Pauline Latham is MP for Mid Derbyshire.
Fiscal responsibility and environmental stewardship are two values at the heart of conservatism. They are about fairness, ensuring that future generations are not burdened with our debts, whilst the money of today’s taxpayers is spent wisely for the public’s benefit. A growing number of MPs are concerned these principles are not being sufficiently applied to the Government’s policy on biomass.
Bioenergy – energy generated through burning wood – has helped the UK to shift away from energy generated from coal. The decline in coal-fired electricity is undoubtedly a remarkable achievement. But billions of pounds in government subsidies have consequently been handed to bioenergy generators, despite many unanswered key questions about the financial and environmental benefits of the technology.
Concerns have been raised about the sustainability of the wood used by biomass plants. An investigation by BBC Panorama last October, for example, found that ancient forests in North America had been cut down to supply pellets for incineration in the UK, contributing to deforestation. Meanwhile, one of Drax’s suppliers in Mississippi has been accused of violating emission standards. A study by Ember recently found that the UK’s largest single source of carbon dioxide emissions was their wood-burning power plant.
This is why the biomass industry has bet on the potential of carbon capture and storage technology. When combined with bioenergy (BECCS), some argue this could provide a carbon-neutral means of meeting our energy needs. They are not alone: the Climate Change Committee (CCC), the Government’s independent advisors, includes BECCS in its pathway to the UK’s 2050 net zero target.
But problems with the sourcing of the waste wood remain. Sixty-six percent of biomass used in the UK for energy generation is sourced domestically and the CCC has repeatedly stated that an even higher proportion of biomass needs to be sourced from the UK. This is because our demand is set to grow considerably, with The Financial Times recently predicting that electricity consumption will double by 2050.
As an island nation, our supply of land is naturally limited. The Russian invasion of Ukraine last year highlighted the importance of UK food security. We simply cannot continue to grow the number of trees required to meet our rising demand for biomass without reducing the land available to grow food, or even to meet our tree planting targets.
In its ‘Balanced Pathway’ scenario for reaching net zero by 2050, the CCC estimates that the UK will need 19 million tonnes per year of BECCS. But the ability of BECCS to deliver negative emissions is dependent on the carbon neutrality of burning biomass, which is by no means guaranteed.
With these questions in mind, the Government recently published its Biomass Strategy and an accompanying report from its Chief Scientific Advisor. Far from being reassuring, however, it left even more questions than answers. Neither addressed the impact of BECCS on household energy bills, biodiversity, or land use.
The strategy recognises that the UK supply of biomass will only increase slightly come 2050 as a result of the pressure on land use. Simultaneously, the CCC has recommended onshoring much more of our demand for biomass ahead of 2050. And yet our demand for biomass to be used for energy generation is set to grow by at least four times by then.
It is for this reason that I tabled an amendment to the Energy Bill with the support of colleagues from across the House. My amendment would have stopped all new subsidies for BECCS until the Government published an independent review to establish its impact on household energy bills, lifecycle carbon emissions, biodiversity, and land use. This is vital to ensure that taxpayers’ money is spent wisely.
The Energy Bill was greatly improved by its passage through the Commons with colleagues securing the loosening of restrictions on onshore wind and more support for sustainable aviation fuel.
Whilst I am disappointed that the Government did not choose to support my amendment, it’s clear that the mood among MPs is changing. It’s time the Government saw the wood for the trees and stopped fritting away taxpayers’ hard-earned cash when so many key questions around biomass remain unanswered.
Pauline Latham is MP for Mid Derbyshire.
Fiscal responsibility and environmental stewardship are two values at the heart of conservatism. They are about fairness, ensuring that future generations are not burdened with our debts, whilst the money of today’s taxpayers is spent wisely for the public’s benefit. A growing number of MPs are concerned these principles are not being sufficiently applied to the Government’s policy on biomass.
Bioenergy – energy generated through burning wood – has helped the UK to shift away from energy generated from coal. The decline in coal-fired electricity is undoubtedly a remarkable achievement. But billions of pounds in government subsidies have consequently been handed to bioenergy generators, despite many unanswered key questions about the financial and environmental benefits of the technology.
Concerns have been raised about the sustainability of the wood used by biomass plants. An investigation by BBC Panorama last October, for example, found that ancient forests in North America had been cut down to supply pellets for incineration in the UK, contributing to deforestation. Meanwhile, one of Drax’s suppliers in Mississippi has been accused of violating emission standards. A study by Ember recently found that the UK’s largest single source of carbon dioxide emissions was their wood-burning power plant.
This is why the biomass industry has bet on the potential of carbon capture and storage technology. When combined with bioenergy (BECCS), some argue this could provide a carbon-neutral means of meeting our energy needs. They are not alone: the Climate Change Committee (CCC), the Government’s independent advisors, includes BECCS in its pathway to the UK’s 2050 net zero target.
But problems with the sourcing of the waste wood remain. Sixty-six percent of biomass used in the UK for energy generation is sourced domestically and the CCC has repeatedly stated that an even higher proportion of biomass needs to be sourced from the UK. This is because our demand is set to grow considerably, with The Financial Times recently predicting that electricity consumption will double by 2050.
As an island nation, our supply of land is naturally limited. The Russian invasion of Ukraine last year highlighted the importance of UK food security. We simply cannot continue to grow the number of trees required to meet our rising demand for biomass without reducing the land available to grow food, or even to meet our tree planting targets.
In its ‘Balanced Pathway’ scenario for reaching net zero by 2050, the CCC estimates that the UK will need 19 million tonnes per year of BECCS. But the ability of BECCS to deliver negative emissions is dependent on the carbon neutrality of burning biomass, which is by no means guaranteed.
With these questions in mind, the Government recently published its Biomass Strategy and an accompanying report from its Chief Scientific Advisor. Far from being reassuring, however, it left even more questions than answers. Neither addressed the impact of BECCS on household energy bills, biodiversity, or land use.
The strategy recognises that the UK supply of biomass will only increase slightly come 2050 as a result of the pressure on land use. Simultaneously, the CCC has recommended onshoring much more of our demand for biomass ahead of 2050. And yet our demand for biomass to be used for energy generation is set to grow by at least four times by then.
It is for this reason that I tabled an amendment to the Energy Bill with the support of colleagues from across the House. My amendment would have stopped all new subsidies for BECCS until the Government published an independent review to establish its impact on household energy bills, lifecycle carbon emissions, biodiversity, and land use. This is vital to ensure that taxpayers’ money is spent wisely.
The Energy Bill was greatly improved by its passage through the Commons with colleagues securing the loosening of restrictions on onshore wind and more support for sustainable aviation fuel.
Whilst I am disappointed that the Government did not choose to support my amendment, it’s clear that the mood among MPs is changing. It’s time the Government saw the wood for the trees and stopped fritting away taxpayers’ hard-earned cash when so many key questions around biomass remain unanswered.