A recent proposal by the UK government to import biomass fuel from nations including North Korea and Afghanistan has sparked outrage among environmentalists and critics, who deem the plan as “bonkers.” This move raises questions about the credibility of the UK’s climate strategy, especially as the country aims to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050.
The Government’s Biomass Plan
The UK government has outlined an ambitious strategy to expand the role of biomass in its decarbonization efforts. A bioenergy resource model released in late summer indicates that substantial imports of energy crops and wood from various countries will be necessary to meet the UK’s climate goals. Over the past two decades, the government has allocated more than £20 billion to businesses using biomass for power and heat generation. Currently, around one-third of the biomass utilized in the UK is imported, with significant amounts coming from North America and the EU. However, the anticipated growth in bioenergy may outstrip the availability of wood in these regions.
Concerns About Sourcing and Sustainability
The bioenergy resource model includes a list of potential countries for biomass sourcing that has drawn skepticism. Mary Booth, director of the Partnership for Policy Integrity, noted that countries like North Korea, Afghanistan, Bhutan, and the Maldives appear “improbable” as significant sources of agricultural and forestry biomass. Critics argue that the model does not adequately address changes in land use or the sustainability of sourcing practices, particularly in nations with existing deforestation issues or lack of transparency.
Booth criticized the model’s assumptions that agricultural yields will increase dramatically and that land will be readily available for biomass production. She stated, “This is all against a background of increasing climate change when whole regions are facing famine due to weather-induced crop failures. It’s bonkers.”
The Debate on Biomass and Emissions
The assumption that biomass energy is climate-neutral has long been contested by scientists and environmental advocates. A recent report revealed that Drax, the UK’s largest power station, produced four times more carbon emissions than the last operational coal-fired plant before its closure last month. This discrepancy highlights the complexities and potential pitfalls associated with relying on biomass for meeting emissions targets.
Moreover, the government’s plans heavily depend on carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies, which are not yet operational on a large scale. Critics like former energy secretary Kwasi Kwarteng have argued that importing wood for combustion “does not make any sense.”
Biodiversity and Land Rights Issues
The widespread use of biomass raises serious concerns about its impact on biodiversity, air quality, and land rights, both in the UK and internationally. Large-scale biomass production could violate Indigenous land rights and have detrimental effects on local ecosystems. In its biomass strategy published last year, the government acknowledged these concerns, stating that only biomass that meets strict criteria would be considered low carbon. However, the National Audit Office (NAO) has noted that the government cannot adequately assure that current arrangements ensure compliance with sustainability standards.
Legal Challenges and Future Considerations
In a recent development, Drax agreed to a £25 million settlement after Ofgem found that the company submitted inaccurate data regarding the sourcing of wood pellets from Canada. Additionally, the Lifescape Project, a rewilding charity, has initiated legal proceedings against the government’s biomass strategy, claiming it is illegal and counterproductive to the UK’s net-zero ambitions. Frances Lawson, a lawyer for Lifescape, pointed out that the strategy relies on a resource model that is fundamentally flawed.
As the UK continues to navigate its path to net-zero emissions, the reliance on biomass imports from controversial nations raises critical questions about sustainability, energy consumption, and the effectiveness of current strategies. Experts warn that the government may need to increase efforts in other areas, such as developing alternative greenhouse gas removal technologies, to achieve its 2050 targets.
