>In 1996, scientists at the United Nations devised a method to measure global carbon emissions. To simplify the process and avoid double counting, they suggested emissions from burning biomass should be calculated where the trees are cut down, not where the wood pellets are burned.
>The EU adopted this methodology in its Renewable Energy Directive, allowing energy companies to burn biomass produced in the US without having to report the emissions.
>The accounting method– which was never intended to assign national responsibility for carbon emissions, according to climate experts has created a lot of discussion and disagreement among advocates, scientists and policymakers. But ultimately it is not the accounting of carbon that is the problem, it's the emissions.
>"It doesn't change the physical reality." said Tim Searchinger, senior research scholar at Princeton University. "A law designed to reduce emissions that in reality encourages an increase in emissions... has to be flawed," he said, referring to Europe's directive.
https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2021/07/us/american-south-bi...
As long as the wood is coming from tree plantations, not from deforestation of course, which I expect to be mostly the case in North America and Europe.
Burning and replanting forests is not carbon neutral. Not even close. It's an accounting gimmick that the EU uses to make themselves look good.
In another hand, it's a market, as stated in their website, "It is the world's first major carbon market and remains the biggest one."[0], so for sure it will be a huge source of income and therefore the countries will have much more incentive to do it. I saw already the same in another countries and the results weren't so spectacular, but instead the whole supply chain just got more expensive, which meant the prices raised to the customers.
[0]: https://climate.ec.europa.eu/eu-action/eu-emissions-trading-...
That's a good thing and helps "green" products compete.