[ad_1]
Daniel Danielsson is president of the Åre municipality; Britta Flinkfeldt is a consultant of the Arjeplog municipality; Nils-Olov Lindfors is the regional council for Norrbotten; Jonny Lundin is a part of the Västernorrland County Council and Europaforum Northern Sweden.
We’re all representatives of lots of of 1000’s of households in municipalities in northern Sweden — the European Union’s Arctic area, its coldest area, with lengthy, exhausting and darkish winters.
In our municipalities, we warmth our houses, our hospitals, our nursing houses and our kindergartens with renewable uncooked supplies from the forest — particularly, wooden chips produced from shredded biomass from the branches and tops of bushes after felling, in addition to from smaller bushes, broken logs and materials from the forest that may’t be used for boards.
Which means we don’t fear a few scarcity of Russian oil and gasoline. We are able to deal with the winter chilly on our personal.
As a substitute, we’re anxious concerning the negotiations at the moment happening within the European Parliament.
On September 13, Parliament members will vote on the Renewable Vitality Directive, RED III. They are going to vote on whether or not biomass straight from the forest should still be known as sustainable. They are going to determine our winter destiny.
And in the event that they vote for a halt on utilizing biomass straight from the forest, or so-called major biomass, for warmth vitality, we may have very massive issues right here within the north.
The place will we then get warmth from? How will we then survive our winters? How will lots of of 1000’s of households handle to outlive within the chilly?
The premise for all Swedish forestry operations is to create long-lasting merchandise from wooden. That’s, giant, high-quality, straight trunks that can be utilized for constructing homes, flooring, balconies, verandas, and so forth. And from this manufacturing come many by-products, corresponding to branches and treetops, in addition to smaller bushes, which then have to be eliminated over time to offer extra air and light-weight to these high-quality, straight bushes.
This biomass, these by-products, can be utilized to create a lot wanted warmth and electrical energy.
It will also be left on the forest flooring, after all. However then it should cowl the bottom and stop different vegetation that should thrive to contribute to richer organic range on the positioning. And if left, over time, the biomass will break down and launch carbon dioxide.
The biomass additionally emits carbon dioxide when it’s burned to create warmth and electrical energy. Both method, it’s the identical carbon dioxide that leaves this biomass. It’s, subsequently, environment friendly and sustainable to make use of this biomass for vitality, when it makes its method by our heating vegetation.
Relating to this course of, there have been considerations about forest biodiversity. But it surely’s vital to notice that these considerations aren’t relevant to dry residues from felling, corresponding to branches, treetops and really small bushes. To settle, bugs and beetles need bigger logs that may accumulate liquid and decay slowly. And the forestry business has lengthy taken this into consideration, abandoning excessive stumps when felling, that are then allowed to slowly rot and turn out to be dwelling to bugs and fungi.
There have additionally been considerations concerning the forest soil dropping vitamins when branches and tops are eliminated. However diet isn’t within the branches — it’s within the needles, which dry and fall off earlier than this biomass leaves the forest.
So, when voting on RED III, we ask Parliament members to think about us within the EU’s Arctic area, and we ask that you simply utterly take away the synthetic division between major and secondary biomass.
In keeping with that division, solely secondary biomass from facet streams from business — corresponding to sawdust and bark — could also be used for warmth vitality and be known as sustainable.
For us, the results of this might be detrimental. The impact could also be that nobody dares put money into amenities for vitality from wooden chips and by-products from forests, as they’ll be labeled unsustainable. And it will improve the final vitality scarcity and fossil vitality dependency we’re at the moment experiencing within the EU.
Residual merchandise from our forestry are, in our view, as sustainable because the forests they arrive from. Right here within the Arctic area, we reside with nature, and nature warms us — it’s not about oil and gasoline.
We would like laws that works for us.
[ad_2]
Source link