Sustainable Energy Generation: Burning Trees

The hon. Member expressed concern over the use of biomass, specifically Drax power station's consumption of whole trees from primary forests in Canada. He highlighted the detrimental impact on biodiversity and climate change, citing figures such as an area three times the size of Wales being logged to supply Drax. The contribution also pointed out inaccuracies in Drax's responsible sourcing claims and the company's misleading statements about log quality and environmental benefits. He highlighted the distinction between managed forests and primary forests, emphasizing that biomass production from primary forests leads to a loss of biodiversity. He also questioned Drax's actions in British Colombia regarding clear-felling of primary forest areas. The Minister's willingness to give way is appreciated. Barry raises concern about the payback period and cycles not being short enough for emissions reductions within the required timeframe.

Ms. Nichols argued that importing wood pellets for energy is not sustainable, costly, and pollutes the environment. She highlighted Drax power station's role as the largest source of CO2 emissions in the UK, which relies on a false assumption about tree regrowth being carbon-neutral. She mentioned Drax burns 27 million trees annually with BEIS planning to burn 120 million by 2050, citing IPCC data showing wood burning produces more CO2 than coal. She criticised subsidies received by Drax and proposed investing in nuclear energy as a greener alternative.

The MP expressed concern over the high carbon emissions from bioenergy, which account for 47 million tonnes of CO2 annually, or 10% of UK's total greenhouse gas emissions. He highlighted that burning trees releases large amounts of carbon and advocated for using wood in construction to store carbon long-term instead. Derek Thomas also criticized Drax's practice of importing lower quality wood from Canada, which could otherwise be used for construction materials.

Jim Shannon emphasised the dual perspectives on burning trees, supporting those who use wood for heating and acknowledging environmental concerns. He highlighted his personal experience as a farmer planting 3,500 trees to improve local agriculture and environment. Shannon also noted that many rural households rely on log burners for warmth and practicality. He mentioned the Woodland Trust's concern about the high emissions intensity of biomass energy but advocated for considering nuclear power as an alternative source of clean energy.

John McNally highlighted the criticism of Drax power station for burning imported wood, emphasizing that it is not genuine waste but trees with other uses. He cited reports indicating clear-cutting in eastern Europe, the USA, and Canada to supply Drax. McNally also noted a lack of trust from financial markets and the environmental impact of increased demand on forests and water resources. He mentioned that 500 scientists had denounced burning trees for energy.

Ms Latham highlighted the financial and economic sustainability issues of biomass energy, noting that while it was once considered a cheaper carbon-neutral solution compared to other renewables like offshore wind, current subsidies cost £1 billion annually. She also pointed out that burning wood pellets releases 18% more CO2 than coal, and that Drax burns the equivalent of half the New Forest every year. Additionally, she expressed concern about the use of farmland for biomass crops affecting food security and habitat conservation.

Mr. Bottomley congratulated his colleagues on their debate contributions and mentioned the transition from coal or oil-powered stations to renewable power generation. He noted the inefficiency of treating Drax's operations as acceptable renewable power and emphasised the need for carbon-free electricity generation.

Intervened to question the carbon cost of transporting so-called renewable products across oceans when the UK aims to control domestic carbon emissions.

Burning trees for energy in the UK is not sustainable or climate-friendly, emitting more carbon than coal per unit of energy produced. Drax's practices in Canada harm old growth forests that cannot be replaced easily, undermining global nature and biodiversity commitments.

Sammy Wilson expressed concern about the £1 billion annual subsidy for burning wood pellets in England, drawing parallels with a failed Renewable Heat Incentive scheme in Northern Ireland that led to political turmoil. He highlighted environmental damage caused by renewable energy projects, such as windmills destroying woodland and peatlands, and questioned the effectiveness of biomass as it leads to higher carbon emissions compared to coal or gas. Wilson also raised concerns about consumer costs increasing due to these schemes. He pointed out that Drax's proposal for carbon capture and storage (CCS) involves high costs and consumes about a third of the power produced to capture CO2. Sammy mentions that a previous Minister had a similar position, implying continuity in approach.

Asked if it is extraordinary that the biomass industry seeks a combined CfD to combine biomass production with carbon capture and storage. Tackling climate change is the most important issue of our time. The IPCC notes that approximately 3.3 billion to 3.6 billion people live in contexts that are vulnerable to climate change. Ms Hobhouse highlighted global temperature increases, increased frequency of floods and wildfires, and recent environmental disasters such as floods in Pakistan, droughts and famines across east Africa, and a heatwave in the UK. She argued against bioenergy production due to its high CO2 emissions compared to coal and the long timescales required for carbon offsetting, which she considers too lengthy given urgent climate targets. Ms Hobhouse also pointed out health issues faced by local communities near bioenergy plants and environmental strain caused by converting land for energy crops. Despite these concerns, Drax power station receives over £2 million in biomass subsidies daily. She argued that burning wood or biomass is neither low in carbon nor a renewable source and asked why the industry continues to receive subsidies.