In the Green Transition Denmark, we believe that it makes good sense to invest in the development of climate technologies that can contribute to agriculture's climate goals. And pyrolysis can eventually become a sensible climate technology. We agree, as the Climate Council also points out, that pyrolysis can play a role towards 2050. But in order for pyrolysis to have a real climate effect, we must wait to factor in the effect until it actually has an effect in the atmosphere. And we must make sure that the application of biochar does not create other environmental problems, as it cannot be removed from the agricultural land again.

 In an article in Klimamonitor on 16 September, Martin Lünell Christensen writes and Pyrolysis Denmark, that we in the Green Transition Denmark do not look at the climate effect of pyrolysis in a 100-year perspective. We do not disagree that pyrolysis can make fine sense when you compare the climate effect from biochar with the carbon storage that the biomass would have contributed if it had simply been spread on agricultural land in a 100-year perspective. But the problem with the planned investment in pyrolysis is that the climate effect of biochar is taken into account in order to reach the agricultural climate target for 2030, where it is extremely doubtful that the means of action can manage to have a climate effect.

Pyrolysis must only be used if it is done in an environmentally sound manner

Martin Lünell Christensen criticizes precisely that the Green Transition Denmark emphasizes the short-term effect of pyrolysis. But it cannot be avoided now, when the green tripartite has taken the starting point that a reduction of 0,3-0,6 million tonnes of CO₂ must come from pyrolysis as early as 2030. Even with the climate effect of less than 20 years that Martin Lünell Christensen refers to in his post, the climate effect of pyrolysis of degassed manure will still not be achieved before 2030. That is why the short perspective is important to have in mind. We have to first recognize the effect when it actually occurs, so that we don't cheat ourselves and the climate. Even with pyrolysis of straw, it is not likely to have a climate effect before 2030.

According to the IPCC, we need to roughly halve our greenhouse gas emissions this decade if we are to keep global warming below 1,5°C. We cannot base our climate action on the hope of future solutions – we must act now to achieve the necessary reductions before 2030 and with measures that work within this time horizon. A reduction in animal production will certainly do that.

The climate effect of pyrolysis and biochar largely depends on whether it is assumed that pyrolysis oil can replace fossil fuels. The expert group for a green tax reform has not assumed this. They expect that the pyrolysis oil will perhaps be used in international shipping, and that the pyrolysis gas will not displace fossil energy, as it will, for example, be used in the district heating network and thus displace green energy. Green Transition Denmark has used the same assumptions, and believes that pyrolysis oil should only be used if it can be done in an environmentally sound manner.

We cannot afford to wait for pyrolysis to produce the desired climate effect

I am glad that Pyrolysis Danmark agrees that pyrolysis should not be implemented on a large scale until we have a better understanding of the environmental consequences. Here it is important to emphasize that biochar is not just biochar. The effect of biochar on the soil depends on the type of biomass, the temperature and other factors involved in the production. It is therefore difficult to transfer experiences from other countries in the Danish context, as the biomass there is often wood. At the same time, we must remember that globally there is limited experience with biochar production. In 2023, for example, only 75.000 tonnes of biochar were produced in Europe.

Pyrolysis Danmark mentions that they support the precautionary principle behind the fact that Denmark has initiated environmental studies of biocoal's effect on the environment and nature. I'm glad to hear that. Therefore, I also hope that it is respected that the long-term field trials of the effects of the use of biochar on the environment, nature and agricultural practices will not be completed until 2033.

In practice, it will be impossible to remove biochar spread on fields. Green Transition Denmark therefore maintains that it is necessary to know the consequences of biochar for the environment and crops before investing in large-scale application to fields. Thus, it does not make sense to obtain results and conclude on 10-year trials after only 5 years in 2027, as Pyrolysis Danmark proposes in their submission.

We cannot afford to wait for pyrolysis to produce the desired climate effect – we must reduce the climate burden now. We should certainly not slam the door on pyrolysis, but we should focus on which biomasses make sense to pyrolyze, and thoroughly investigate the climate effect of the biomasses that are to be used. Pyrolysis must not become a technology that indirectly holds the hand of continued large animal production. And regardless of the climate effect biocoal may have in a 100-year perspective, this should not be included in the fulfillment of our climate goals until the effect has actually been achieved.

This debate entry was written by Trine Langhede and was published in Klimamonitor on 20 September 2024.