Gustavsson and co-workers describe three scenario's for forestry in Sweden: busines as usual, increased harvest of biomass and reduced harvest (set-aside). Based on this they model future carbon dioxide emissions over a period of 100 years. They assume business as usual on the demand side, based on which they conclude that it is better in the short run to reduce harvest, but in the long run it would be better to use forestry products in construction and for energy purposes. The study is deceptive for a number of reasons:

  • Authors do not mention the impact on biodiversity of their scenario's, which will remain under severe pressure as it is now.
  • Authors do not mention that the risk for reaching tipping points is very large in all scenario's
  • Authors neglect technical progress, like development of solar energy will reduce the need for liquid fuels
  • Authors neglect the fact that the substition effect does not work in practice

The whole study can be read in Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews.