Biofuel Watch

Cliquez ici pour télécharger le rapport complet In English Coupe rase en Pyrénées atlantiques, près de Lacq Introduction

Le projet E-CHO est un plan ambitieux impliquant trois projets différents mais interconnectés à Lacq et ses environs, dans le département des Pyrénées-Atlantiques en France. Ce projet est porté par Elyse Energy, une startup fondée en 2020, qui détient les deux tiers des actions d’E-CHO. Les autres partenaires et actionnaires sont Avril, Axens et IFP Investissements. Les trois usines prévues ont pour objectif de:

• Produire 72 000 tonnes d’hydrogène par an à partir d’électricité renouvelable et d’autres électricités « bas carbone » (probablement de l’énergie nucléaire) ;
• Produire 75 000 tonnes de carburants aviation et 35 000 tonnes de naphta à partir de bois, via la gazéification et le procédé Fischer-Tropsch, avec captage du carbone ;
• Produire 200 000 tonnes de méthanol à partir d’hydrogène et de dioxyde de carbone capturé (« e-méthanol »).

Chacune de ces usines nécessiterait la mise en place de technologies dont le développement n’est pas encore abouti, où que ce soit dans le monde, à savoir :

• L’électrolyse de l’hydrogène (c’est-à-dire l’utilisation de l’électricité pour diviser des molécules d’eau) est une technologie à forte consommation d’énergie qui a été testée avec succès, mais pas encore à l’échelle proposée ici ;
• Toutes les tentatives passées visant à produire des carburants liquides pour le transport, y compris des carburants d’aviation, à partir de bois ont échoué ;
• Bien que la technologie de fabrication de l’e-méthanol ait été éprouvée, l’e-méthanol n’a jusqu’à présent été produit à grande échelle nulle part dans le monde, le coût de l’hydrogène et du dioxyde de carbone constituant les principaux obstacles.

Nous examinerons ci-dessous à la fois le risque, coûteux, d’un échec du projet et des risques environnementaux en cas de maintien du ou des projets.

Click here to download full report En français Clearfelling near Lacq, in the Pyrenees, Photo: ouche pas à ma forêt: pour le climat Introduction

The E-CHO project is an ambitious proposal involving three different but interconnected projects in and around Lacq, in the Pyrénées-Atlantiques Department in France. The proposal is being led by Elyse Energy, a startup company founded in 2020, which holds two-thirds of the shares in E-CHO. The other project partners and shareholders are Avril, Axens and IFP Investissements. The three projects proposed are to:

• Produce 72,000 tonnes of hydrogen per year from renewable and other “zero carbon” electricity (likely nuclear power);
• Produce 75,000 tonnes of aviation fuels and 35,000 tonnes of naphtha from wood, via gasification and Fischer-Tropsch reforming, with carbon capture;
• Produce 200,000 tonnes of methanol from hydrogen and captured carbon dioxide (“e-methanol”).

Each of these projects would be a ‘first of its kind’ development worldwide. As discussed below:

• Hydrogen electrolysis (i.e. using electricity to split water molecules) is an energy intensive technology which has been successfully demonstrated, albeit not so far at the scale proposed here.
• All past attempts to produce liquid transport fuels, including aviation fuels, from wood have failed;
• Although the technology for making e-methanol has been demonstrated, e-methanol has not so far been produced at scale anywhere in the world, with the cost of hydrogen and carbon dioxide being the main barriers.

Below we will discuss both the risk of costly project failure, and the environmental risks should the project(s) succeed.

Biofuelwatch UK has issued a High Court legal challenge to the decision to grant Drax Power Limited consent to install carbon capture technology at the Yorkshire biomass power plant.

It would effectively allow the generation of electricity from burning almost entirely imported wood pellets to continue with large Government subsidies to 2035. Drax received £893 million in renewable energy subsidies in 2021 and a further £617m in 2022.

Biofuelwatch UK, which campaigns against the controversial burning of biomass, says the Energy Secretary’s decision to give development consent for the technology at up to two of the four biomass units in Selby is unlawful because likely harmful environmental effects were not assessed or taken into account, in breach of the 2017 Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (EIA) Regulations.

As a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP), the Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) needed the EIA regulations to be followed carefully before it could be given government go-ahead.
In its application for judicial review, Biofuelwatch contends the Energy Secretary’s decision failed to comply with the EIA regulations in three ways:

• By zero-rating the carbon (CO2) emissions from biomass burning, i.e. treating it as producing no greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, despite the obvious and indisputable fact that the combustion of biomass releases huge quantities of GHG emissions
• By excluding the CO2 emissions from the units to be fitted with the carbon capture technology
• By treating the works to construct and operate transport and storage facilities for captured carbon as a separate project. Biofuelwatch says the Humber Low Carbon Pipelines Project to transfer the CO2 and store it in rock formations under the North Sea is essential for the Carbon Capture Usage and Storage (CCUS) to operate as a whole and should have been treated as the same project for EIA purposes.
  The impact of these errors on the decision was significant; they allowed the Energy Secretary to treat the project as resulting in a net reduction in emissions of 7,975,620 tCO2e per annum.

Katy Brown, Bioenergy campaigner with Biofuelwatch UK, said:

“The Energy Secretary’s decision to accept Drax’s claim that its BECCS scheme will result in a net reduction in emissions is extremely dangerous and irresponsible given we are at a tipping point in the climate crisis. Cutting down trees and shipping them around the world to be burnt in power stations can never be a climate solution. Drax is the single biggest carbon emitter in the UK. Its promise to capture and store this carbon uses a technology unproven with wood burning at this scale. Every large-scale coal and gas power plant equipped with Carbon Capture Storage has failed to meet its target for carbon capture performance. It is irrational to think that Carbon Capture Storage on a wood burning power plant can be more successful.

“Consenting to this madness means fossil fuel emissions will continue in the false expectation that they will be captured. Burning millions of tonnes of imported wood means continued devastation of the world’s forests with the associated impacts on animals, biodiversity and local communities. BECCS diverts money and attention from genuine climate solutions such as wind, solar and insulation which would reduce carbon emissions to the atmosphere in the timescale needed – this decade.”

Dr Andrew Boswell, who gave evidence at the planning examination, said:

“The Secretary of State failed to lawfully assess the climate change impacts from the industrial scale burning of wood proposed at the Drax BECCS facility. When the emissions from the supply chain and the wood combustion itself are correctly calculated then the planned carbon capture power plant would be a large net positive emitter – this is even with Drax’s very optimistic estimates of how much carbon could be captured.

“This legal challenge is crucially important as it highlights that the UK Government’s reliance on so-called negative emissions technology is a risky and flawed policy for meeting our climate targets. Such technology is a deeply dangerous distraction from the real task of transitioning to a genuine renewable energy system, which must include energy storage and demand reduction on the path to reducing the UK’s impacts on the climate. The case is also important as it sends the message to international policy makers that BECCS cannot provide the genuine emissions reductions required to stabilise the global climate this century.”

Leigh Day solicitor Rowan Smith, who represents Biofuelwatch UK, said:

“The Government claims that it can ignore greenhouse gas emissions from the operation of Drax simply because an entirely separate regime says those emissions are reported in the country from where the biomass is imported. Our client’s arguments seek to expose that legal fiction. They also shine a light on whether the Government has minimised the environmental impacts by treating the transport and storage of the captured carbon as a separate project. We hope the Court will agree that these arguments warrant a full hearing.”

Pinewells pellet plant

Trees from clearcutting in Portuguese nature reserve found to have gone to Drax pellet supplier

21st March 2024 –  A new video investigation by Biofuelwatch and the Portuguese NGO ZERO [1] reveals that the Pinewells pellet plant in Portugal, whose biggest customer is Drax in the UK, has been sourcing trees from clearcuts in the mountainous Serra da Lousã nature reserve. 

The  Serra da Lousã is designated a Natura 2000 site under the EU Habitats Directive. Portuguese legislation does not currently prohibit logging and even clearcutting forests in such nature reserves, which the European Commision has taken the Portuguese government to court over. [2] NGO investigators filmed logging activities and trucks going straight from the nature reserve to the Pinewells plant, which is owned  by the Portuguese Grupo Visabeira. 

Fernando Amaral, who took part in the investigation as a film-maker, states: “We witnessed pine trees being logged with an excavator inside the nature reserve which already has extensive clearcuts. Inside this sensitive mountain habitat, soils are left bare, with no protection from erosion. We tracked a logging truck from this clearcut all the way to Pinewells, and we’re sure that many more have made the same journey.”

Almuth Ernsting, Co-Director of Biofuelwatch, says: “Drax sourcing pellets from a company that has been using trees cut down in a Portuguese nature reserve is yet another example of the serious impact that their huge biomass power station has on forests in many different countries. We are appalled that the UK government is considering giving Drax yet more subsidies for this destructive business once existing subsidies end in 2027.”

Pinewells, which is Portugal’s largest pellet plant, has been a long-standing supplier of Drax power station in Yorkshire, [3] and in recent years Drax has been the main destination of pellets that the company has produced. It sources large quantities of roundwood, i.e. whole stems, mostly from pine trees.[4] Native pine species used to be the most wide-spread tree species in Portugal, but there has been a steep decline in the extent of pine forests in recent decades, largely due to extensive wildfires. At the same time, harvest rates have increased strikingly, causing fierce competition for increasingly scarce pine wood, and a lack of mature pine forests. This in turn has led to the closure of hundreds of sawmills, and put pressure on the wood panel industry in particular. [5]

According to figures by the pine wood industry association Centro PINUS (Pine Centre), Portugal lost 27% of its pine forest area and 35% in terms of the productivity of pine forests in 15 years. 20% of all pinewood goes to wood pellets, making it the second largest consumer of pine in the country. 

Contact:

Almuth Ernsting, Co-Director, Biofuelwatch, biofuelwatch|@gmail.com, Tel 131-6232600

Notes:

[1] youtube.com/playlist?list=PL2MP4qZt4tZ3Tm7Bmxr2r34iYiuOz30OJ 

[2] https://www.lpn.pt/pt/media/comunicado-de-imprensa/condenacao-de-portugal-no-tribunal-europeu-por-incumprimento-da-diretiva-habitats 

[3] drax.com/sustainable-bioenergy/working-with-our-suppliers/https://www.drax.com/sustainable-bioenergy/working-with-our-suppliers/ 

[4] zero.ong/?listas_ficheiros=annual-barometer-wood-pellet-industry-in-portugal-2024 

[5] zero.ong/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/barometro-2022-en.pdf

Pinewells pellet plant

 

video investigation by Biofuelwatch and Portuguese NGO Zero shows impacts of drax’s pellet supplier pinewells on pine forests, including on natura 2000 site

A new video investigation by Biofuelwatch and the Portuguese NGO ZERO reveals that the Pinewells pellet plant in Portugal, whose biggest customer is Drax in the UK, has been sourcing trees from clearcuts in the mountainous Serra da Lousã nature reserve. The Serra da Lousã is designated a Natura 2000 site under the EU Habitats Directive. Portuguese legislation does not currently prohibit logging and even clearcutting forests in such nature reserves, which the European Commision has taken the Portuguese government to court over. NGO investigators filmed logging activities and trucks going straight from the nature reserve to the Pinewells plant, which is owned by the Portuguese Grupo Visabeira. Pinewells, which is Portugal’s largest pellet plant, has been a long-standing supplier of Drax power station in Yorkshire, and in recent years Drax has been the main destination of pellets that the company has produced. It sources large quantities of roundwood, i.e. whole stems, mostly from pine trees.Native pine species used to be the most wide-spread tree species in Portugal, but there has been a steep decline in the extent of pine forests in recent decades, largely due to extensive wildfires. At the same time, harvest rates have increased strikingly, causing fierce competition for increasingly scarce pine wood, and a lack of mature pine forests. This in turn has led to the closure of hundreds of sawmills, and put pressure on the wood panel industry in particular. According to figures by the pine wood industry association Centro PINUS (Pine Centre), Portugal lost 27% of its pine forest area and 35% in terms of the productivity of pine forests in 15 years. 20% of all pinewood goes to wood pellets, making it the second largest consumer of pine in the country.

Click here to watch the full video Trailer: https://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/From-pine-to-power-station-trailer-eng-subs-09-03-2024.mp4

What’s happening?

The United Nations International Day of Forests (21st March) is a day to celebrate, and most importantly, protect our vital forests around the world. Yet the Government is subsidising the destruction of these forests by using our energy bills to fund tree burning in UK power stations.

Drax Power Station is the UK’s single biggest carbon emitter and the world’s biggest burner of trees, sourcing from vital, biodiverse forests around the world. Drax has repeatedly been exposed for logging and sourcing from rare, primary old-growth forests in British Columbia; studies have regularly demonstrated that Drax’s sourcing is contributing to the loss of biodiverse forests in the Southern US that are home to many rare and endangered species, and we see the same story happening around the world. 

Forests are the lungs of our planet, and it is an outrage that our Government is subsidising their destruction. The Government has now announced proposals to use our energy bills to give huge new subsidies from UK energy bills to continue funding this destruction for many years to come! 

The climate impacts of new subsidies for burning trees would be catastrophic. In 2022 alone, Drax emitted over 12 million tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere. Drax is already receiving £1.7m per day from UK bill payers to burn trees whilst making record profits. According to the consultation, the cost of new subsidies to UK bill payers could be anything up to £2.5 billion a year. 

If these subsidies go ahead we could be locked in to decades more of tree burning, pollution and forest destruction. There are lots of ways you can take action from home below:

1.Email your MP

You can click here to email your MP here to urge them to say no to new subsidies for burning trees in power stations.

MPs have the power to stop these subsidies, so putting pressure on them is the most important thing we can do to stop the continuation of tree burning subsidies 

You’re very welcome to personalise your message. Given it’s the International Day of Forests, this could be a great opportunity to add some key messages about why forests are so important – and why our Government should not be subsidising their destruction! If you’ve already emailed your MP, the best next step is to give their office a call (see below for more info!) 

If you’ve already emailed your MP, the best next step is to give their office a call (see below for more info!) 

2.MP Pledge

Another great way to take action is to ask your MP to sign the Stop Burning Trees pledge to support an end to subsidies for burning wood in power stations! With Drax aggressively lobbying for £billions in new subsidies, it’s more vital than ever our politicians take a stand against this destructive industry! Click here to send an email to your MP, asking them to sign the pledge today!

3.Phone yor MPs office

Phone calls are one of the most effective ways of getting through to MPs’ offices. MPs receive thousands of emails each day, so by spending a few minutes to contact them on the phone, you increase your chances of getting a response.

You can find your MP’s phone number on the parliamentary directory of MPs or on their website/social media. 

It’s a good idea to send a follow up email with what you discussed. 

If you’ve received a response to your email from your MP and would like help responding to it please email biofuelwatch@gmail.com 

If you’ve previously emailed your MP about this it’s really helpful to mention that when you call them, as it makes them much more likely to properly read the email! 

Draft script: 

Action taker: Hello I’m … and I’m one of [MP name] constituents. I’m phoning because I’m very concerned that the Government is giving millions of pounds a year from UK energy bills to wood-burning power stations and it is now proposing to give huge new subsidies to these power stations, including Drax which is the UK’s single largest carbon emitter and the world’s biggest tree burner. (If you’ve already emailed them, this is a great time to mention that)

I don’t want my energy bills to be used to fund Drax’s forest destruction and I’d be grateful if [MP] could sign the Stop Burning Trees pledge or write to the Secretary of State for DESNZ (Claire Coutinho) or share some social media to say that we should not waste public money on companies that burn trees. 

MP’s staff member: (likely to offer to flag your concerns with your MP and may ask you to send an email with your key points – there is an example email below which you are welcome to adapt and personalise) 

Action taker: I’m aware that the Government consultation on new subsidies has now closed and eligible generators have been invited to apply by the end of March. This is highly concerning to me and I would be grateful if [MP name] could take urgent action to say no to new subsidies for burning trees and pledge to support an end to subsidies for burning wood. Would it be possible to receive a response in the next week? I’ll be happy to send a follow-up email and MP briefing about the proposed new subsidies.

MP’s staff member: (likely to offer to send a response to your follow-up email.) 

Action taker: Thank you very much for speaking to me today and for taking my message. I look forward to hearing back from you soon. 

Template follow up email to send to your MP

See full action pack here Next Steps

Thank you so much for taking action today! If you have any questions please feel free to get in contact with biofuelwatch@gmail.com or stopburningtreescoalition@gmail.com. We’re very happy to help with responses to MPs, or how you can get more involved with the campaign to stop new tree burning subsidies! Keep an eye on our social media for upcoming actions and events.

Biofuelwatch and Stop Burning Trees Press Release

For immediate release 

Climate justice campaigners from across the UK environmental movement gathered outside the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ)1 in London today in a colourful and musical demo calling on the Government not to renew subsidies for burning wood in Drax Power Station in Yorkshire and Lynemouth Power Station in Northumberland.

Campaigners from groups including Biofuelwatch, Stop Burning Trees, Friends of the Earth, Extinction Rebellion, Money Rebellion, Fossil Free London, Campaign Against Climate Change, Stop Rosebank and Greenpeace joined together to say a loud ‘No’ to Government proposals to grant new subsidies from UK energy bills to companies that burn trees for electricity.2 

Speakers included Baroness Jenny Jones of Moulsecoomb and Doug Parr, Policy Director for Greenpeace. Banners reading ‘DESNZ: Stop Funding Forest Destruction’ and ‘Stop Burning Trees’ were hung up outside DESNZ. 

In January, the UK Government launched a consultation on extending subsidies for burning wood, with the Impact Assessment suggesting that the highest likely amount of subsidies could be up to £2.5 billion per year for Drax and Lynemouth (the only two generators eligible), and no clear end date mentioned in the consultation for the proposed new subsidies.3

There has been strong opposition to the Government’s proposals for new wood-burning subsidies from NGOs4, MPs5, scientists6 and the general public. Campaigners argue that if these subsidies are approved, the UK could be locked into many years of tree burning, at huge cost to forests, wildlife7, communities and the climate. Last week, a BBC investigation exposed Drax for continuing to source wood from rare primary forests in British Columbia.8

Katy Brown, Bioenergy Campaigner for Biofuelwatch, said: “It’s a disgrace this government is even considering giving more of our money to Drax, the UK’s single biggest carbon emitter and the world’s biggest tree burner. If they go ahead after these new revelations about Drax yet again being caught out sourcing from primary old-growth forest in Canada, they are making it clear they do not care about forests, communities or the planet. 

“Wherever Drax sources its wood animals, wildlife, biodiversity and local communities are harmed. To have any hope of reducing harmful climate change we need to stop emissions from burning things now. There should be absolutely no more subsidies for tree burning in power stations. We need investment in genuine renewables and climate action, not corporate scams.” 

Drax, the larger of the two power stations set to benefit, is the UK’s single largest carbon emitter, and world’s biggest tree burner.9 The company currently receives around £1.7 million per day in renewable subsidies from UK energy bills to burn wood.10  

Dr Doug Parr, Policy Director for Greenpeace UK, said: “Clear cutting forests in order to burn them has never been seen as environmentally friendly, for all of the obvious reasons. When you add on the impacts of pellet processing, which disproportionately exposes communities of colour to toxic air pollution, there’s very little green about the UK’s biomass programme.

“The energy sector needs to move on from burning things and embrace the incredibly efficient and versatile renewable technologies that just get cheaper and cheaper, wind and solar. Now that energy storage has joined renewables on their plunging price trajectory, there are few arguments left for thermal power plants burning fossil fuels or uranium, and certainly not when they burn protected ecosystems.”

In the Southern USA, Drax has been accused of ‘driving environmental racism’ due to the harmful air pollution emitted by its pellet production.11 

Katherine Egland, Deputy Director of the Education, Economics, Environmental, Climate and Health Organization and Chair of the Environmental and Climate Justice Committee for the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People National Board, said:

‘Our U.S. government must end the sacrifice of the vulnerable Black communities in the Southeast who’re being exposed to deadly levels of chemicals to manufacture wood pellets to be burned for energy in other countries. Our own government must not be complicit in aiding and abetting the environmentally racist assaults committed by UK-based Drax. 

“What Drax is doing to our communities would be illegal in the UK. Why are we allowing Drax’s greed driven annihilation of communities of color here in the U.S.?  Burning forests for fuel is not only foolish, but dangerous to people and planet. We need to transition to clean, safe carbon-free renewable energy.’” 

Drax and Lynemouth are both supplied by Enviva, which regularly obtains wood from the clearing of extremely biodiverse coastal hardwood forests.12 Campaigners argue that extending the subsidies would continue the harm caused to forests, communities and the planet by the wood biomass industry. 

Notes for Editors

1. https://actionnetwork.org/events/stop-drax-emergency-demo 

2. Government consultation on whether to grant new subsidies to wood-burning power stations when their current subsidies end in 2027. The consultation closed on the 29th of February 2024: Transitional support mechanism for large-scale biomass electricity generators – GOV.UK 

3. https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/transitional-support-mechanism-for-large-scale-biomass-electricity-generators.

Cut Carbon Not Forests Briefing about the consultation proposals: CCNF-Briefing-on-Extending-subsidies-for-large-scale-biomass-generators-Feb-2024.pdf (biofuelwatch.org.uk 

4. More than 50 UK and international campaign groups – including Greenpeace, the RSPB and Friends of the Earth – signed letters sent to the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero last week, calling on the Government not to grant new subsidies for burning trees. Government urged to end subsidies as Drax accused of burning old forest wood | The Independent 

5. 30 MPs have signed a cross-party letter requesting a meeting with the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero to discuss the Government’s proposals for new subsidies for wood burning in power stations: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/drax-power-plant-burning-rare-forest-wood-despite-6bn-subsidies-m2qwf9c88

6. Over 165 scientists from universities around the world have signed a letter opposing Government proposals for new biomass subsidies to the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ): cutcarbonnotforests.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/ccnf-scientist-consultation-letter-signed-27Feb2024.pdf 

7. Global Markets for Biomass Energy are Devastating U.S. Forests, NRDC, Southern Environmental Law Center, Dogwood Alliance, June 2023 edition: , cutcarbonnotforests.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/global-markets-biomass-energydevastating-us-forests-202306.pdf 

8. Drax: UK power station still burning rare forest wood’:  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-68381160 

Investigation report: https://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/2024/drax-bc-pellets-investigation/ 

9. Drax is the UK’s single largest carbon emitter. The power station emitted over 12 million tonnes of CO2 in 2022: https://ember-climate.org/insights/research/drax-co2-emissions-biomass/ 

10. During 2022, Drax obtained £606.8 million in renewable electricity subsidies. This translates into subsidies of £1.66m every day for Drax’s wood burning. https://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/axedrax-campaign/#DRAX%E2%80%99S-SUBSIDIES 

11. Drax accused of driving ‘environmental racism’ after further pollution claims against wood pellet mills in US deep south 

12. Whistleblower: Enviva claim of ‘being good for the planet… all nonsense’, Justin Catanoso, Mongabay, 5th December 2022 news.mongabay.com/2022/12/envivas-biomass-lies-whistleblower-account/  

Foto: Stephan Roehl

Gemeinsames Informationspapier, veröffentlicht von NABU, Deutsche Umwelthilfe, ROBIN WOOD, Biofuelwatch, Greenpeace Berlin, BUND Landesverband Berlin, PowerShift und Bürgerbegehren Klimaschutz

Zusammenfassung:

Das Berliner Fernwärmenetz sowie neun Heizkraftwerke in der Stadt wurden bisher vom schwedischen Staatskonzern Vattenfall betrieben, bevor sie Ende 2023 an das Land Berlin verkauft wurden. Viel zu lange hat Vattenfall die anstehende Wärmewende in Berlin ignoriert und bei der Fernwärme auf Gas und Kohle gesetzt. Auch der Mitte 2023 vom Unternehmen vorgestellte „Dekarbonisierungsfahrplan“ ist ein Armutszeugnis. So soll der Ausstieg aus den fossilen Energieträgern in der Fernwärme vor allem dadurch gelingen, dass neue Holzheizkraftwerke errichtet werden und die Gaskraftwerke teuren und in der Verfügbarkeit stark begrenzten grünen Wasserstoff verbrennen. Bei dem angestrebten hohen Anteil an Holzbiomasse im Wärmenetz, fast einem Fünftel in 2030, würde in den Berliner Kraftwerken jährlich etwa 1,6 Millionen Tonnen Holz verbrannt – Holz, das nahezu komplett direkt aus Wäldern stammt. Mit diesen Plänen wäre dem Klima nicht geholfen, denn bei der Verbrennung von Waldholz wird im Vergleich zur Kohleverbrennung mindestens genauso viel CO2 freigesetzt und ohnehin schon geschwächte Wälder geraten durch den zusätzlichen Rohstoffbedarf weiter unter Druck. Für eine erfolgreiche Wärmewende braucht es echte erneuerbare Alternativen und nicht bloß einen Wechsel von einer klimaschädlichen Verbrennungstechnologie in die nächste. Nach Abschluss des Übernahmeprozesses muss der Berliner Senat sofort umsteuern.

Bitte klicken Sie hier für den Link zum Informationspapier

Gemeinsame Pressemitteilung von NABU, DUH, Robin Wood, biofuelwatch, BUND Berlin, Greenpeace Berlin, BBK und PowerShift Ausweitung der Holzverbrennung in Berlin geplant – Umweltorganisationen veröffentlichen Infopapier und fordern Absage an geplante Holzheizkraftwerke

In Berlin soll die Verbrennung von Frisch- und Altholz zur Fernwärmeerzeugung stark ausgeweitet werden, was bei den Umwelt- und Verbraucherschutzorganisationen NABU, Deutsche Umwelthilfe, Robin Wood, Biofuelwatch, BUND Berlin, BBK und PowerShift auf massive Kritik stößt. Im Mittelpunkt der Debatte steht die Berliner Landesregierung, die derzeit von Vattenfall die Fernwärmenetze und Kraftwerke zurückkauft und nun auch die schmutzigen Pläne des Energiekonzerns erbt. Dem im Sommer 2023 vorgestellten „Dekarbonisierungsfahrplan“[1] zur Folge soll Biomasse bis 2030 den größten Anteil am Ersatz von Kohle einnehmen. Hierfür sollen zusätzlich zum bestehenden Holzheizkraftwerk Märkisches Viertel zunächst an den Standorten Reuter West und Klingenberg neue Holzheizkraftwerke errichtet werden. Weitere Kraftwerke müssten folgen, wenn wie geplant ab 2030 17 Prozent der Fernwärme aus Holzverbrennung stammen sollen. Um dieses Ziel zu erreichen, müssten pro Jahr bis zu 1,6 Millionen Tonnen Holz in Berlin verheizt werden. Die Berliner Stadtreinigung plant zudem ein neues Altholzkraftwerk in der Gradestraße in Berlin Neukölln.

Die Umweltverbände rufen die Stadt Berlin auf, sich von den Holzverbrennungsplänen Vattenfalls zu verabschieden und die vereinbarte Übernahme der Berliner Fernwärmeversorgung als Chance für wirklich klimafreundliche Energien zu nutzen. In einem heute veröffentlichten Infopapier stellen sie die schwerwiegenden Folgen der Pläne Vattenfalls zur Ausweitung der Holzverbrennung in Berlin dar und verweisen auf die klima- und umweltschädliche Wirkung solch eines Vorhabens. Im Infopapier heißt es hierzu:

„(…) die Klimakrise ist längst zu weit fortgeschritten, als dass wir uns eine „Übergangsphase“ mit anderen CO2-intensiven Energieformen wie Erdgas und Holzbiomasse noch leisten könnten. Letztere zu verbrennen schadet doppelt, da Raubbau an Ökosystemen betrieben wird, die neben der Minderung von Klimaextremen und dem Erhalt der Artenvielfalt noch unzählige weitere wichtige Ökosystemfunktionen erfüllen.“

Das von Vattenfall genutzte Holz stammt bereits jetzt überwiegend direkt aus dem Wald. Auf Grund der großen zukünftigen Menge müsste Waldholz überregional beschafft werden. Zum Vergleich: 1,6 Millionen Tonnen Brennholz entspricht einem Großteil des gesamten Jahreseinschlags an Holz in Brandenburg.

Mit der Übernahme der Kraftwerke und des Fernwärmenetzes ist der Berliner Senat nun gefordert, die Wärmeversorgung der Stadt endlich auf einen grünen Pfad zu bringen. In ihrem Infopapier fordern die Umweltverbände hierzu:

„Die Berliner Regierung muss von der geplanten irrsinnigen Expansion der Holzverbrennung abrücken und sicherstellen, dass die Wärmeversorgung tatsächlich dekarbonisiert wird. Keine neuen Biomassekessel dürfen gebaut werden. Vattenfalls „Dekarbonisierungsfahrplan“ darf auf keinen Fall übernommen werden.“

Die Stadt ist nun gefordert, im Rahmen der kommunalen Wärmeplanung, die Weichen zu stellen für eine Wärmeversorgung aus erneuerbaren Wärmepotenzialen ohne kohlenstoffreiche Brennstoffe. Anknüpfungspunkte bietet eine Studie des Fraunhofer Instituts, die aufzeigt, wie die Wärmeversorgung in Berlin bis 2035 erneuerbar werden kann.

[1] Dekarbonisierungsfahrplan – Vattenfall Wärme Berlin AG, 30. Juni 2023 https://xn--wrme-loa.vattenfall.de/binaries/content/assets/waermehaus/startseite/allgemein/dekarbonisierungsfahrplan—vattenfall-warme-berlin-ag.pdf

Das Infopapier ist abrufbar unter:

240220-nabu-holzverbrennung-infopapier-berlin.pdf

Die Studie des Fraunhofer Institutes ist abrufbar unter:

Fraunhofer IEE (2021) „Potenzialstudie klimaneutrale Wärmeversorgung Berlin 2035“: https://relaunch.buerger-begehren-klimaschutz.de/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Potenzialstudie_Berlin.pdf

 

Joint Response by Biofuelwatch and Stop Burning Trees to DESNZ consultation a bout Transitional Subsidies for large-scale biomass electricity plants (i.e. Drax and Lynemouth Power Staitons)

28th February 2024 – A new investigation [1] published today by Conservation North, Biofuelwatch and Bulkley Valley Stewardship Coalition reveals that, throughout 2023, Drax routinely sourced whole logs from logging Primary and Old Growth Forests, including from logging sites with a high proportion of 250-year-old Ancient Forest. The publication coincides with a BBC report on the same topic.[2]

The investigation analysed data published by British Columbia’s (BC) provincial government and shows that a high volume of logs that arrived at Drax’s pellet mills in BC came from Old Growth forests, including Priority Deferral Areas. These are areas identified by a government-appointed committee of experts as being at the highest risk of irreversible biodiversity loss, and include Ancient Forest, Big-treed Old Growth and Remnant Old Ecosystems.

The publication of the investigation coincides with a UK government consultation [3], due to end tomorrow, which proposes new long-term subsidies for Drax and Lynemouth power stations, which have both burned pellets from Drax’s mills in BC. Those subsidies would come into effect in 2027 when existing subsidies are due to expire.

Michelle Connolly, Director of Conservation North [4], says: “Drax insisted that they only get their raw material from sustainably managed forests. These findings show that this is not the case in British Columbia, where the provincial government is enabling the liquidation of our last Old Growth forests and pulling the British public into this ecocide.”

Almuth Ernsting, Co-Director of Biofuelwatch [5] adds: “If the UK government goes ahead with the new subsidies they have proposed for Drax despite these new revelations, then they can drop any pretence of concern about forest and nature conservation, and delete the word ‘sustainable’ from their already deeply flawed 2023 Biomass Strategy.”

Len Vanderstar, R.P.Bio, RCGS Fellow and member of the Bulkley Valley Stewardship Coalition [6], states: “Mature and Old Growth forest stands contain vast amounts of stored carbon. When they are cut down, huge quantities of this stored carbon is released through decomposition, slash burning and, in the case of wood pellets, through burning the wood. It takes many decades, if not centuries, to regain the amount of stored carbon that is lost in Old Growth forests after they are logged, many of which will never see the light of day again.”

Photos from the investigation available on request from biofuelwatch[at]gmail.com

Contacts:

Almuth Ernsting, Codirector, Biofuelwatch, biofuelwatch@gmail.com, Tel: +44 – 131-6232600 (UK)

Michelle Connolly, Director, Conservation North, connolly@unbc.ca Tel: +1 – 778 349 3667 (Canada)

Len Vanderstar, Bulkley Valley Stewardship Council, Tel: +1 – 250 917 9049 (Canada) 

Notes:

[1] Logging what’s left: How Drax’s pellet mills are sourcing logs from British Columbia’s rarest Old Growth forests, biofuelwatch.org.uk/2024/drax-bc-pellets-investigation/

[2] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-68381160 

[3] gov.uk/government/consultations/transitional-support-mechanism-for-large-scale-biomass-electricity-generators 

[4] Conservation North is a volunteer-run NGO based in Lheidli T’enneh territory which advocates on behalf of nature in central and northern BC, conservationnorth.org/

[5] Biofuelwatch is a UK/US-based NGO that provides information and undertakes advocacy and campaigning in relation to the climate, biodiversity, land and human rights and public health impacts of large-scale industrial bioenergy, biofuelwatch.org.uk

[5] Bulkley Valley Stewardship Coalition, civil society organisation seeking to protect nature, forests and community health in the Bulkley Valley, British Columbia, bvsc.ca/  

Houston pellet mill, Photo: Bulkley Valley Stewardship Coalition

Joint investigation into wood sourcing for drax pellet mills in British columbia by Conservation north, bulkley Valley Stewardship coalition and biofuelwatch

Drax Group Plc is a UK-based company that operates the world’s biggest biomass power station, and is also the world’s second biggest pellet producer, after Enviva. Drax burns pellets from its own production at Drax power station in England, and sells pellets to other companies, mostly in Japan.

Drax owns seven pellet mills in British Columbia (BC) after acquiring the province’s largest pellet producer, Pinnacle Renewable Energy Inc., in 2021. Its BC pellet mills produced over 1.3 million tonnes of pellets in 2021, accounting for almost 40% of Canada’s total pellet production. Drax sources its raw material from BC’s forests and forest industries, and maintains that its operations in BC are “sustainable.

This analysis focuses on north-central BC, where all of the material feeding Drax’s pellet mills there originates from Primary forest, whether it arrives directly from logging operations or as byproduct from near-by sawmills. The vast majority of commercial logging taking place in BC is of Primary forest.

In BC, Old Growth is Primary forest that has reached an advanced age and consists of communities of plants, animals and other life forms that have lived together long enough to develop complex, interconnected relationships. Productive Old Growth forest with large trees covers only 3% of the province, and is now very limited because of a century of logging, mostly for sawlogs and pulp.

In 2021, the government of BC convened a technical committee to identify and map Old Growth forest types, including the rarest Old Growth forest types that are at high and near-term risk of irreversible biodiversity loss if they are logged.

These rare Old Growth forest types were recommended by the technical committee for short-term protection from logging and are referred to collectively as Priority Deferral Areas. The committee identified three categories of rare Old Growth with the highest risk of being logged over the short-term: Remnant Old Growth, Ancient Forest, and Big-treed Old Growth.

In 2020, northern BC-based community group Conservation North documented the issuing of Primary forest logging licences by the BC government to pellet companies. In 2022  BBC Panorama and CBC Fifth Estate investigations revealed that Drax was logging rare Old Growth forest and other Primary forest in BC. This investigation examines the extent to which Drax’s pellet mills are still sourcing logs for its pellet production from irreplaceable Old Growth forests, particularly Priority Deferral Areas.

Click here to download the report #my_centered_buttons { display: flex; justify-content: center; }

Welcome to our first newsletter of 2024 full of updates about campaigns that we – and you – have been supporting, and policy developments. 

Click below to share this newsletter!

#my_centered_buttons { display: flex; justify-content: center; } Sign up to our mailing list

1. Submit your consultation response

2. Call on your MP to stop new subsides 

3. Stop Drax emergency demo: Tues 5th March 

4. Flying on Garbage? Fulcrum Bioenergy’s Trash Talk

5. Real Zero Europe statement: ‘Don’t fuel the fire’

1. Submit your consultation response

The UK government is planning to provide massive additional subsidies from our energy bills to finance the loss of forests and climate-damaging tree burning at power plants like Lynemouth in Northumberland and Drax in Yorkshire.  We have to halt these additional subsidies for the benefit of the environment. We can do it together. With disastrous effects on forests, animals, communities, and the environment, Drax, the largest tree burner in the world and the top emitter of CO2 in the UK, currently gets renewable subsidies from UK energy bills of almost £1.7 million per day. 

Now that their present subsidies are set to expire in 2027, the Government has revealed plans to use our energy bills to finance even more tree burning at Drax and Lynemouth. Please help us stop tree-burning power plants getting billions more by Responding to the government’s consultation! The deadline is 29th February. If you have the time, please send a personalised response.

Click here to submit your consultation response 2. Call on your MP to stop new subsides 

If you have submitted your consultation response we are also asking you to reach out to your MP first by emailing them here and then following up with a phone call or meeting. MPs have the power to stop these wood-burning subsidies and to transfer the funding to real climate solutions like home insulation and wind and solar power. This would create new green jobs and help protect forests, wildlife, communities and the climate. 

We need as many MPs as possible to speak out and tell the Government to stop new subsidies before the consultation closes on the 29th of February. We have also pulled together a MP briefing which you can send to your MP directly which has more information on the subsidies and how they can directly take action. 

Click here to email your MP 3. Stop Drax emergency demo: Tues 5th March 

It’s more important now than ever to put pressure on our government and let them know that we will not stand by whilst £billions more could be given to polluters! Join us to take action on Tuesday 5th March at 12pm outside the Department for Energy Security and Netzero to say no more. No more wasting our money on dirty tree burning. No more funding of an industry that is driving environmental injustice, wrecking ecosystems and ruining our chances at a liveable future by destroying the very forests we need to absorb carbon emissions. 

To find out more and register click here 4. Flying on Garbage? Fulcrum Bioenergy’s Trash Talk

Fulcrum is but one of several biofuel businesses that are emerging to make money off of the enormous amount of legislative backing and subsidies available for “decarbonising” aviation through the use of “sustainable” aviation fuels (also known as SAF). Although animal fats and vegetable oils may be used in methods to create SAF, the large-scale supply of these feedstocks is expensive and harmful to the environment due to their high land area needs. Therefore, there is a lot of interest in producing SAF from a variety of alternative feedstocks, such as fossil and biogenic sources. Recently our colleague in the USA wrote a briefing which presented our analysis of Fulcrum as just one example of how startup bioenergy companies hype their processes, make unfounded claims and are consistently rewarded generously with financial, and policy supports. This in spite of clear evidence from a history of prior experience.

Click here to read the full briefing 5. Real Zero Europe statement: ‘Don’t fuel the fire’

The European Union (EU) backed efforts at COP28 for a global phase-out of fossil fuels. However, it has since come to light that the European Union’s own projected climate objectives for 2040 may heavily rely on risky diversionary measures, such as carbon capture and storage and speculative carbon removal technologies, which will impede the shift away from coal, gas, and oil. The hypocrisy of EU decision-makers advocating for a phase-out of fossil fuels on a global scale while actively advancing the opposite agenda at home needs to end.

In a statement released by Real Zero Europe (RZE) and more than 140 international civil society organisations including we called on the European Union to be a true climate leader by promoting real climate action and rejecting risky diversion and false solutions like carbon capture and removal technologies.

Read the full statement here

Fulcrum-briefing-Feb-2024Download

Join us at the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero to demand an end to tree burning subsidies. Fill in the below form if you want to join this action.

Click here to go to the action network events page

Drax is the UK’s biggest carbon emitter. The UK gov has already approved DRAX’s planning application and is clearly intending to lock us in to dirty tree burning energy for decades to come. Paid for by your energy bills!

The UK gov is now considering giving £billions more in subsidies to tree burning polluters Drax and Lynemouth. Drax is already receiving £1.7m per day from UK bill payers to burn trees whilst making record profits. According to the consultation, the cost of new subsidies to UK bill payers could be anything up to £2.5 billion a year. This is money that will not be available to support a transition to genuinely renewable wind and solar power.

We say: no more. No more wasting our money on dirty tree burning. No more funding of an industry that is driving environmental injustice, wrecking ecosystems and ruining our chances at a liveable future by destroying the very forests we need to absorb carbon emissions.

It’s more important now more than ever to put pressure on our government and let them know that we will not stand by whilst £billions more could be given to polluters! Join us to take action. 

Join us at the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero to demand an end to tree burning subsidies.

The UK Government has just announced proposals to use our energy bills to give huge new subsidies to fund planet-wrecking tree burning at power stations like Drax in Yorkshire and Lynemouth in Northumberland. 

Please write to your MP asking them to stop the new subsidies for burning trees in UK power stations.  

EMAIL YOUR MP

The climate impacts of new subsidies for burning trees would be catastrophic. Drax is the UK’s single largest carbon emitter and the world’s biggest tree burner. In 2022 alone, Drax emitted over 12 million tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere.  Much of the wood that Drax and Lynemouth burn comes from the logging of some of the world’s most biodiverse forests in the Southern USA, Canada, Estonia and Latvia, with devastating impacts on forests, wildlife and communities. 

New subsidies would allow both power stations to keep burning trees for years to come, with no time limit for the funding included in the Government consultation. And new subsidies for burning wood won’t do anything to lower our energy bills, or make our energy supply safer. Drax is already making record profits whilst receiving £1.7m per day from UK energy bills. According to the government’s consultation, the cost of new subsidies to UK bill payers could be anything up to £2.5 billion a year. This is money that will not be available to support a transition to genuinely renewable wind and solar power. New subsidies will make companies like Drax richer at our expense as they continue destroying forests and polluting communities. 

We say: no more. No more subsidies for destroying forests. No more wasting our money on dirty tree burning. No more funding of a dirty industry that is destroying the very forests we need to absorb carbon emissions and ruining our chances at a liveable future. New subsidies for burning trees will only pour more fuel on the fire.  

MPs have the power to stop these wood-burning subsidies and to transfer the funding to real climate solutions like home insulation and wind and solar power. This would create new green jobs and help protect forests, wildlife, communities and the climate. We need as many MPs as possible to speak out and tell the Government to stop new subsidies before the consultation closes on the 29th of February. 

Will you write to your MP today to ask them to say no to new subsidies for tree burning in UK power stations?

We have also pulled together a MP briefing which you can send to your MP directly which has more information on the subsidies and how they can directly take action.  

Click here to download the MP briefing CCNF-Briefing-on-Extending-subsidies-for-large-scale-biomass-generators-Feb-2024Download

The UK Government is proposing to give huge new subsidies from our energy bills to fund forest destruction and climate-wrecking tree burning at power stations like Drax in Yorkshire and Lynemouth in Northumberland. 

For the sake of the planet, we have to stop these new subsidies. Together we can.

Drax, which is the world’s biggest tree burner and the UK’s single largest CO2 emitter, already receives around £1.7 million per day in renewable subsidies from UK energy bills to burn trees, with devastating impacts on forests, wildlife, communities and the climate. 

The Government has now announced plans to use our energy bills to fund even more tree burning at Drax and Lynemouth when their current subsidies run out in 2027. 

Please help us stop tree-burning power plants getting billions more by responding to the government’s consultation! The deadline is 29th February. If you have the time, please send a personalised response, but otherwise, please just add your details below. And please share this widely. Thank you!

Click here to fill in the form on the Action Network Website Click to read background briefing with FAQs about the consultation

If you need a quick reminder of all issues read on, otherwise please go ahead to the consultation response!

Drax has so far been paid a total of £6.5 billion in subsidies, paid for by bill-payers, while Lynemouth Power has received £600,000. These huge subsidies have allowed them to burn millions of tonnes of wood pellets. Much of the wood comes from the clear-felling of some of the world’s most biodiverse forests in the Southern USA, Canada, Estonia and Latvia, Drax has also been accused of driving ‘environmental racism’ in the Southern US after settling air pollution violation claims at its pellet mills. Burning trees is also making the climate crisis worse, as generating a unit of electricity from burning trees is no better than generating it from coal.

Yet regardless of the proven harm caused by Drax and Lynemouth Power, the government has now launched a consultation, indicating that it wants to hand both companies years’ worth of new subsidies, once existing ones run out in 2027! The reason the government gives for this destructive U-turn is that ‘transitional’ subsidies are needed to allow operators time to install carbon capture and storage technology, even though this technology has never been used at scale with woody biomass before, and has had a history of failure with coal fired power stations. Even if carbon capture worked (which it never has, at anywhere near the needed efficiency to be relevant for addressing climate change) it wouldn’t do anything for the forests being destroyed to meet this massive biomass demand, nor for the communities suffering from pollution and noise. But Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) seems a feeble excuse for what would simply be big new subsidies for burning wood as before: to get those subsidies, operators need to produce a couple of reports but do nothing otherwise to develop BECCS – no trials, not even a planning application (Lynemouth Power hasn’t even started on one).

Please help us stop tree-burning power plants getting billions more by responding to the government’s consultation! For the sake of the planet, we have to stop these new subsidies. Together we can. click here to submit your response…
Click To Tweet

If you have completed the consultation response and contacted your MP about this but would still like to take further action you can also ask your MP to sign our pledge to stop all subsides for wood burning in power stations here

The saga of the repurposing of two of the refineries in the San Francisco Bay Area to manufacturing liquid biofuels from high deforestation risk commodities like soy took another anti-democratic twist this week. Local authorities sped through a hearing on January 16, 2024 on the revised environmental review of the massive Phillips 66 biofuel refinery project in the unincorporated community of Rodeo on the northern shores of the Bay, rushing to keep the $1 billion investment moving forward while taking measures to curtail public participation in the process.

As background, in May 2022 the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors had previously hosted back to back hearings on both the Phillips 66 biofuel refinery project in Rodeo and the Marathon-Neste joint venture biofuel refinery project in Martinez. That day-long session of hearings was held only because community, environmental and climate justice organizations had appealed the County Planning Commission approvals of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) environmental reviews of the refinery conversion projects earlier that year.

On that day in early May 2022 the Contra Costa County Supervisors unanimously denied the appeals and wholeheartedly green lighted both of the biofuel refinery projects. Following those decisions by local elected officials, the Center for Biological Diversity, in partnership with Communities for a Better Environment, and with the legal and technical expertise of the Stanford Environmental Law Clinic, filed parallel lawsuits challenging the simultaneous approval of the environmental review of both unprecedented refinery conversion projects. The court case on the Marathon/Neste joint venture at the Martinez refinery resulted in a partial decision exposing flaws with the environmental review, focusing singularly on the flawed odor management plan, an unsatisfactory result for climate justice advocates. That lawsuit has already been sent on to the state appeals court, and will be heard in the coming year.

The Phillips 66 refinery in Rodeo has been getting lucrative incentives for making biofuels even though the environmental review of the project was found deficient by a judge.

However, in the case of the Phillips 66 biofuel refinery project, the same judge ruled that the original environmental review of the biofuels project was illegal and had failed to address serious questions of cumulative impacts, while embarking on the illegal tactic of piecemealing — the illegal breaking up of the entirety of a project into discrete pieces, thus averting the legally required review of the project as a whole.

This court ruling prompted county authorities to rush forward with a Draft Revised Environmental Impact Report, which was released and opened to public comment in the autumn of 2023. Biofuelwatch reported extensively on the dynamics around this public comment period in our previous post Court Orders, Refinery Fires and Deforestation Drivers: California Push for Liquid Biofuels Ignores Red Flag Warnings.

Despite being presented with more evidence about the dangers of characterizing the conversion of the more than century old Phillips 66 Rodeo refinery to making biofuels as a climate solution, the county proceeded with great haste to finalize the revised environmental review during the holiday. Precisely four weeks after the close in early December 2023 of written public comment on the draft the county announced the January 16 public hearing to approve the final revised version.

The newest final version of the project review once again roundly dismissed all the evidence and information provided by community members and the organizations that engaged on the public comment. Despite the requirements under the California Environmental Quality Act to assess how new information can influence the veracity of the entirety of the environmental review, the county discarded new factual information provided in the public comment that in essence further substantiated the record of evidence that had resulted in the court of law ruling that the original environmental review was illegal in the first place.

Neither the Board of Supervisors nor County Staff expressed any sort of contrition nor leadership self reflection when faced with the fact that they had previously rubber stamped an environmental review that the court had later found deficient.

Kerry Guerin is an attorney with Communities for a Better Environment who attended the January 2024 hearing on the Phillips 66 project.

Of the evidence presented to the county by community members regarding the safety concerns with the processing of feedstocks like soy was the existence of the most recent draft of what is known as a Flare Minimization Plan (FMP), presented by Phillips 66 on an annual basis for the Rodeo refinery to the local Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). The FMP is an annual requirement, the review of which is buried in the opaque processes of BAAQMD staff and not easily accessible to the public. The late 2023 version of the FMP for the Phillips 66 Rodeo refinery apparently still remains confidential. However, the 2022 ‘nonconfidential’ version of the FMP was shared with Biofuelwatch.

Remarkably, despite the fact that Phillips 66 has been making liquid biofuels at their Rodeo refinery since April 2021, more than a year before receiving final approval for their project from the County in May 2022, an anomaly that the court saw as being relevant to the illegal piecemealing of the environmental review of the project, their most recent ‘nonconfidential’ version of their Flare Minimization Plan from October 2022 does not even mention biofuels. As a matter of fact, scrutiny of the 2022 FMP document reveals absolutely no mention of the refinery conversion project at all.

In essence, Phillips 66 has received lucrative Low Carbon Fuel Standard credits from the California Air Resources Board for producing ‘renewable diesel’ from feedstocks like soy and canola with a hydrogen intensive ‘hydroprocessed esters and fatty acids’ hydro cracker technology at their Rodeo refinery, but the most recent publicly available version of the FMP for that same refinery regulated by the local air district BAAQMD does not even mention the words biofuels, renewable diesel, hydrotreated vegetable oils, HEFA, soy, canola, animal tallow or any of the terms that are directly associated with making these products. As far as the BAAQMD supervised Phillips 66 Rodeo Refinery Flare Minimization Plan goes the biofuel project apparently does not even exist.

Notably absent from the recent county supervisors hearing on the revised environmental review were any representatives from BAAQMD, neither to provide comment or to be available to answer questions from decision makers, once again raising questions about to what extent the local air district is fulfilling their responsibility to implement regulatory activities within the context of current and future operations.

This incongruence of biofuel production not even existing in a recent Phillips 66 FMP was brushed aside by county authorities, who also appeared completely unconcerned about the recent devastating fire at the Marathon-Neste biofuel refinery in Martinez. At the same time, the County was obligated in their documentation to recognize that there exist numerable ‘significant and unavoidable environmental impacts‘ from the project. Those impacts were dismissed because of the economic significance of the refinery project.

Tyson Bagley is the United Steelworkers Health and Safety Representative for the Phillips 66 Rodeo refinery who attended the January 2024 hearing and spoke in strong support of the Phillips 66 biofuels project.

Notably, and not surprisingly, labor organizations representing workers at the Phillips 66 refinery came out in strong force in support of approval of the project, celebrating the opportunity to keep the refinery operating into the foreseeable future to make ‘renewable’ fuels with ‘renewable’ feedstocks to provide the state with the ‘low carbon’ energy sources that are central to aspirations to achieve ‘decarbonization.’

Adding a particularly grotesque dynamic of inequity to the proceedings was the manner in which the local authorities conducted the review hearing.

After having spent two hours celebrating the legacy of Dr Martin Luther King, Jr in commemoration of the treasured annual federal holiday, the Board of Supervisors reconvened to hear the agenda item on the Phillips 66 biofuel refinery environmental review. Remarkably, after an abbreviated 15 minute staff presentation that reasserted the urgency of approving the project again, the chair of the Board stated that public comment would be restricted to 1 minute. Though the audience in attendance was predominantly labor and company representatives in Phillips 66 uniform, there were hoots of disbelief from advocates that instead of the traditional 3 minute time allowed for public comment at most public hearings, in this instance an individual speaker would get only one minute. That an individual public comment on an issue of such magnitude and technical complexity would be limited to 1 minute is unheard of with such a small audience.

That the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors would come out of a ceremony dedicated to elevating the legacy of Dr Martin Luther King, Jr to immediately open an agenda item on the permitting of a controversial polluting industrial facility owned and operated by a company worth ~$60 billion dollars, and with a long legacy of conflict with affected communities, and tell concerned community members that their time to address the board would be abbreviated in this manner was roundly seen as outrageous — to put it in polite terms.

Even county staff knew, after all they had done to ram the project through, that limiting public comment at the hearing was simply a ‘very bad look.’ The clear obstruction of the public right to meaningful participation that was manifested by the limitation on public comment at the hearing on the Phillips 66 biofuels project clearly accentuates the corporate impunity facilitated by the irregular and industry friendly governance of not only the biofuel refinery issue specifically but of the energy sector in the state more broadly.

It made no difference to the acquiescent and beholden to industry Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors, who rapidly moved to approve the Phillips 66 project with a unanimous 5-0 vote.

For more media inquiries contact Gary Hughes (garyhughes.bfw@gmail.com), who is the Americas Program Coordinator with Biofuelwatch.

Government approval of Drax’s BECCS project will cause more forest destruction, campaigners warn

• For immediate release 16th Jan 2024

Secretary of State Claire Coutinho’s decision to approve Drax’s planning application for a carbon capture project, published today [1], has been denounced by environmental campaigners who fear it will pave the way for more forests around the world to be cut down, and millions more tonnes of CO2 to be emitted into the atmosphere every year, using the fig-leaf of an unproven, untested carbon capture technology.

During the planning inquiry, which started in January 2023, Biofuelwatch led the evidence against Drax’s planning application, setting out numerous serious concerns. Those concerns included the fact that Drax’s carbon capture tests have been limited to a total of just 27 tonnes therefore, the effectiveness and the likely air and water pollution of the proposed carbon capture technology remain unknown. 

Furthermore, as Biofuelwatch argued during the Planning Inquiry, Drax’s ability to continue operating its biomass units depends on subsidies which, in turn, will from 2027 depend on planning consent for future carbon capture. [2] Those biomass units burn millions of tonnes of wood pellets every year, all of them imported, mostly from the southeastern USA and British Columbia.

As a BBC Panorama programme revealed in October 2022, at least some of the pellets from British Columbia have been sourced from the clearcutting of primary and old-growth forests. [3] In the southeastern United States, Drax sources a significant proportion of wood pellets from Enviva, who routinely use mature trees from logging coastal hardwood forests in a global biodiversity hotspot. [4]

Katy Brown from Biofuelwatch [5] says: “This decision is bad news for forests and bad news for the climate. Burning trees is not carbon neutral – Drax is the UK’s single biggest carbon emitter – so its claims of achieving negative emissions are farcical. That the UK government is relying on BECCS to meet its climate objectives is extremely dangerous – putting this much faith in BECCS as a climate solution is like trusting that believing in Father Christmas will make him real. The real reason Drax is pushing for BECCS is because they know they won’t be allowed to carry on burning trees unabated without the promise of capturing the carbon some time in the future and the UK government has fallen for the lie. As long as Drax burns trees it will continue to drive forest destruction around the world, harming local communities, and contributing to biodiversity loss and climate change.”

Molly Griffith-Jones  from the Stop Burning Trees Coalition [6] adds: “This  announcement is disastrous. By approving Drax’s BECCS application, the government is showing that they are willing to gamble our future on risky and unproven technology, rather than commit to real climate action. We need investment and jobs in wind, solar, hydropower, retrofitting, not locking us into dirty tree burning energy for decades to come.”

Matt Williams, Senior Advocate at the Natural Resources Defense Council, states:  “Planning permission isn’t much use if it’s for a technology that doesn’t exist yet, wrecks the world’s forests, and is probably too expensive for the UK to ever afford. With estimates that BECCS at Drax could need £43 billion of subsidies over 25 years this could be the UK’s next big white elephant development.”

Contacts:

• Katy Brown, katy.biofuelwatch@gmail.com, Tel: 07765522460
• Sally Clark: almuthbernstinguk@yahoo.co.uk, Tel: 0131-6232600

Notes:

[1] https://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/projects/yorkshire-and-the-humber/drax-bioenergy-with-carbon-capture-and-storage-project/ 

[2] This can be seen, for example, from a report published by Drax today, which warns that without support for the carbon capture project, Drax would not be able to generate any or much electricity in future: https://www.drax.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Baringa_Report_2024_Drax_Power_Station.pdf, p. 10

[3] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/science-environment-63123774 

[4] See for example https://www.cutcarbonnotforests.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/global-markets-biomass-energy-devastating-us-forests-202306.pdf 

[5] https://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk

[6] https://stopburningtrees.org/