ajor marketing campaign teams have joined forces to sentence the continued burning of wooden from forests and vitality crops in UK energy stations.

Campaigners from Greenpeace, WWF, the RSPB, Wildlife Trusts, Wildlife and Countryside Link and Mighty Earth are among the many NGOs who've penned an open letter to Energy Secretary Grant Shapps forward of the anticipated publication of the Government’s new Biomass Strategy.

The activists are calling on ministers to finish all subsidies for burning wooden from forests and vitality crops in energy stations and to not award vitality firms any new help or contracts to take action.

Bioenergy has been promoted as a carbon-neutral and renewable vitality supply on the idea that the emissions launched by burning wooden and crops might be offset by the carbon dioxide taken up by these planted to interchange them.

The trade claims that the wooden is sustainably sourced from forestry waste – like twigs and offcuts fairly than complete timber – and that carbon seize expertise might help to catch CO2 emissions when its burned.

Read More

But scientists and activists have been elevating severe doubts over the veracity of those sustainability claims and whether or not biomass ought to play a significant position in nationwide internet zero plans.

“The assumption that burning wood is carbon neutral is false,” the campaigners wrote on Friday.

“It is very different than the genuinely low-carbon energy provided by wind, solar, or geothermal.

“Bioenergy power plants are some of the biggest sources of carbon dioxide in the UK.

“It is assumed that they can offset their emissions by regrowing the trees that are cut down. But this can take decades – time we don’t have in the race to cut emissions and tackle climate change.”

In the letter, the campaigners additionally claimed that burning wooden pellets has been discovered to extend vitality payments, carries larger dangers to UK vitality and meals safety in comparison with wind and photo voltaic, and causes air pollution that may negatively have an effect on well being and nature.

They disputed Government and trade arguments that carbon seize expertise could make bioenergy “carbon negative”, including that the UK’s internet zero plans are based mostly on “flawed calculations”.

Elsewhere, they raised issues that subsidies will probably be granted to energy firms in the event that they commit to make use of carbon seize expertise – however no matter whether or not they really accomplish that.

“Billions of billpayers’ money may be used for business-as-usual burning of trees,” the letter warned.

The Government is ready to unveil a brand new biomass technique on the finish of June, outlining how utilizing sustainably-sourced wooden and carbon seize expertise might help the UK attain internet zero.

Energy big Drax, which runs the wood-burning energy plant in Yorkshire, has been hoping the Government will prolong wooden burning licences past the present 2027 expiration.

But the current Climate Change Committee’s report into the Government’s internet zero progress discovered that biomass energy vegetation should not be given contracts to function from 2027 if the UK hopes to attain its targets.

The majority of biomass burned within the UK is sourced and shipped from nations just like the US, Canada and Estonia with producers typically counting on authorities subsidies to make revenue.

Many been rocked by scandals in recent times, dealing with allegations of reducing down complete timber fairly than simply forestry waste and polluting the air of susceptible communities the place the wooden pellets are made.

The campaigners referred to experiences that Drax’s personal scientific advisers informed the corporate to cease calling biomass “carbon neutral” and referring to the wooden it makes use of as “waste”.

They additionally cited analysis which discovered that Drax is a significant PM10 polluter – small particles that may be inhaled and trigger well being points.

Gemma Hoskins, senior UK director at Mighty Earth, stated: “Chopping down trees to make wood pellets to burn for electricity is not carbon neutral, it’s a carbon nightmare, releasing more carbon into the atmosphere than coal.”

Alex Mackaness, senior coverage adviser for bioenergy at RSPB, stated: “Moving forward, burning trees for electricity generation, even with carbon capture and storage, should not be supported, and instead the Strategy must identify how we best use the scarce biomass resources we have at our disposal in a way that delivers both for people and nature.”

Matt Williams, campaigner for Cut Carbon Not Forests, added: “It has become crystal clear how bad burning trees is for the climate, forests, and people’s energy bills.

“It’s time to consign burning trees in power plants to the past, and focus on protecting forests.”

A Department for Energy Security and Net Zero spokesperson stated: “We are committed to maintaining our strict biomass sustainability criteria, to ensure biomass use genuinely contributes to the UK’s decarbonisation efforts and is in line with the UK’s climate and environmental goals.

“Our ambition is to remain at the forefront of biomass sustainability, strengthening our already strict criteria where required.

“The Biomass Strategy will present further detail on this area.”

PA has contacted Drax for remark.