On 15 December, Australia became the first of the world's major developed economies to change its renewable energy classification regarding wood biomass burned for energy production. Under the new national policy, wood sourced from native forests and burned for energy generation can no longer be classified as a renewable energy source.

This decision came at a time when the USA, Canada, Eastern Europe, Vietnam, and other forest-rich nations are continuing to prepare for logging operations in their forests to produce large volumes of wood pellets, with the aim of supplying biomass-fuelled power stations in the United Kingdom, the EU, Japan, South Korea, and elsewhere.

EU forest advocates are continuing their lobbying efforts to have the renewable energy designation stripped from wood biomass and to put an end to the current practice of granting large subsidies to the biomass industry for wood pellet production.

Science has revealed that burning biomass produces more carbon dioxide emissions per unit of energy generated than coal.

The Australian decision and the EU's continued commitment to supporting biomass create a complex situation for policymakers: “How can major powers have different definitions of renewable energy regarding biomass?”

Forest advocates in Australia – the world’s 13th largest economy – claim that they achieved a major environmental victory on 15 December as the ruling Labor Party revised the regulation, rejecting the classification of wood sourced from native forests and burned for energy as a renewable energy source. Previously, under the national renewable energy policy, wood biomass was classified as a renewable energy source.