Asked by
To ask His Majesty’s Government when they will publish their
consultation to implement a cross sectoral sustainability
framework for biomass, announced in the Biomass Strategy
2023.
(CB)
In begging leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the
Order Paper, I draw attention to my registered interest as
vice-chair of Peers for the Planet.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Energy
Security and Net Zero () (Con)
My Lords, the Government will consult in 2024 on the
sustainability actions set out in the Biomass Strategy, including
developing and implementing a cross-sectoral sustainability
framework to enable greater consistency across sectors and to
further strengthen our sustainability criteria.
(CB)
I thank the Minister for the Answer, but I draw the House’s
attention to the fact that the UK’s single largest source of CO2
emissions is a biomass power station. That fuel generates only 4%
of our power and creates 13.1 million tonnes of CO2, which is
about 20% of the total that we emit as a country. But, as a
nation, we subsidise it with our taxes. We call it renewable, so
apparently it does not count. The recent task and finish report
that the Government commissioned, looking at whether biomass
could be called carbon-neutral, could not confirm that this was
the case. Seeing that the evidence is pointing in the wrong
direction, will the Government commit to moving away from this
assumption that biomass is carbon-neutral, unless proven
otherwise? Will they issue no new licences for generation and end
their classification of this as a renewable power source?
(Con)
The noble Baroness knows that I do not agree with her on this.
The biomass that is used for generation in the two main plants is
sustainable. There are very strict sustainability criteria
attached to it, and the generators are measured against those
criteria by Ofgem.
(Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the commitment to the cross-sectoral frame-
work, provided that it is statutory rather than voluntary. Does
the Minister regard this as a significant change from the
Government’s previous position, when they decided to appoint a
senior member of Drax management to the Climate Change Committee
that advises government on biomass policy at a time when Drax had
received £11 billion in public subsidy for biomass?
(Con)
There has been no significant change in government policy. The
sustainability criteria for biomass have existed for a while now,
in concert with other biofuel strategies across government. Of
course, if we can take the opportunity to make those criteria
even better and even more sustainable, we will do so.
(Con)
My Lords, surely the answer to the noble Baroness’s question
about Drax is to reduce the barriers to increasing domestic
production of biomass in this country. Can the Minister say
something about the biomass feedstocks innovation programme? Is
it one that he feels strongly about, and is it actually going to
be taken forward and have more money put into it?
(Con)
Indeed, my noble friend makes a very good point. We have
currently awarded £32 million of funding to projects as part of
the Government’s £1 billion net zero innovation portfolio,
because there is an awful lot that we can do to improve the
availability of biomass feedstocks and look at deploying it more
effectively.
(CB)
My Lords, the “Panorama” on Drax offered vivid and compelling
evidence that fatally undermined Drax as a renewable proposition.
The Minister has previously asserted that that was an accurate
presentation, but as yet has offered no evidence to support his
claim. Drax wrote to me almost four months ago, also claiming
that the programme was a misrepresentation, and offered to
present me with evidence. Despite prods from me and further
promises from Drax, I have yet to receive that evidence. Is it
possible that the “Panorama” was an accurate representation?
(Con)
To slightly correct the noble Lord, I think I said it was an
inaccurate portrayal, rather than an accurate one, as he said. We
have debated this matter before, and the noble Lord has tabled a
number of Parliamentary Questions to me on it. I cannot go any
further than to repeat what I have already said: government
officials have engaged extensively with forestry experts and
Canadian officials following the “Panorama” programme, and we
have found no evidence that wood pellet production in the region
is unsustainable. We continue to believe that the narrative would
have benefited from a much fuller picture of how harvesting
decisions are made in practice.
(LD)
My Lords, I declare at the outset that I have a biomass boiler,
which came with the house I live in—but, honestly, we are trying
to get rid of it. It takes trees between 44 and 115 years for
sequestration of carbon. The lower estimate takes us well beyond
2050, the upper beyond the lives of anyone born today. So clearly
biomass is not renewable within the timeframe needed to tackle
climate change. Will the Government take that into account and
ensure that the UK applies the precautionary principle and ends
the ridiculous classification of biomass as a renewable power
source?
(Con)
I am pleased to hear that the noble Baroness has a biomass
boiler. In fact, she does not need to get rid of it, because if
she sources her pellets from the appropriate sources, that is a
renewable resource. These are not pellets from virgin forests but
by-products from the timber production process. There are very
strict sustainability criteria attached to them and, even if
those pellets were not used for biomass production, they would be
a waste product because the timber would still be harvested for
its other uses. So the noble Baroness does not need to feel so
guilty.
(Con)
My Lords, will my noble friend look favourably on taking
fast-growing willow coppice and miscanthus from local growers
right across Yorkshire to give a constant stream of reliable,
sustainable farm produce to Drax going forward?
(Con)
I did not quite hear the start of my noble friend’s question, but
if she is asking whether we want to source more sustainable
biofuels from UK sources, the answer is yes, absolutely.
(Lab)
The transition to clean power will require a massive expansion of
alternative energy sources right across the board, whether
biomass, onshore wind, solar or others, which will also deliver
energy security and hundreds of thousands of good green jobs.
This cannot be achieved without reviewing the sustainability and
economic competitiveness of each energy source and accelerating
carbon capture and storage. How are the Government working
comprehensively towards these two vital functions?
(Con)
I absolutely agree with the first part of the noble Baroness’s
question. She is right that there needs to be a variety of
sources of power: renewable sources, biomass linked to carbon
capture and storage, and long-term hydrogen production. Of
course, in the net zero strategy we look at all these things in
the round, linked to a long-term analysis of how the power needs
of the UK are best met going forward.
(Con)
My Lords, when wood decomposes, does it release CO2
naturally?
(Con)
I think it does, but I am not going to get into a scientific
debate about it. It certainly does when it is burned, but of
course it absorbs CO2 when it is growing; that is the nature of
it being sustainable.
(Con)
My Lords, so far my noble friend the Minister has talked a lot
about wood pellets and other things, but can he enlighten us on
the Government’s strategy on third and fourth generation biomass
and how they intend to encourage domestic producers in those two
areas?
(Con)
I am not sure I know what third and fourth generation biomass is.
I will have to have a cup of coffee with noble Lords afterwards
and we can have a chat about it.
(LD)
Does the Minister agree that trees decompose only once they are
felled?
(Con)
I suppose, if we want to get into a debate about that, they
absorb CO2 when they are growing. If they are felled and just rot
on the ground they emit CO2, but also when they are burned.
(GP)
Following on from that, does the Minister agree, particularly
thinking about not just the products from Drax but local
production, there is an alternative use of biomass, which can be
put back into the soil to increase soil carbon and soil health?
There is a real benefit there that needs to be considered when
thinking about whether it is better to use that carbon or simply
burn it.
(Con)
I shall ruin the noble Baroness’s social media portfolio and
agree with her this once: of course, we need to look at these
things in the round and there are lots of alternative uses. It is
the whole basis of the biomass strategy, because there are
different uses that we can put it to and we need to look at what
is most effective both for the environment and for UK power
production.
