in the meanings above, do not clearly identify the characteristics that are important from a climate point of view.

Then why are these terms used?

These terms are used to associate peat with living material (plants) and to disconnect it from lifeless rock (coal). This is done by

- people who are not well informed,

- people who misleadingly want to assign climatically favourable qualities of living plants to peat (see below).

Is peat renewable?

Yes: peat is renewable. Peat has been forming since at least 325 million years (and probably longer) and peat is still being formed at present.

Is peat slowly renewable?

That depends on to what you relate “slowly.” Compared to coal peat is a rapidly renewable fuel, compared to rape-oil peat is a slowly renewable fuel.

Are other fossil fuels renewable?

Yes, other fossil fuels are renewable. The fact that we find coals of all ages between 20 - 325 million years old, lignites of 0,1 - 50 million years old, and peats of 100 –120,000 (even 10 million) years old illustrates the renewability of fossil fuels. (The distinction between coals, lignites, and peat is mainly made on the basis of the Carbon content).

Lignite and coal deposits are still formed today, because the responsible geological conservation and transformation processes (tectonics and sedimentation) have been continuously operating in the same way in the past 1.3 billion years. Part of the present-day peat is at this moment changing into lignite and will in future change into new coal.

Even diamonds, the purest form of Carbon, of ages of 660 - 3,300 million years, are renewable. This is shown by their artificial creation under conditions of high temperature and pressure.

What is the time frame associated with “renewable”?

This depends on the type of fuel. The age of the fuel gives a good indication of the renewability time frames (see table 1). Straw has a rapid turn-over cycle as it can be burned in the same year as the plant has been growing. In contrast burning coal means releasing Carbon that has not been a part of the atmosphere and the biosphere for many millions of years. Peat burned for fuel is usually several thousands of years old.

Table 1: Age of different types of fuel. Within parentheses: maximum age.

Why are fossil fuels considered to be non-renewable?

Fossil fuels like coal and lignite are considered to be non-renewable because superficially looking people are not aware of the current coal and lignite forming processes in the Earth’s crust. More importantly, these fuels are called non-renewable because their renewability rate is so small (i.e. the time period required for their formation so long) that their renewability is irrelevant for society from an economic, cultural, and even biological point of view. Evolution shows that the average life span of a species (like Homo sapiens) is 3 million years, that of a genus 15 million years. The renewability of Coal with a rate of many millions of years therefore has no relevance for humankind.

The sense of renewability lies in the actual renewal and therefore renewable resources should not be exploited at a higher rate than their regeneration. The volumes of old coal currently being burned are many orders of magnitude larger than the volumes of new coal currently being formed. Such fuels must be assumed to be gone once we have spent them.

Is “renewable” a sensible concept with respect to climate change?

Yes it is. The greenhouse problem is caused by the mobilisation of long-term stored Carbon through the burning of fossil fuels and the destruction/reduction of the Earth’s biomass (forests). Renewable with respect to the greenhouse issue means the use of energy sources that continually replenish as quickly as they are extracted and used up (= short rotation).

But: The fact that a type of fuel is renewable does not mean it is actually renewed. Rainforest wood may be a renewable source of energy, but in reality, it is largely not renewed: tropical forests are progressively devastated and replaced by vegetation with a much smaller biomass store. If the fuel is not given opportunity to renew, the use of a “renewable” fuel contributes as much to the greenhouse effect as any non-renewable fuel.

What is the time frame associated with “renewable” with respect to climate change?

Renewable fuel resources require a continual recovery after consumption. In some cases, this may happen on a daily or even hourly basis (solar, wind, and tidal energy). Straw is renewed after one year, willow coppice after some years, wood after some tens of years.

Peat has been classified as a “slowly renewable biofuel” (see above) because its renewal rate is much slower than that of living plants (but much higher than that of other fossil fuels, table 1). The turnover times of fuel peat, however, are so much longer than the timeframe of our modern civilisation that the renewability of peat is irrelevant for society.

Table 2: Some characteristics of different fuel types (from Finnish LCP WG, 2000).

Burning peat leads to emissions of greenhouse gases (per unit energy even more than by burning coals, oil or gas, see table 2). One cannot seriously argue that these greenhouse gases will be stored again after the peatland has been exploited and new peat accumulation starts. The volumes of carbon dioxide emitted by burning thick layers of peat cannot be compensated for by newly restored mires within any relevant time frame because peat formation and accumulation are very slow processes. The biomass and litter of a forest established on a cutover peatland also can only compensate for the peat carbon losses of peat extraction to a minor extent.

Peat is therefore not renewable on the spot. Peat extractors are well aware of that because they move, like hunter-gatherers, to other sites when the current sites are exhausted. Indeed many a peat extractor has “restored” cutover peatlands for a variety of reasons, but these reasons do not include future peat extraction for his or his successor’s company. No fuel peat extractor in the world has therefore taken own responsibility for the renewability he preaches. Apparently, the renewability of fuel peat on the spot is no viable option, neither for individual enterprises, nor for society.

That is the reason that the peat industry claims the “gains” from still growing peatlands elsewhere to “balance” the losses of peat on their extraction sites.

May peat extracted here be balanced with peat that is being formed elsewhere?

The most common argument used to defend peat fuel is that less peat is extracted than is annually accumulating. This argument is false for a whole range of reasons:

-                                  In almost all individual countries of Europe, in the whole of Europe, and over the whole Earth the peat balance is negative, i.e. more peat is disappearing than is being formed. Next to the actual extraction of peat, enormous peat losses occur in agricultural, forested, and cutover peatlands. The peat lobby likes to claim what is not theirs: they often balance all of the gain (all peat accumulation in a country or a region) with only part of the losses (only from their peat extraction). That claim is unfair: Why should peat accumulation only compensate for losses caused by peat combustion and not for losses from collateral damage of peat extraction as well (drained neighbouring sites), from peatland agriculture, from peatland forestry, and from non-peat associated carbon emissions (traffic, industry etc.)?

-                                  Much peat accumulating “elsewhere” is not available for exploitation, because of technical or conservational reasons. Peat that is not available is no “resource” and may – with respect to the sustainability of the fuel - not be used for balancing losses through peat combustion.

-                                  Even if the peat volume on Earth would still be increasing (in fact it is decreasing), even then peat extraction would not be sustainable. For peat extraction and combustion is not only destroying peat but also the peat accumulating ecosystems. If I start to slowly extract peat from a large virgin bog, it may take a long time before my annual peat extraction volume exceeds the annual accumulation of peat in that bog. But unless peat is actively regenerating on the cutover sites, this “sustainable” peat extraction will come to an end. If you are gradually destroying the bakery, it has no use talking about sustainability, even if at the start still more cookies are produced than consumed. And that is the current situation on Earth. The area of cutover bogs (and other degraded peatlands) that has successfully been restored to new long-term peat accumulating ecosystems is still negligible and stands in no proportion to the area degraded by peat extraction. “Renewability” is nice, but for sustainability peat accumulation in cut-over sites really has to be renewed.

-                                  The peatlands “elsewhere” whose CO₂ sequestration is claimed for balancing CO₂ emissions from peat combustion were already part of the greenhouse balance long before the anthropogenic rise of atmospheric CO₂-levels. They were and are still part of the natural sink system that compensates natural sources.

-                                  Peat extraction and combustion creates an extra source of greenhouse gases. To be greenhouse neutral additional sources require additional sinks. Peat extraction is mobilising new carbon sources without creating such new sinks. In this respect, burning peat does not differ from burning coal.

-                                  From a climatic point of view, there is more to mires than carbon sequestration. Mires also emit methane (CH₄). Local CO₂ sequestration of virgin mires largely compensates for these local methane emissions, i.e. virgin peatlands are climatically neutral. As such, the carbon sequestration side of the equation is already expended to balance the methane emissions of the mire itself. Claiming it to compensate CO₂ emission caused by peat combustion elsewhere is a clear form of intolerable double counting.

Is peat a climatically friendly fuel?

No. Peat combustion leads to a net emission of greenhouse gases. As these emissions are not balanced by additional sinks associated with the peatland itself nor by other peatlands, burning peat is similar to burning coal.

Conclusions

From a climate point of view the effects of burning peat are similar to those of burning other “fossil” fuels. The arguments of the peat lobby for the opposite are evidently wrong. Even when peat is “slowly renewable” and even when you call it a biomass, it does not change the fact that peat combustion simply is not a climate neutral activity, whatever sensible temporal or spatial scale of observation you may choose.

There may be honest reasons to locally – and with due observation of the many other values of peatlands – subsidise the use of peat for fuel, including domestic production or local employment. But “climate change” clearly does not belong to these honest reasons.

For peat combustion lobbyists, intent (stimulating peat sales) prevails over content (finding and telling the truth). The obscurity of their arguments and their selective use of the facts may be understandable, but from a societal point of view, it is irresponsible.

Subsidizing peat for fuel for climatic purposes may be nice for the peat industry, for society it is neither smart nor wise.