Biomass is fast becoming a topic of interest for governments looking for alternative energy sources and solutions for the climate crisis. New WRI research shows that limited biomass use can help achieve net-zero emissions goals in the United States. However, guidelines will be needed to ensure its use doesn’t displace agricultural land used for food production or inadvertently contribute to higher carbon emissions that results from land-use change.

What Is Biomass? What Are its Best Uses to Curb Climate Change?

Biomass refers to any material that comes from living things, including wood and bark from trees, leaves or stems from plants, and even animal manure.

When it comes to fighting climate change, carbon-rich biomass material can be used to remove carbon from the atmosphere, or it can be used as an alternative to fossil fuels for producing energy and other products. Many industries, including aviation, chemical manufacturing and carbon removal are increasingly looking to use biomass as a potential energy source or feedstock.

An unharvested corn ear sits on the ground.
Agricultural waste, such as corn stover — the parts of the corn plant that are not harvested for food production — is one source of biomass that could be used for climate benefit. Photo by Matauw/Shutterstock.

However, as demand for biomass increases, unsustainable use of biomass resources could thwart decarbonization efforts. Growing trees or crops specifically for biomass energy can displace land needed for food and other agricultural production, potentially forcing additional land to be cleared elsewhere to make up the difference. That, in turn, releases carbon dioxide previously stored in soils and vegetation.

Using energy systems modeling and land-use analysis, new WRI research on biomass and land use  has found that a few use cases for biomass can contribute to decarbonization. These include replacing carbon in products that do not have an easy substitute for fossil fuels, like petrochemicals, creating next-generation fuels that do not make dedicated use of land and carbon removal.

Sequestering the carbon in biomass could be one of the most climate-friendly uses of biomass, because — if it’s done right — it could provide relatively durable and cost-effective carbon removal while providing land management benefits, like mitigating wildfire risk.

The Role of Biomass in Carbon Removal

Biomass’s molecular structure contains a lot of carbon that originates from absorbed atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2). This means that biomass theoretically has high carbon removal potential.

Biomass carbon removal and storage (BiCRS) can both store carbon and produce products that replace fossil fuels, such as hydrogen. Whereas some biomass approaches prioritize energy generation, BiCRS prioritizes carbon removal and may produce byproducts that can be synthesized and used for fuel or in industrial processes.

There is potential for BiCRS to play a significant role in U.S. carbon removal. WRI analysis shows that BiCRS could account for around 20% of total biomass use by 2050 if biomass is optimally allocated between BiCRS and other uses.

How Does BiCRS Work? 

Different chemical and physical processes break down biomass and turn it into energy, fuel or products while capturing the carbon that is contained in biomass. Some BiCRS pathways that are most promising for supporting economy-wide decarbonization are:

  • • Gasification, a process that produces synthesis gas, which can be used to produce liquid fuels, or hydrogen. Hydrogen can provide energy storage or be further reformed to create clean electrofuels or chemicals. Up to 100% of the carbon from these processes can be captured and sequestered underground.
     
  • • Pyrolysis, a high-heat process that creates charcoal-like biochar and bio-oil. Biochar can be used as a soil additive that sequesters carbon, and bio-oil can be injected underground or mixed with products like asphalt to provide carbon removal, or it can be further refined to make hydrogen or other valuable fuels.
     
  • • Products, a pathway that utilizes forestry residues that are too small to be used for timber to create other building materials like particle board that store carbon for the lifetime of the material.
     
  • • Burial, a pathway that relies on the natural ability of forest residue and wood to decay slowly. Biomass can be permanently preserved and buried in special underground containers when the transportation of waste biomass is difficult. Biomass burial may be a cost-effective in some areas, such as in forests with high fire risk and large quantities of flammable biomass.
     
  • • Fermentation, a process of turning biomass into alcohol and capturing the carbon that is produced. Today, most biomass fermentation uses corn to make ethanol, but the production of cellulosic biofuels using biomass wastes and residues is a more sustainable option. These fuels are known as ‘cellulosic’ fuels because they break down the tough cellulose structure that makes up wood and plant stems.

Some BiCRS pathways like biomass burial and underground injection of bio-oil are in development and currently exist at a pilot scale. Other BiCRS approaches like biomass gasification for carbon removal and hydrogen production will require costly new facilities to create a steady demand for biomass for these uses.

Responsible biomass sourcing and strong policies that include monitoring, reporting and verification for carbon removal projects would be needed to ensure that BiCRS projects provide real climate benefits.

Despite the nascence of BiCRS approaches, companies are attracting millions of dollars of federal and private investment, signaling the likely expansion of the industry. New legislation also looks to expand federal support to include BiCRS with biomass guardrails. BiCRS accounts for 90% of carbon removal that has been delivered through the voluntary carbon market to date, and BiCRS could contribute a high percentage of durable carbon removal credits in the coming decade.

How to Sustainably Source Biomass in the US

To build a net-zero economy by 2050, sourcing and using biomass in ways that do not increase national and global emissions will be critical.

In the face of climate change, lands will be put under increasing pressure to meet demand for food, fiber, energy, carbon removal and other ecosystem services. Meanwhile, land is finite and diverting agricultural and forestry lands to biomass production could, in turn, emit more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. WRI research shows that without proper regulation, demand for biomass could take up over 100 million acres by 2050 — an area around the size of California and equal to almost a quarter of present-day U.S. cropland. This is nearly 12 times the land that could be needed for wind and solar by 2050. Therefore, guardrails will be needed to avoid negative climate and other environmental impact.

Robust lifecycle assessment and project-level monitoring, reporting and verification will be needed to keep track of factors like forgone land carbon sequestration; displaced production of food, feed and fiber; the time it takes for plants and trees to regenerate after harvest; and the emissions associated with transporting, processing and refining biomass. To be truly net-beneficial to the climate, biomass carbon removal should abide by the following sourcing principles. (These principles are tailored to the U.S. but can provide a useful guide for how other countries or regions can develop their own.)

Principles for sustainable sourcing of biomass

1) Prioritize wastes, residues and by-products.

The sources of biomass most likely to provide effective carbon removal are wastes, residues and by-products from unused plant or animal materials that result from normal farm, forestry or municipal operations.

Agricultural waste can include corn stover — the non-edible parts of the corn plant — rice hulls and nut shells. Forestry wastes include wood and paper mill residues, such as sawdust and black liquor — the substance that remains after the pulping of wood to make paper — and woody waste from forestry operations or dead wood from wildfire treatments or natural disasters. Finally, municipal organic waste comes from urban and residential areas and includes things like food waste from homes and restaurants.

Vegetables pile up in a waste bin.
Food waste is one way to sustainably source materials for biomass. Photo by joerngebhardt68/Shutterstock.

Many wastes and residues are currently burned or left to decompose, which releases carbon into the atmosphere. Using wastes for BiCRS can avoid or at least delay these emissions. However, when wastes are removed from fields or forests, good management is essential for maintaining soil health and ecological functioning. Certain agricultural conservation practices entail retaining residues, as the decomposition of dead material can enhance soil health. More research is needed to determine the appropriate amount of agricultural and forestry residue that should be left on farms and forest floors to maintain soil health and soil carbon stocks in each region of the U.S. While biomass wastes and residues have the potential to be used for carbon removal, quantities are limited and will likely be in demand across multiple industries.

2) Avoid biomass that makes dedicated use of land.

WRI research shows that once land use emissions are accounted for, using food crops for non-food purposes, like energy production or carbon removal, does not support decarbonization. For example, when corn and soybeans are diverted for biofuel, it displaces food production. To make up for the lost food production, agriculture often expands into high-carbon ecosystems. This phenomenon is called indirect land use change, and it is responsible for the large carbon footprint of crop-based biofuels. Also, using crops to produce energy uses far more land per unit of useable energy than other renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind farms. Because of this, dedicated corn or soy crops are not appropriate sources of biomass for carbon removal nor energy production. This principle also holds true for purpose-grown energy crops that compete with food crops for land.

Guardrails on the collection of biomass raw material are needed to prevent this type of environmental harm, which undermines both nature and climate goals. WRI’s analysis shows that unrestricted expansion and use of purpose-grown biomass would have enormous land use implications. Biomass should not be grown on prime farmland nor natural or high conservation value lands. If natural lands are converted to biomass production systems, they will likely undergo a drastic decrease in carbon storage from either their vegetation, soil or both. As such, lands with large natural carbon stores in soil or aboveground vegetation should never be compromised for the sake of sourcing biomass.

3) Forestry wastes, residues and by-products should come from ecologically managed forests.

When done responsibly, BiCRS may provide a win-win opportunity by using material from forestry practices that would otherwise decay or burn. 

This is especially relevant in the western U.S., where land management agencies aim to reduce severe wildfires through forest treatments that often include biomass removal (i.e., thinning). However, creating a market for forestry wastes could incentivize over-harvesting, particularly if large-diameter forestry residues like large branches and tree stumps are removed, which can deplete forest carbon stocks over several decades. To ensure mutual benefit, residues should come from practices that increase the resilience and health of forest ecosystems and protect soil carbon and habitats.

Using Biomass Responsibly

Using biomass to decarbonize comes with environmental and climate risks, but there are opportunities to use biomass responsibly.

As industries like aviation, chemical manufacturing and carbon removal look to biomass as a potential replacement for fossil fuels, demand for biomass is likely to far outstrip the sustainable supply. Therefore, policymakers will need to carefully consider the trade-offs between different land uses, like food and agricultural production, as the U.S. works toward its climate goals.

Despite decades of incentives for first generation biofuels made from food crops, WRI analysis finds that they are not an effective tool for reaching net-zero emissions. In contrast, when residues from agriculture and forestry are used for BiCRS, chemicals and next-generation fuels, they have the potential to support decarbonization. 

Biomass is a limited resource, and in some cases, the optimal climate benefit may be from leaving it in place on natural landscapes to preserve the ecosystem services it provides. With the growing demand for biomass, policies with sourcing guardrails that can be tailored to the complex realities of different biomass types and BiCRS methods, as well as accurate carbon accounting, will be critical. Guardrails must prevent the use of biomass feedstocks that contribute to land use change, cause environmental degradation, or do not truly lead to net greenhouse gas mitigation. Where certification standards exist, enforcement is often a challenge that needs to be addressed. Here, again, rigorous monitoring, reporting, and verification and accurate carbon accounting are needed to ensure climate benefits.

In all cases of biomass use, input from local and Indigenous communities must be carefully considered to ensure no harm is being done. Biomass processing facilities must take steps to minimize negative air and water quality impacts. And moreover, policymakers at all levels should enact policies or regulations to prevent any undue environmental burden of biomass harvesting, processing or usage on historically disadvantaged communities.

Editor's Note: This article was first published Jan. 16, 2024. We updated it on May 1, 2025 with new research, data and information.