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 tons of of hundreds of households in municipalities in northern Sweden — the European Union’s Arctic area, its coldest area, with lengthy, laborious and darkish winters. 

In our municipalities, we warmth our properties, our hospitals, our nursing properties and our kindergartens with renewable uncooked supplies from the forest — particularly, wooden chips comprised of 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 can deal with the winter chilly on our personal. 

As an alternative, we’re apprehensive in regards to the negotiations presently going down within the European Parliament.  

On September 13, Parliament members will vote on the Renewable Power Directive, RED III. They are going to vote on whether or not biomass instantly from the forest should still be known as sustainable. They are going to resolve our winter destiny. 

And in the event that they vote for a halt on utilizing biomass instantly from the forest, or so-called main biomass, for warmth vitality, we could 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 tons of of hundreds of households handle to outlive within the chilly? 

The idea for all Swedish forestry operations is to create long-lasting merchandise from wooden. That’s, giant, tremendous, straight trunks that can be utilized for constructing homes, flooring, balconies, verandas, and so on. And from this manufacturing come many by-products, equivalent to branches and treetops, in addition to smaller bushes, which then should be eliminated over time to offer extra air and light-weight to these tremendous, 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 ground, in fact. However then it would cowl the bottom and forestall 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 manner, it’s the identical carbon dioxide that leaves this biomass. It’s, due to this fact, environment friendly and sustainable to make use of this biomass for vitality, when it makes its manner by means of our heating vegetation. 

Relating to this course of, there have been considerations about forest biodiversity. However it’s vital to notice that these considerations aren’t relevant to dry residues from felling, equivalent to branches, treetops and really small bushes. To settle, bugs and beetles need bigger logs that may acquire liquid and decay slowly. And the forestry business has lengthy taken this under consideration, abandoning excessive stumps when felling, that are then allowed to slowly rot and develop into residence to bugs and fungi. 

There have additionally been considerations in regards to 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 consider us within the EU’s Arctic area, and we ask that you just fully take away the synthetic division between main and secondary biomass. 

Based on that division, solely secondary biomass from aspect streams from business — equivalent to sawdust and bark — could also be used for warmth vitality and be known as sustainable.  

For us, the results of this may very well 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 might improve the final vitality scarcity and fossil vitality dependency we’re presently 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 dwell with nature, and nature warms us — it’s not about oil and gasoline. 

We wish laws that works for us.