At COP28, high on the agenda for the fashion sector is the phase-out of fossil fuels and the funding and deployment of alternatives. One such alternative is biomass. Biomass is organic matter from things grown continuously on Earth (rather than finite fossil fuels extracted from its core); including agri-waste like rice husks and straw, as well as forests grown specifically for wood chip fuel. So far, so reasonable. So why has the U.S.-based nonprofit STAND.earth issued a petition to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) for the “immediate cessation” of biomass use in fashion? Their demand is that renewable energy, like wind and solar, must be used instead. But is this even possible (let alone probable), and if not, why not?
In fashion production, two types of energy are required: electrical (for powering sewing and other machines) and thermal (for heating water and generating steam for wet processing, like textile dyeing). Textile manufacturers (usually in Tier 2 of the supply chain) require more thermal energy than electrical energy, and in volumes that renewable energy sources simply can’t provide today. The reasons renewables fall short are mostly technical, geographical and economic. For example, electric boilers (instead of ones fed by coal, gas or biomass) are only efficient if abundant renewable electricity is available and where national grids can accommodate this added capacity and distribute it to factories. Neither of these are currently the case in developing nations, which produce most of the world’s fashion.
It’s essential to remember that each country has submitted nationally determined contributions (NDCs) for reducing global warming, and the plans of ‘developing’ countries are contingent on the richest countries providing finance to fund the ‘just transition’. This is only fair, since these rich countries (mostly OECD ones) are the largest historic emitters and the cause of today’s climate crisis. The use of biomass instead of coal is part accepted net-zero emission plans. The International Energy Agency (IEA) say that flexible transition plans, include coal-power plants being “retrofitted to co‐fire biomass” to help reduce emissions. So why is STAND.earth demanding that no biomass be used in fashion?
The nonprofit is demanding that on-site biomass boilers at factories be shut down (as opposed to national biomass use in coal plants), but nevertheless, its petition cites data pitting coal against wood chips in bioenergy infrastructure in Europe. It says the wood chips can emit more greenhouse gases than coal. In an example of agri-waste biomass in Asia, it references atmospheric pollutants in India from burning crop residues in open air, not boilers. It also cites the logging and burning of ancient forests in other south Asian countries for wood fuel, which clearly must stop. However, this can only be addressed with open dialogue and traceability and transparency in supply chains; as opposed to demanding a total shutdown of biomass use without any non-fossil alternatives on the table.
Biomass use will continue because the global transition away from coal is critical. Depending on the source, biomass can offer a 50-90% greenhouse gas emission saving when compared to gas, according to the UK’s Environment Agency. The Agency also stated that “recent research considered various options for replacing up to 10% of coal with biomass [and] found that the biomass component reduces GHG emissions by 88 to 97%, compared to the coal it displaces”. However, this research acknowledges that biomass doesn’t always have a lower footprint, and there is a need for local and contextual biomass feasibility research for on-site boilers to evaluate the carbon footprint reduction potential and other consequences in each specific supply chain and location.
I doubt that STAND.earth intends to do harm, however their secondary desk research on a topic that requires highly localised feasibility studies to evaluate the cleanest fuel options seems reckless; damaging, even.
A significant shortcoming of STAND.earth’s petition rationale is the absence of comparisons between gas and biomass in on-site boilers, since this a common scenario in fashion factories right now. Some countries, like Bangladesh, use no on-site coal boilers – only gas ones. STAND…
Read More: COP Petition Steers Fashion Toward More Fossil Fuel Use—Here’s Why.