Dear reader,
the crackling of a fireplace is romantic, close to nature and, above all, very cozy for most people.
Who doesn't like to sit in front of the warming flames, stare deep into the fire and talk to their loved ones about God and the world?
Working with wood in the evening connects us with our ancestors, awakens archaic feelings and pretends that we are in touch with nature.
Currently, however, heating with wood is also on the rise for other reasons: Fearing exploding gas prices, consumers stock up on wood-burning stoves and fireplaces.
As early as July, a spokesman for the Central Association for Sanitary, Heating and Air Conditioning said: “Demand exploded when the war broke out”.
Furnace builders and installers could hardly save themselves from orders from concerned customers who want to install an additional heating option in their house or apartment.
There could be a waiting time of up to a year.
Firewood is also becoming scarce.
The wood boom also goes beyond private consumption.
Power plants are now also being fed with wood and are being praised as a climate-friendly alternative to coal, such as the British Drax power plant, which already uses biomass.
In 2020 alone, Drax burned 7.37 million tons of wood pellets.
Biomass power plants, such as those in Berlin-Neukölln, swallow large quantities of fresh and waste wood.
Wood - so the assumption - is climate-friendly per se and a welcome alternative to fossil resources.
Because the carbon stored in the wood turns back into CO2 when it burns – but this is withdrawn from the atmosphere again by new tree growth elsewhere.
Wood is said to be climate-neutral - and therefore significantly better than oil, gas or coal.
That is why burning trees is also considered a renewable energy source in the EU.
Because they are needed for the energy transition, there are also state subsidies.
Exact numbers are not available.
But with at least 17 billion euros per year, energy production from biomass is subsidized in the EU, including wood-fired power plants.
This is a nightmare for scientists and environmentalists.
They argue that wood should not be considered a renewable energy either from a climate perspective or for health reasons.
In an open letter, around 500 scientists from numerous countries explained that when wood is burned “for every kilowatt hour of heat or electricity generated, two to three times as much CO₂ is emitted as when using fossil fuels”.
It is a "misguided tendency" to cut down entire trees or cut down large parts of the logs for bioenergy.
This would release carbon that would otherwise remain locked up in the forests.
The timber boom could have health consequences for city dwellers.
According to the Federal Environment Agency, the emissions from wood-burning stoves in relation to PM2.5, the smaller fine dust component, are »in the order of magnitude of the emissions from all road traffic« (see graphic).
"The wood-fired oven gate is larger than the diesel gate," Achim Dittler, from the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), explained to SPIEGEL at the beginning of the year - and that was before the wood boom and the gas crisis.
A statement by the National Science Academy Leopoldina states: "The number of wood-burning stoves, the installation of which has been and is state-funded under very specific conditions, has increased sharply in recent years." They contribute significantly to direct particulate matter emissions in cities and would in everyday use »often (emit) significantly more fine dust than specified on the type plate«.
We also owe the fact that politicians and consumers still believe that wood is ultimately sustainable and ecological to the energy wood lobby, which is particularly active these days.
They not only bombard German environmental agencies and ministries with their calls, but also the members of the European Parliament.
For example, the German associations of the forestry and timber industry, including the German Energy Wood and Pellet Association and AGDW - Die Waldeigeneigner, continue to claim that wood is climate-neutral.
The representation on the "topic page" of the Federal Environment Ministry is wrong.
"Shortened and misleading assessments by the state unsettle citizens," write the authors of the lobby letter.
And their European umbrella organizations “strongly advise against” restricting the burning of “primary woody biomass” – i.e. whole trees or trunks from forests.
This would hamper the fight against climate change and exacerbate the energy crisis.
This Wednesday, despite lobbying, there was a small revolution.
For the first time, the European Parliament decided to limit the use of wood: Biomass made from wood, for example, should continue to be considered a renewable energy source according to the will of the MEPs.
However, the amount is to be capped and state subsidies are to be gradually phased out.
The change of course came in the course of the vote on the Renewable Energy Directive: a majority voted that by 2030 a total of 45 percent of the energy in the EU should come from renewable sources - previously it was only 40 percent.
For the first time, there was a heated debate as to whether the burning of wood should also be included in this target.
So it was finally agreed to end the subsidies for »primary woody biomass«.
This means, for example, healthy or fallen trees that are used as fuel.
Trees felled for other reasons, such as road safety, can continue to benefit from subsidies for renewable energy, according to Parliament's proposals.
So-called secondary wood biomass - residual wood or used wood - also.
So for the opponents of energy wood, it's only a partial victory - but still.
The biggest critics in parliament are the Greens.
For them, burning forests in power plants is "ecological suicide."
They actually wanted to put an end to the idea that wood is a renewable energy completely.
But the Commission and the Conservatives just got their way.
If you like, we will inform you once a week about the most important things about the climate crisis - stories, research results and the latest developments on the biggest issue of our time. You can subscribe to the newsletter here.
The topics of the week
Sleepers instead of planes: night trains could reduce European greenhouse gases by three percent
Some routes that are currently mainly traveled by plane could be replaced by sleepers.
Anything that is climate-friendly requires huge investments and more rail competitiveness.
After summer of drought: more than 500 French journalists sign charter for climate reporting
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has highlighted the role of the media in providing information on the climate crisis.
In France, the media and employees took this as an opportunity to formulate goals for their work.
Expert Analysis: Climate Change Contributed To Pakistan's Century
Flood Heavy monsoon rains have killed a thousand and destroyed a million homes in Pakistan.
What part does man play in the natural disaster?
Researchers have now calculated this using climate data.
Agriculture in Brazil: More cows, but less methane - (how) does that work?
They are considered "climate killers": when cows belch and fart, they emit large amounts of methane.
Brazilian researchers want to change that – without reducing production.
Is that how climate protection works?
Bonus-malus system: is the tax now coming on fat gas guzzlers?
Cars with high CO₂ emissions are still far too cheap, according to environmental organizations.
They recommend a bonus-malus system in vehicle tax, as in neighboring countries.
Some petrol and diesel engines would be more expensive by five-digit amounts.
stay confident
Yours, Susanne Götze