A recent proposal from the British government to import biomass from countries like North Korea and Afghanistan has sparked significant backlash, with many critics dubbing it “bonkers” and questioning its impact on the UK’s climate credibility.
This plan arose from a bioenergy resource model released last summer, which suggested that a substantial increase in the importation of energy crops and wood from these unexpected nations is vital for the UK to reach its net-zero emissions target. With a vision for biomass to play a “significant role” in decarbonizing the economy by 2050, the UK government has already poured over £20 billion into biomass-related businesses for power and heating over the past twenty years.
Currently, imports account for approximately one-third of the biomass consumed in the UK. In 2021, the country brought in 9.1 million tonnes of wood pellets for energy production, primarily from North America (76%) and the EU (18%). However, experts caution that these regions may not be able to meet the anticipated dramatic rise in bioenergy demand.
Mary Booth, director of the Partnership for Policy Integrity, noted that the resource model points to what she calls “improbable” bioenergy sources, including nations like North Korea, Afghanistan, Bhutan, and the Maldives. She was particularly critical of the model’s overly optimistic assumptions regarding land use changes and the expectation of exponential growth in energy crop areas alongside a 50% increase in crop yields. “This optimism is alarming, especially given the current climate crisis, where many areas are battling famine due to crop failures exacerbated by changing weather patterns,” she said. “It’s bonkers.”
Booth also expressed doubts about whether such extensive biomass could realistically be sourced for the UK. She highlighted the deforestation issues in countries like Brazil and questioned how sustainability regulations could be effectively enforced in authoritarian regimes such as North Korea.
Furthermore, Booth and other environmental advocates challenged the premise that bioenergy can significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. They argue that burning wood for energy isn’t genuinely climate-neutral since forests may take too long to recover and absorb the necessary carbon emissions. A recent study indicated that Drax, the UK’s largest power station, emitted four times more carbon than the nation’s last operating coal plant, which closed just last month.
Critics remain skeptical about the government’s reliance on carbon capture and storage technologies to mitigate emissions from burning biomass. Although Drax’s operators plan to launch a “bioenergy with carbon capture and storage” project, no such facilities have yet been established globally.
Former Energy Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng pointed out that importing wood for combustion is not financially viable. Additionally, there are serious concerns regarding the ecological effects of biomass on biodiversity, air quality, agriculture, and soil health, as well as potential violations of Indigenous land rights both in the UK and abroad.
The government has acknowledged some of these criticisms. In its biomass strategy released last year, officials stated that only biomass meeting strict criteria would be classified as low carbon with the potential for genuine CO₂ reductions, signaling a willingness to enhance these standards.
However, a January report from the National Audit Office (NAO) revealed that the government cannot guarantee its current systems sufficiently verify the industry’s compliance with sustainability standards. Following this, Drax agreed to pay £25 million after regulators found inaccuracies in its data concerning wood pellet sourcing from Canada.
A representative from the Department of Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) remarked that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) supports biomass as a low carbon energy source when sourced according to strict sustainability criteria. DESNZ is set to consult on a “cross-sector sustainability framework,” but declined to provide further comments due to ongoing legal disputes concerning the biomass strategy and the bioenergy resource model.
The Lifescape Project, a rewilding charity backed by the Partnership for Policy Integrity, has launched a legal challenge asserting that the biomass strategy is unlawful and undermines the UK’s net-zero objectives for 2050. Frances Lawson, a lawyer for Lifescape, argued that the strategy is overly reliant on an unproven resource model, claiming that the government’s overall bioenergy plan is “irrational.”
In conclusion, Booth asserted that the UK has boxed itself in by depending too heavily on biomass in its fight against climate change. “They’re reluctant to confront the reality that we all need to dramatically reduce our energy consumption,” she remarked.
The NAO indicated that if biomass is to play the anticipated role in meeting the UK’s net-zero goals, additional strategies may be necessary, such as advancing other greenhouse gas removal technologies, encouraging behavioral shifts, or fostering further innovation.
