Ancient trees are shipped to the UK, then burned – using billions in ‘green’ subsidies. Stop this madness now | Dale Vince

TruthLens AI Suggested Headline:

"Concerns Rise Over Drax's Use of Subsidies for Burning Imported Ancient Trees"

View Raw Article Source (External Link)
Raw Article Publish Date:
AI Analysis Average Score: 6.6
These scores (0-10 scale) are generated by Truthlens AI's analysis, assessing the article's objectivity, accuracy, and transparency. Higher scores indicate better alignment with journalistic standards. Hover over chart points for metric details.

TruthLens AI Summary

The ongoing practice of burning ancient trees for energy in the UK, particularly at Drax power station, raises significant environmental concerns and questions about the sustainability of such operations. The UK government has reportedly provided billions in subsidies, allowing Drax to cut down ancient forests in the US and Canada, transport the wood across the Atlantic, and burn it for electricity generation. Critics argue that this practice is counterproductive to the climate goals of reaching net zero emissions by 2050. The burning of wood emits 18% more CO2 than coal, and even with replanting efforts, it could take up to a century for new trees to absorb the released carbon. Drax has been labeled as Britain's largest polluter, and despite its claims of being a climate hero, the emissions from its operations are effectively ignored in the UK's climate accounting, raising alarms about transparency and accountability in environmental policy.

Opposition to Drax's operations transcends political boundaries, garnering support from various factions, including environmentalists and different political parties. The Labour-dominated public accounts committee has criticized Drax as a “white elephant” that has been allowed to “mark its own homework,” while a Lords committee has called for scrutiny before approving further funding. Concerns about Drax's practices have been amplified by a BBC investigation, which revealed the company's involvement in unsustainable logging practices. Critics argue that the funds sought by Drax could be better allocated towards developing genuinely renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar power, instead of subsidizing the destruction of ancient forests. The government's current restrictions on Drax's operations are seen as inadequate, particularly as the company seeks to expand its energy production to private data centers without clear regulations. This situation calls for urgent reevaluation of energy policies and a commitment to genuine climate action that prioritizes sustainability over short-term financial gains.

TruthLens AI Analysis

You need to be a member to generate the AI analysis for this article.

Log In to Generate Analysis

Not a member yet? Register for free.

Unanalyzed Article Content

How green is this? We pay billions of pounds to cut downancient forestsin the US and Canada, ship the wood across the Atlantic in diesel tankers, then burn it in a Yorkshire-based power station.

Welcome to the scandal of Drax, whereBritain’s biggest pollutergets to play climate hero. The reality is that billions in public subsidies has enabled Drax to generate electricity by burning300m trees. Now the government is trying to force through anextensionthat would grant Drax an estimated£1.8bn in public subsidieson top of the£11bn it has already pocketed, keeping this circus going until at least 2031.

This isn’t green energy. The mathematics alone should horrify anyone who cares about value for money or the environment. Burning wood creates18% more CO2 emissions than coal. Even if you replant every tree Drax destroys,it takes up to a centuryfor new growth to reabsorb the carbon released. We’re supposed to reach net zero by 2050, not 2125.

Yet through circus-trick accounting, all of Drax’s massive emissions magically disappear from Britain’s climate ledger. They’ve simply been wished away –counted as “zero”, while the company becomes our largest single contributor to climate breakdown.

Extraordinarily, this scandal unites opposition across the political spectrum. From the Greens to Reform, from the Morning Star to the Daily Telegraph, there’s rare consensus thatDraxrepresents everything wrong with our approach to climate policy.

The Labour-dominated public accounts committeecondemnedDrax as a “white elephant” that’s been allowed to “mark its own homework” while claiming “billions upon billions” in subsidies. A Lords committee agreed, saying parliament needs to see key documentsbefore approving any more funding.

I don’t agree with Ed Miliband on everything – we clearly have different views on nuclear power. I respect the energy secretary’s commitment to tackling climate crisis, and it is worth noting that the further subsidies arehalf of what was previously on offerfor Drax. But that’s exactly why continuing to subsidise Drax at all is so disappointing.

When Miliband announced his plans to “ramp up”biomass burning back in 2009, he was genuinely trying to find alternatives to fossil fuels. But 16 years on, this policy has gone badly astray. What was meant to be a bridge to renewable energy is actually making emissions worse.

If,on Monday, the House of Lords votes to extend this unabated wood burning for another four years, what is to stop these subsidies being extended again and again? And why should the government deal with a firm as untrustworthy as Drax? Perhaps most damning is what Drax refuses to reveal. After the BBC’s devastatingPanorama investigationinto the company’s destruction of Canadian primary forests, Drax asked auditor KPMG to investigate, hoping for a clean bill of health. However, the evidence was so damning that the reports are still beinghidden from the public.

If Drax has nothing to hide, why not publish these reports? A former top Treasury official turned whistleblower accused it of deliberatelyconcealing unsustainable practicesto secure subsidies. The case, now settled, raises questions of dishonesty that should disqualify any company from public funding.

The extra billions Drax is seeking could help build enough wind and solar capacity to power millions of homes. It could create permanent jobs in genuine renewable industries, not temporary employment destroying irreplaceable ecosystems. Every pound spent subsidising tree burning is a pound not invested in technologies that could actually deliver net zero. While other countries race ahead with wind, solar and battery storage, we’re burning money on the most primitive fuel known to humanity.

There’s a huge loophole in the government’s pledge to stop Drax burning trees from primary forest. Their restrictions on Drax only apply to subsidised electricity supplied to the grid. Drax wants to power private data centres but there is no plan that prevents it from destroying ancient forests to power 21st-century AI searches.

That means Drax could be cutting down even more primary forests than it does today. MPs have lost trust in the government’s ability to hold Drax to account – the criticism from parliamentary committees has been brutal.

The environmental movement didn’t fight to establish renewable energy so politicians could facilitate the burning of ancient forests that took millennia to grow. Real climate action means making hard choices, not hiding behind accounting tricks that make our emissions disappear on paper while making them worse in reality.

It is time forLabourMPs to speak up; the fight for net zero is hard enough. More subsidies for Drax’s wood burning in the name of sustainability is just more fuel on that fire.

Dale Vince is a green energy industrialist and campaigner

Back to Home
Source: The Guardian