Burning wood for power worse for climate than gas equivalent (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 4 days ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net

16 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The key problem is that they cause deforestation:

Bio-energy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) has been touted as a clean way of producing baseload power, substituting for gas and coal, which could even result in “negative emissions” as when replacement forests are grown they take up CO2 from the air.

But such systems could take 150 years to be “carbon negative”, researchers from the US, UK and China have found, in part because of the long time it takes to regrow forests, and because of the damage done when existing savannah, pasture or cropland is converted to grow biomass for burning.

The paper is here

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[+] RumorsOfLove@lemmy.dbzer0.com -13 points 3 days ago

I love you science guys. But as a media person, I chose to note 'how it was presented' not whether some fact is accurate.

[-] TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 11 points 3 days ago

The findings cast doubt on plans by several governments, including the UK, to offer subsidies or other financial support for carbon capture attached to wood-burning power.

Bio-energy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) has been touted as a clean way of producing baseload power, substituting for gas and coal, which could even result in “negative emissions” as when replacement forests are grown they take up CO2 from the air.

"As a media guy, it was beyond me to read the second and third paragraph explaining why this comparison is being drawn."

Is your middle name "Illiterate", Media Guy?

[+] RumorsOfLove@lemmy.dbzer0.com -8 points 3 days ago

I see your point. Educated elites like you can take their time reading, and realized that the governmentz plan to subsidize sustainable energy production is, scientifically speaking, a load of shit. Go figure.

Please imagine someone taking their 10-minute lunch break at the Amazon Warehouse. They want to be an informed voter, but they dont have the time to do deep research. They are just going to read the headline.

I chose to comment on the effect of this The Guardian article. The Guardian spins simplistic narratives for the majority of readers. In this case, the easiest takeaway is Gas isnt that bad.. This headline is intended to hurt the Green party at the polls.

[-] TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 8 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

I see your point. Educated elites like you can take their time reading, and realized that the governmentz plan to subsidize sustainable energy production is, scientifically speaking, a load of shit. Go figure.

???????????????? What the fuck are you talking about????? Yeah, I took several minutes to read some of the preprint because I care about climate action and wanted to be more informed generally, but the level of due diligence you had to do before writing – literally just reading the subheader – would've taken at most a third of the time it took to write your stupid, bullshit comment in the first place. I'm not saying you should've been fucked to specifically read the study; I'm saying you should've been fucked to read anything besides a 10-word headline.

If you're trawling around on Lemmy, you have the time and means to do what I did, but I don't even care about that; I care that you did nothing and thought that qualified you to smear the article you didn't even try to read.

"Anti-intellectualism is sticking it to those snobby elites!" I think you'd get along really well with Trump supporters, because you clearly both accidentally fell into your ideologies by being proudly and willfully ignorant.

[-] RumorsOfLove@lemmy.dbzer0.com -5 points 3 days ago

I did, matter of fact, take the time to read the paragraphs quoted by OP. Did you bother to take the time to read the point I made, or do you prefer to take out your anger about anti-intellectualism on me?

load more comments (6 replies)

this post was submitted on 20 Apr 2026

86 points (98.9% liked)

Climate

8570 readers

817 users here now

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

silence7@slrpnk.net