Ecological Limits to Sustainable Use of Wood Fuels

  • Janis AbolinsEmail author
Part of the World Sustainability Series book series (WSUSE)


A theoretical study of a simple analytical model of biomass accumulation to assess conditions of the neutrality of CO2-emissions from burning wood (biomass) is reported. Conditions under sustainability defined with respect to harvesting are shown to satisfy requirements of CO2-neutrality on local scale while burning wood under conditions of shrinking global forest area is not and should be taken into account in the balance of global emissions. Other ecological restraints—conservation of biodiversity in particular, are discussed concerning conditions imposed by the economic system and reflecting on the visions of bio-economy.


Bio-economy Biofuels Sustainability CO2-neutrality 



The underlying studies drawn on in the paper have been made possible by the Latvian National Programme of Research and the Horizon 2020 project of grant agreement No 654371.


  1. Abolins J, Gravitis J (2011) A simple analytical model for remote assessment of the dynamics of biomass accumulation. In Shahid Shaukat S (ed) Progress in biomass and bioenergy production. In Tech Open Access Publishers, pp 91–106. ISBN 978-953-307-491-7. Available at:
  2. Abolins J, Gravitis J, Kosmacha J (2010) Optimising the yield of energy from biomass by analytical models of the rate of growth. Latv J Phys Tec Sci 47(5):25–31Google Scholar
  3. Agrofuels (2007) Towards a reality check in nine key areas.
  4. Aylott et al (2008) Yield and spatial supply of bioenergy poplar and willow short-rotation coppice in the UK. New Phytol 178:358–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. BEDB (2011) Alkali content and slagging potential of various biofuels.
  6. Birch K, Levidow L, Papaioannou T (2010) Sustainable capital? The neoliberalization of nature and knowledge in the European “knowledge-based bio-economy’’. Sustainability 2(2010):2898–2918CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Declaration (2016) Large-scale bioenergy must be excluded from the renewable energy definition.
  8. Demirbas A (2004) Combustion characteristics of different biomass fuels. Prog Energy Combust Sci 30:219–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Goldemberg J, Coelho ST (2004) Renewable energy—traditional biomass vs. modern biomass. Energy Policy 32:711–714CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hennigar CR, MacLean DA, Amos-Binks LJ (2008) A novel approach to optimize management strategies for carbon stored in both forests and wood products. Forest Ecol Manag 256(4):786–797. Scholar
  11. Kitchen L, Marsden T (2011) Constructing sustainable communities: a theoretical exploration of the bio-economy and eco-economy paradigms. Local Environ Int J Justice Sustain 16(8):753–769 (special issue: sustainable communities)Google Scholar
  12. Levidow L (ed) (2011) Agricultural innovation: sustaining what agriculture? For what European bio-economy?
  13. Levidow L, Birch K, Papaioannou T (2012) EU agro-innovation policy: two contending visions of the bio-economy. Critical Policy Stud 6(1):40–65. Scholar
  14. Mills (2015) Bioeconomy: a primer. Transnational Institute. Available at:
  15. Mitchell SR, Harmon ME, O’Connell KEB (2012) Carbon debt and carbon sequestration parity in forest bioenergy production. GCB Bioenergy 4:818–827CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ni Y, Eskeland GS, Giske J, Hansen J-P (2016) The global potential for carbon capture and storage from forestry. Carbon Bal Manag 11(1):Article number 3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. NOAH, Biofuelwatch, Econexus, GFC, WRM, Rainforest Rescue, CEO (2015) Bioenergy out: why bioenergy should not be included in the next EU Renewable Energy Directive.
  18. Omri A, Khuong ND (2014) On the determinants of renewable energy consumption: International evidence. Energy 72:554–560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Paul H (2013) A foreseeable disaster: the European Union’s agro-energy policies and the global land and water grab. Transnational Institute. 40p. Available at
  20. Pingoud K, Ekholm T, Soimakallio S, Tuomas H (2015) Carbon balance indicator for forest bioenergy scenarios. GCB Bioenergy. Scholar
  21. Redman J, Tricarico A (2013) Wall street’s climate finance Bonanza. Foreign Policy in Focus. Available at
  22. Schultz K (2014) Carbon dioxide emissions rise with rebounding economy. Scientific American. Available at 6 June 2014
  23. Schulze E-D, Korner C, Law BE, Haberl H, Luyssaer S (2012) Large-scale bioenergy from additional harvest of forest biomass is neither sustainable nor greenhouse gas neutral. GCB Bioenergy 4:611–616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Searchinger TD et al (2009) Fixing a critical climate accounting error. Science 326:527–528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Simitopoulou K, Xirotiris NI (2000) The human genome project: the dominance of economy on science—ethical and social implications. Global Bioethics. Scholar
  26. Smil V (1999) Energies. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  27. TNI (2015) Move to renewables jeopardized by EU corporate trade deals. Press release, 09 Dec 2015. Available at
  28. van Houten F, Robbins C (2016) Intelligent assets: unlocking the circular economy potential. Ellen MacArthur Foundation 2016. Available at:
  29. WRM (2015) Bioenergy out: why bioenergy should not be included in the next EU Renewable Energy Directive. Available at
  30. Zeebe RE, Ridgwell A, Zachos JC (2016) Anthropogenic carbon release rate unprecedented during the past 66 million years. Nat Geosci. doi: Available at
  31. Zeide B (2004) Intrinsic units in growth modelling. Ecol Model 175:249–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Atomic Physics and SpectroscopyUniversity of LatviaRigaLatvia

Personalised recommendations