I am always astonished and deeply disturbed to read that in the UK, taxpayers are funding what I describe as a deeply flawed process designed to curb climate change but in my view which makes matters far worse. The whole concept is frankly sheer madness. This is not a time to exacerbate deforestation which is already at very high levels and has been for decades. How politicians can believe that this is a good process beats me.
I’m told that the Drax plant in Shelby, UK, generates electricity by burning imported (from the US I believe and perhaps elsewhere). I am also told that this process is “a central part of the UK’s climate strategy”. Astonishing like I said.
The basic concept is that you chop down millions of trees and convert them to wood pellets which are burnt in power stations to create electricity which makes global warming worse. Set against this is the idea that you plant other trees and they grow and absorb carbon dioxide through photosynthesis and therefore you balance the equation and in the long term you have neutral energy or clean energy.
The problem is that you burn trees immediately and it takes decades for the trees to grow. In addition the whole process in the UK is subsidised by the taxpayer at £500 million a year. Only politicians could dream this up.
Worse still: the trees that are being chopped down are not specifically grown pine trees on all occasions. Sometimes we are told that old forests are being cut down in this ridiculous process. And of course the wood pellets are brought to the UK on diesel powered ships across the oceans. More pollution. More contributions to climate change. Making things worse.
And Drax does not offer the UK cheap energy. Every megawatt hour of electricity that Drax produces costs hundred £138 compared with about £80 for gas.
I’m not the only person who thinks this is pure madness. Greenpeace has objected as has the Sunday Times columnist Dominic Lawson.
Below is some more detail on this which expands on what I said above. I’m too mad to write it myself. It incenses to think about it. The information below is sourced from artificial intelligence which I believe I can rely on because it searches the Internet for the answers just as I would.
Question: Burning wood pellets in the UK from chopped down trees in the US makes climate change worse not better and as an idea it is fundamentally flawed as it exacerbates deforestation. The process is also taxpayer subsidised. Correct?
Yes, your concerns about burning wood pellets, especially in the context of the UK using biomass sourced from chopped-down trees in the US, are shared by many environmental scientists and activists. Here’s a breakdown of the main issues:
1. Climate Impact and Carbon Accounting
- Carbon Neutrality Debate: The burning of wood pellets is often justified on the grounds that biomass is “carbon neutral” because trees can be replanted to absorb the CO2 that is emitted when the wood is burned. However, this argument has significant flaws. The carbon released during combustion is immediate, while the reabsorption of CO2 through tree regrowth takes decades, or even longer. In the short term, this results in a net increase in atmospheric CO2, contributing to climate change rather than mitigating it.
- Carbon Debt: Cutting down trees and transporting them, often over long distances (e.g., from the US to the UK), emits significant amounts of CO2 before the wood is even burned. This creates a “carbon debt” that could take many years or decades to offset through forest regrowth, if at all.
2. Deforestation and Habitat Loss
- Sourcing from US Forests: A significant portion of the wood pellets used in the UK are sourced from forests in the southern US, where large swathes of natural forest are cleared to produce wood pellets. This exacerbates deforestation and biodiversity loss, as forests are often clear-cut rather than selectively harvested. Mature forests, which are more effective at sequestering carbon, are particularly vulnerable, and replacing them with new tree plantations does not have the same ecological or carbon storage benefits.
- Biodiversity Impact: Clear-cutting forests to produce biomass pellets can destroy ecosystems and harm wildlife. Unlike natural forests, monoculture tree plantations (which are often replanted after harvesting) do not provide the same habitat value.
3. Subsidies
- Taxpayer Subsidies: The biomass industry in the UK, including the burning of wood pellets at power stations like Drax, receives substantial government subsidies. These subsidies are designed to promote renewable energy, but critics argue they are misallocated because burning wood pellets is not truly renewable or sustainable in the way that solar, wind, or even geothermal energy is. Without these subsidies, the industry might not be economically viable.
- Controversial Use of Public Funds: Many environmentalists argue that taxpayer subsidies are effectively incentivizing deforestation and the burning of carbon-intensive fuels, all under the guise of climate mitigation.
4. Flawed Policy
- Fundamental Flaws: The policy of burning wood pellets as a renewable energy source is seen by many as fundamentally flawed, both environmentally and economically. While the intention is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, in practice it often results in greater emissions over time compared to other energy sources, especially if those sources are truly renewable (e.g., wind and solar).
- Alternative Energy Sources: Critics suggest that the UK should be investing more heavily in genuinely low-carbon and sustainable energy options, such as wind, solar, and energy storage solutions, rather than relying on biomass, which has uncertain environmental benefits and clear downsides.
In summary, burning wood pellets in the UK sourced from trees in the US is controversial because it exacerbates deforestation, worsens short-term climate impacts due to carbon debt, and is heavily subsidized by taxpayers. Many experts consider it a fundamentally flawed approach to reducing emissions, especially when more sustainable alternatives are available.
More: The suffragettes’ struggle is an excellent analogy for today’s climate change activism
The reason for this madness
The reason for this madness is political as you might expect. Without this particular power station called Drax the UK cannot meet a climate change target set out in the Climate Change Act. If the government cannot meet the target it will have to then set out alternatives which come with hefty prices or force behavioural change on the unwilling public. This will be a legal requirement under this act. Therefore the government is in a bind.
In short, the government and previous government has failed and made a blotch. This has trapped them into commissioning the chopping down of trees in a foreign country and burning them in a power plant in the UK making climate change worse. And to think that we are deforesting vast swaths of forest legally when in places like Brazil there is illegal deforestation on a large scale. In fact, on an enormous scale which has been the case for many years. How can we compound the problem by doing it legally as well?