Cutting down forests to feed Drax incurs a huge carbon cost
Dale Vince is right that paying the Drax power station billions of pounds to burn forests is not a coherent climate strategy (Ancient trees are shipped to the UK, then burned – using billions in 'green' subsidies. Stop this madness now, 21 June) . Labour has already said these subsidies should not continue beyond 2031 – a welcome and necessary step.
Cutting down forests in Estonia, Latvia, the US and Canada is destructive to biodiversity. What's more, it makes no climate sense – for forests to recover their role as lungs that absorb carbon dioxide takes decades. Biomass, of the type Drax uses, incurs a huge carbon cost.
Relying on millions of tonnes of imported wood to keep the lights on is dangerous. A strategy for energy security means investing in real, homegrown renewables – wind, solar, tidal and restoring nature to capture carbon.Alex SobelLabour and Co-operative MP for Leeds Central and Headingley
We have to remember that using Drax to burn freshly grown wood is better than burning coal and not planting any trees at all (as we merrily did last century). Drax is a stepping stone to a low carbon future and should be switched off once the alternatives are in place.
I am saddened to hear that Canada is using virgin forest to supply Drax. This should be stopped by its government. There are other stepping stones that should be given consideration: 'blue options' as opposed to 'grey' or 'green' options. Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is likely to be a better blue option than biomass, because the CO2 is removed immediately and not recycled into the atmosphere. However biomass is cheaper.
All options need to be kept on the table, partly to avoid having all our eggs in one basket and partly to make sure we come as close as possible to a speedy, low-cost transition that we can afford. Tom BlandfordFordingbridge, Hampshire
Creative accounting has always been the refuge of scoundrels. That the UK government wants to continue to book nonexistent emissions reductions through large-scale wood burning that annihilates ancient forests and use ever more taxpayer money to subsidise the scam is not only shameful, but also alarming to anyone hoping for real action on climate.
At the Bonn climate negotiation meetings I recently attended, it transpired that Brazil seems intent on a big push for the bioeconomy at the upcoming COP op30 in the Amazon. It's obvious that, cloaked in platitudes about small-scale social bioeconomy measures with merit, industrial scale forest biomass energy will charge through this gateway.
Burning up the biosphere as climate action is the Orwellian prospect we all face.Peg Putt Former member of the Tasmanian House of Assembly
At the moment, the issue of burning trees in power stations like Drax must surely be vastly overshadowed by the seasonal 'accidental' loss of established woodland by the annual return of highly energetic and polluting fires in Canada, Russia and Europe.
Having their likely origin in changing weather (and therefore also climate) patterns, resulting in prolonged droughts and rising temperatures, accompanied by natural and anthropogenic ignition sources, these events are likely to be irreversible, without a dramatic universal reduction in CO2 emissions, as well as in the release of CH4 (methane, with its dramatically higher environmental damage potential) from melting permafrosts in Arctic, sub-Arctic and alpine environments, and from animal husbandry.William CarmichaelSafenwil, Switzerland
Have an opinion on anything you've read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
3 hours ago
- The Independent
In Pictures: Glastonbury fans beat the heat as Kneecap and Kaiser Chiefs perform
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging. At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story. The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it. Your support makes all the difference.
Daily Mail
4 hours ago
- Daily Mail
BREAKING NEWS Canada brutally hits back at Trump's tariffs ultimatum with huge hike that could cripple struggling US industry
After President Donald Trump shut down all trade talks with Canada, the country retaliated by hiking duties on American steel imports. Canada imposed an import quota late Friday and if it is exceeded, certain American steel sent to the country will face a new 50 percent surcharge. Canada's Finance Minister, François-Philippe Champagne, said the government was acting to protect domestic industry from 'unjust US tariffs,' NBC News reported. The response came hours after Trump posted on Truth Social about how Canada is a 'very difficult country to trade with.' His reason for suspending trade negotiations came down to a tax Canada is set to impose on major tech companies starting Monday. 'Based on this egregious Tax, we are hereby terminating ALL discussions on Trade with Canada, effective immediately,' Trump wrote, adding that the levy 'is a direct and blatant attack on our Country.' Last week, the finance minister said he would not delay the implementation of the digital services tax, which applies to any firm making more than $15 million from Canadian internet users. The three percent tax will strike at the heart of American companies like Amazon, Google, Meta, Uber and Airbnb. Canada's response came hours after President Donald Trump made this post criticizing the country for levying a usage tax on American tech companies And because the tax is retroactive back to 2022, one tech lobbying group said American firms will soon have to pay up to $3 billion directly into Canada's treasury. Canada has not ruled out further action to strike back at Trump for ending negotiations, with the government saying it 'remains prepared to take additional steps as needed.' How Canada's hike on US steel imports will affect the industry, which has been struggling for years, is yet to be seen. US Steel Corporation, once one of the most valuable companies in the world, just merged with Japan's Nippon Steel earlier this month after years of declining sales. Canada remains the second largest trading partner of the US, despite all the trade turmoil. Right now, the US has 25 percent tariff on Canadian imports that aren't covered by the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), the trade deal Trump signed in his first term. Canadian energy is exempt from the 25 percent rate but is still tariffed at 10 percent, as are most products that have entered the US since early April. Canada is also hugely impacted by Trump's 50 percent tax on steel and aluminum imports, as the country is largest foreign supplier of those materials to the US. Canada's steel industry has laid off a staggering 1,000 workers since the first US tariffs in March, Reuters reported. It has also been impacted by the 25 percent duties Trump has levied on foreign-made vehicles and parts. This comes as the US rapidly approaches Trump's July 9 deadline to renegotiate trade with countries around the world so they can avoid so-called reciprocal tariffs. Trump first announced the reciprocal tariffs on April 2, which he dubbed 'Liberation Day.' More than 60 countries were hit with import charges of as much as 50 percent. The announcement from the White House led to widespread market panic and falling bond values, which led to Trump enacting a 90-day pause on April 9. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said early Friday that the pause could be extended to Labor Day - and that country-by-country tariffs could be negotiated down in that time. Hours later, Trump echoed a similar sentiment. He said the initial July 9 deadline was not set in stone and could shortened or extended.
The Guardian
4 hours ago
- The Guardian
Thames Water court case shows there are alternatives to massive infrastructure
Britain is running out of water, we are told. Soon there will be curfews, banning people from turning on their taps, as happens in Italy. Standpipes will sprout on the side of parched roads where trees once stood. Rivers will run dry and rural communities will begin digging wells in response to a water apocalypse destined to arrive courtesy of the ravaging effect of climate change. The water companies argue that major investment is needed to cope with the changing weather patterns, with those funds primarily channelled into building massive new infrastructure. They are happy to carry out the work, as long as payment is charged directly to customers. It is what we might call the HS2 fallacy. Except that rather than build a high-speed line to increase the rail capacity between London and Birmingham when other much less sexy options were available at much lower cost, we find ourselves agreeing to construct reservoirs as tall as high-rise buildings. Importantly, the assets boost the balance sheets of privatised water companies, because while billpayers will have funded the projects, the shareholders will own the new infrastructure. Last week a group of experts took Thames Water to court to try to persuade a judge that an alternative to one reservoir, near Abingdon in Oxfordshire, is not only possible but presents a much more sustainable and cheaper option for customers, and that this needs to be tested in a public inquiry. At the heart of the argument is a dispute about how to manage Britain's water resources, with campaigners urging a move away from grands projets to something more humdrum, allowing for the money to be spent instead on cleaning up rivers polluted in the first place by Thames Water et al. However, what Thames and its consultant friends appear to want, like so many in the infrastructure game, is an edifice you can see from space. Nine new reservoirs are at the heart of this plan and some will have walls to hold in the water that are the height of the average house. The reservoir destined to replace farmers' fields near Abingdon will have walls 25 metres high. They are destined for the south and east of England, where population numbers are increasing and dry summers scorch the earth. Politicians have backed the plans, and it is easy to see why. Britain has failed to build reservoirs over the last 40 years, and who doesn't like a nice lake to look at? Reservoirs are cheap and easy to build when they are situated in a valley and the river that runs through it is capped at one end. The ground should be impermeable, which usually means clay sits under the water. Unfortunately at Abingdon there is what can only be described as a puddle of clay, which is why the reservoir must sit on top, with skyscraper walls all around. A reservoir planned for Lincolnshire will likewise have 13-metre walls because the clay layer there is so thin. Much of the south is dominated by chalk and gravel, so is unsuitable for reservoirs. Land that has clay that has already been built on – London, for example. Sign up to Business Today Get set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morning after newsletter promotion What the south boasts is chalk and underground aquifers. The anti-reservoir campaigners say this aquifer water, and that of the slow-moving lower reaches of rivers that feed the Thames, such as the Lea, can be extracted with no environmental harm. The problem for CPRE, formerly the Council for the Protection of Rural England, and the campaign group Saferwaters, which are backing the campaign, is that Thames Water is working with the grain of people's emotions. Reservoirs good, aquifers and river extraction bad. Climate change, though, means wetter winters and drier summers. So aquifers fill up in the winter and suffer little evaporation in the summer, while reservoirs suffer huge losses during hot days, especially when the new ones must pump water uphill from nearby rivers, are relatively shallow and with a large surface area. Thames Water relies on forecasts that show 2 million more people will live in London and the south-east by 2050, and when taking into account the depletion of other water sources from climate change, it will need to find an extra 1bn litres of water every day. The Environment Agency's figures, though, show a steep decline in water use, much of that related to the switch from water-hungry oil, gas and coal power stations to renewables such as solar power. Again, we might have an attachment to old-fashioned ways of generating energy, but renewables have many benefits, including water use. Another arrow in the campaigners' quiver relates to leakages. Why, they ask, is Thames being asked to cut its leakage rate by 50% to 11.4% by 2050 when water suppliers in Germany have already cut the rate to about 7%? Reservoirs let Thames off the hook. The company should be spending money plugging leaks amd preventing sewage spewing into rivers. Instead, it is asked to embark on projects paid for by customers that boost its asset base. What's not to like, from the water company's point of view? The government should be more sceptical. There is a price to be paid and voters will not be kind when higher bills fall through their letterbox.
