Asked by
To ask His Majesty’s Government when they plan to publish their
biomass strategy; whether it will take into account the time it
takes for trees to sequester the carbon released from burning
wood pellets; and what are the emissions associated with land use
change in deforested areas.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for
Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy () (Con)
My Lords, the Government have committed to publishing a biomass
strategy, due in quarter 2, 2023. The UK source of woody biomass
for energy predominantly comes from managed forests, which are
managed for conventional forestry products such as timber. Where
biomass is sourced from forests, the land criteria include
requirements around regeneration rates and sustainable harvesting
in the sourcing regions, thereby ensuring that the carbon stock
of the forest from which biomass is derived is not decreased.
(CB)
I thank the Minister for the Answer. However, reports, most
recently from “Panorama”, have concluded that the pellets we are
burning are not exclusively from waste wood, so we are actually
causing deforestation of virgin forests. Natural Resources Canada
states that, in a best-case scenario, biomass is worse for
atmospheric CO2 levels than coal for the first 85 years after use
due to the time it takes to be recaptured by the trees.
Therefore, biomass is not renewable in the timeframe we have to
avert the worst consequences of climate change. I know that the
Government are currently considering what to do post the subsidy
agreements that run to 2027. Will they please remove the
renewable classification biomass enjoys, and with it the billions
of pounds in subsidies it receives from the taxpayer?
(Con)
As the noble Baroness is aware, the UK supports only biomass that
complies with very strict sustainability criteria. Following the
programme to which she refers, government officials engaged
extensively with forestry experts and Canadian officials, and we
are confident that wood pellet production in the region is
sustainable and does not lead to destruction of forests in those
regions.
(Con)
My Lords, how can it possibly be in the interests of the
environment to cut down trees in North America, then use energy
to turn them into pellets, then put them on a ship powered by
diesel to transfer them across the Atlantic, then land them on
the west coast of this country and then transport them in a
refrigerated container to Drax, and for the taxpayer and the
consumer to pay for all this in the name of saving the planet?
(Con)
My noble friend has a direct way of putting these things, as
always. As I said, there are very strict sustainability criteria
that production is monitored against. What I would say in defence
of this system is that they are not virgin trees; it is
by-product from commercial harvesting. The wood, of course, is
used for normal wood processes and the pellets are produced from
the waste products associated with that.
(Lab)
Could the Minister say whether there is a difference with
coppicing as opposed to pellets? I recall that back in 1999, when
I was a MAFF Minister, I opened a school in Herefordshire where
the fuelling system was a contract with, I think, eight local
farmers who would coppice wood to fuel the boilers. What is the
difference in the biomass rules for that, as opposed to the wood
pellets?
(Con)
They are two different systems, but the noble Lord is essentially
correct. As I said earlier, the UK supports only biomass which
complies with strict sustainability criteria. Where that biomass
is sourced from forests, the land criteria include requirements
around regeneration rates and sustainable harvesting to ensure
that the carbon stock of the forest from which the biomass is
derived is not decreased.
(Con)
My Lords, will my noble friend look again at the question of
growing crops to produce artificial fuel? That creates CO2 all
the way through the process, and when it is burned at the end.
Surely, we should have an assessment of the amount of CO2 that is
used up doing this, compared with other fuels.
(Con)
My noble friend makes a good point and there is clearly sometimes
a difference between crops that are used for fuel and those that
could be used for food, and we always have to make sure that we
get the sustainability balance right.
(Lab)
My Lords, when the Energy Prices Act was introduced, the
Government said that dispatchable low-carbon technologies such as
biomass were being considered as part of a policy designed to
reduce the impact of higher gas prices on the energy market, but
that higher input costs were the main drawback. Is there a
timeline for this consideration and has any progress been made
since this was said in October this year?
(Con)
I cannot give the noble Lord a precise timescale, but, of course,
we always keep these matters under review and we will look at it
very closely.
(CB)
My Lords, all biocrops are low-density forms of energy and we are
missing this point here. As a result, they have a significant
land utilisation demand and impacts that are much wider than just
the crops themselves. Can the Minister confirm that, in growing
biomass for fuel, there will be no ancillary loss or impact on
other natural capitals, in particular biodiversity, water and
healthy soils?
(Con)
Most of the forests from which these supplies come are of course
commercial forests. They are established for the purposes of
growing wood for construction and other methods, and the pellets
that are then produced are from waste products. But the noble
Baroness is ultimately correct: we need to make sure that
diversity is guaranteed, as well as the sustainability criteria.
(LD)
My Lords, one of the objectives of the Government under the
Environment Act was to rationalise local government collection of
waste, part of which is food waste. We have a real opportunity to
collect that food waste and put it into anaerobic digestion,
thereby having positive environmental biomass production of
renewables. Where have the Government got on that? It seems that
there is a complete pause and no action.
(Con)
I am afraid the noble Lord is completely wrong; we are acting on
that. There are already food waste collections from many local
authorities around the country. We have the green gas support
scheme, which is rolling out support across the country for
anaerobic digesters, many of which are using waste food. We await
with interest the food waste strategy coming from Defra—I spoke
to a Defra Minister about it the other day—which should be out
early next year, to ensure that all local authorities are rolling
out food waste collection. On his ultimate point, the noble Lord
is correct that anaerobic digesters offer a fantastic opportunity
for the production of green gas—but many already exist and are
being rolled out in this country as we speak.
(Con)
My Lords, having heard my noble friend talking about where these
wood pellets come from, if it was found that wood was being taken
from primary forests rich in biodiversity to make those pellets,
would he join me in condemning that practice?
(Con)
“Yes” is the short answer to my noble friend’s question. We want
to make sure that it comes not from proper indigenous forests but
comes as a by-product from commercially managed forests. We need
to be sure that it is environmentally sustainable and we have
strict criteria that are monitored to ensure that that is the
case.
(Lab)
My Lords, following the earlier question from the noble Lord,
Lord Forsyth, does the Government’s assessment take into account
the travel costs and the cost of bringing those materials to the
UK?
(Con)
These are factors that are taken into consideration when the
overall sustainability of the procedure is looked at. They are
monitored by Ofgem to make sure that all the pellets that are
sustained, both from UK forests for use in biomass boilers and so
on in the UK and those that are imported, all have the same
sustainability criteria.
(Con)
Does my noble friend agree that it is more environmentally
friendly and helpful to British farmers if we encourage the
growth of fast-growing willow coppice and miscanthus to feed into
biomass production?
(Con)
That is one potential source for biomass production; my noble
friend is right in that respect. But, as I said, there is also
the ultimate decision that we need to make about what we wish to
use available agricultural land for. Should it be for food
production, biofuel production or biomass? These are all things
that will be taken into account in the strategy.
(Lab)
Does the noble Lord recognise, in the context of his last answer,
that the recently published report from the land use Select
Committee says that we need a land-use framework for England in
order to make decisions about where the most appropriate siting
of different crops and energy generation materials should be? If
that was in existence, it would become abundantly clear that
biomass is probably not one of the best uses of our scarce land
resource.
(Con)
I have not seen the report the noble Baroness refers to, but I
will make sure to have a look at it.
(CB)
Is the Minister concerned about the development of so-called
“carbon capitalism”, whereby investment trusts and UK and
overseas corporates are buying up land to take advantage of
commercial opportunities in the carbon credit space? I cite as an
example that the price of land in Scotland has now risen by over
30%, and that a third of those sales are taking place off market.
(Con)
I am not aware of the factors that the noble Lord is referring
to. It is the first time I have heard of “carbon capitalism”, but
I look forward to reading more about it.
