Biofuels and biomass protest outside DECC
Biofuelwatch | 23.10.2011 09:41 | Bio-technology | Climate Chaos | Energy Crisis | World
As different actions continue across London, campaigners from across the country joined forces outside the offices of DECC yesterday to denounce the government's latest plans to carry on subsidising destructive biomass and biofuels despite the fact that their use leads to human suffering across the globe, and increased carbon emissions.
Protesters gathered outside the Department of Energy and Climate Change offices at noon yesterday, calling for the end of subsidies for bioenergy, in a demonstration organised by environmentl NGO Biofuelwatch with the support of Campaign against Climate Change.
As a public consultation on the financing of renewable electricity launched last week, campaigners warn that government proposals to prioritise bioenergy over wind and solar will speed up global warming and cause human suffering across the globe. Campaigners travelled from as far as the Isle o Wight, Scotland, Bristol, Port Talbot in Wales, and Manchester to unite in a common call.
Bioenergy currently accounts for 82.5% of the UK’s renewable energy generation. But Biofuelwatch and Campaign against Climate Change warn that bioenergy power generation, which involves burning fuels such as wood pellet from Brazil and palm oil from Malaysia, speeds up deforestation, climate change and land-grabbing in the global South. Last month, the European Environment Agency cautioned that Governments across Europe are ignoring the true carbon costs of bioenergy, and that it can release more carbon emissions than traditional fossil fuels.
However, the new government proposals will allow for a boom in biomass and energy crop imports, as biomass and bioliquids remain eligible for Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROCs). In addition, the proposals include new increased support for the enhanced cofiring of biomass and biomass conversion. Enhanced cofiring refers to stations which combust biomass and coal, but which will switch to full biomass in the future.
Biofuelwatch has estimated that the existing subsidies for bioenergy have already caused a surge of at least 42 new planning applications for bioenergy power stations across the UK, which, if built, will cost the public £3 billion in subsidies each year.
Earlier this year, the UN identified the UK as the third largest land grabbing country after China and Saudi Arabia with over a million hectares acquired for biofuel production, mostly in Africa. This area represents about 10% of UK agricultural land.
Emilia Hanna, Biofuelwatch campaigner, said, 'Colonialism continues because of our consumption addiction in the West, in Europe, in the UK, and in the areas where people have travveled from. The government's latest proposal to continue the subsidies for biomass and bioliquids is what is fuelling our addiction. Companies are promised profit, so thay are going for biomass and bioliquids on a massive scale, with 60 million tonnes of wood and 400000 tonnes of bioliquid demanded per year. This will come mainly from overseas leading to more land grabbing and more forest destruction. We are here to show that we are united in our call of NO to subsidies for biofuels and biomass, and YES to reducing our consumption in the West.'
Biomass use is also incredibly polluting and can release more emissions than ordinary fossil fuels, threatening people's right to live in a healthy environment. Jayne Dillon, campaigning against a biomass incinerator in Trafford, near Manchester, said, 'We are facing a proposed 25 year sentence of biomass incineration in our suburban, family-based community in Manchester. We already tolerate elevated levels of air pollution and we are determined that this dirty technology which releases a wide range of harmful emissions, including arsenic, will not be built. Too much evidence exists which associates these air pollutants with serious illnesses and deaths and this cannot not be ignored. We don’t want this incinerator to operate and generate profit at the expense of our health, as the burden of decisions made now will be carried for decades.'
As a public consultation on the financing of renewable electricity launched last week, campaigners warn that government proposals to prioritise bioenergy over wind and solar will speed up global warming and cause human suffering across the globe. Campaigners travelled from as far as the Isle o Wight, Scotland, Bristol, Port Talbot in Wales, and Manchester to unite in a common call.
Bioenergy currently accounts for 82.5% of the UK’s renewable energy generation. But Biofuelwatch and Campaign against Climate Change warn that bioenergy power generation, which involves burning fuels such as wood pellet from Brazil and palm oil from Malaysia, speeds up deforestation, climate change and land-grabbing in the global South. Last month, the European Environment Agency cautioned that Governments across Europe are ignoring the true carbon costs of bioenergy, and that it can release more carbon emissions than traditional fossil fuels.
However, the new government proposals will allow for a boom in biomass and energy crop imports, as biomass and bioliquids remain eligible for Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROCs). In addition, the proposals include new increased support for the enhanced cofiring of biomass and biomass conversion. Enhanced cofiring refers to stations which combust biomass and coal, but which will switch to full biomass in the future.
Biofuelwatch has estimated that the existing subsidies for bioenergy have already caused a surge of at least 42 new planning applications for bioenergy power stations across the UK, which, if built, will cost the public £3 billion in subsidies each year.
Earlier this year, the UN identified the UK as the third largest land grabbing country after China and Saudi Arabia with over a million hectares acquired for biofuel production, mostly in Africa. This area represents about 10% of UK agricultural land.
Emilia Hanna, Biofuelwatch campaigner, said, 'Colonialism continues because of our consumption addiction in the West, in Europe, in the UK, and in the areas where people have travveled from. The government's latest proposal to continue the subsidies for biomass and bioliquids is what is fuelling our addiction. Companies are promised profit, so thay are going for biomass and bioliquids on a massive scale, with 60 million tonnes of wood and 400000 tonnes of bioliquid demanded per year. This will come mainly from overseas leading to more land grabbing and more forest destruction. We are here to show that we are united in our call of NO to subsidies for biofuels and biomass, and YES to reducing our consumption in the West.'
Biomass use is also incredibly polluting and can release more emissions than ordinary fossil fuels, threatening people's right to live in a healthy environment. Jayne Dillon, campaigning against a biomass incinerator in Trafford, near Manchester, said, 'We are facing a proposed 25 year sentence of biomass incineration in our suburban, family-based community in Manchester. We already tolerate elevated levels of air pollution and we are determined that this dirty technology which releases a wide range of harmful emissions, including arsenic, will not be built. Too much evidence exists which associates these air pollutants with serious illnesses and deaths and this cannot not be ignored. We don’t want this incinerator to operate and generate profit at the expense of our health, as the burden of decisions made now will be carried for decades.'
Biofuelwatch
e-mail:
biofuelwatch@ymail.com
Comments
Hide the following 7 comments
The alternative ?
23.10.2011 10:00
Thanks
Info requester
I empathise, understand
23.10.2011 19:35
Sensible heat
There is one choice
24.10.2011 10:34
1 - Global demand for energy will continue to rise
2 - Renewables such as wind and wave are not suitable for large scale power production
3 - Climate Change is real and must be dealt with now
If we accept the facts of these above then the case for nuclear is overwhelming. To deny that is simply nuts.
Al
Al - I agree with you but....
24.10.2011 11:57
France, lowest CO2 output of any industrialized country on Earth - 80% of electricity generated by nuclear power.
Kowlan
Large scale biomass energy is not green or sustainable
24.10.2011 14:45
An informed and caring group of people want to correct policy makers' mistaken view that we should be burning biomass and bioliquids in huge quantities, most of it imported, to tackle climate change.
When it is abundantly clear that:
a) it doesn't reduce our carbon emissions
b) it contributes to global hunger
c) there are no adequate mechanisms to ensure 'sustainability' of the supply chain. One glaring omission from the official criteria for bioenergy sustainability is the impact on people's access to food, water and free choices about how they use their own land
d) get-rich-quick businesses are cashing in through land-grabbing to create biofuel plantations in Africa and elsewhere. To my shame, the UK is leading the way in this. And I am paying for it through my electricity bill.
The land areas required to produce feedstock for bioenergy at the scale envisaged by Govt is shocking. Competition for land is only going to intensify as the global population rises, prosperity leads to more meat eating and as climate change affects agricultural yields.
Bioenergy's key raw ingredient is land. Land is not renewable. Hence bioenergy is not renewable. Contrast wind and solar, which are at least 100 times more land efficient.
Photosynthesis is simply a poor way of harvesting solar energy. However many different generations of biofuels are developed, they will never be able to produce more than a tiny fraction of mankind's energy consumption. One respected commentator - Timothy Searchinger - estimated that if we burnt every shred of biomass on the planet, it would generate about a third of our energy needs. When the oil runs out or is too expensive to extract, we will need replacement energy systems that are viable at the scale needed, and which can last for centuries. Industrial-scale bioenergy just doesn't do it.
More immediately, it is simply immoral for the UK - having played a huge part in creating the climate change problem - to pretend that we are now a world leader in emissions reduction if a key part of that 'development' is to force/entice other countries to give up their land to grow our energy.
Our scientists know it is wrong, but politicians want to meet the 2020 EU Renewable Energy targets. So policy prevails.
What should happen instead of this huge shift to bioenergy?
1. deep and rapid reductions in the levels of energy use in the UK and other so-called developed countries, using carbon / energy rationing.
2. huge investment in the true renewable energy technologies - solar, wind and marine. The money can come from scrapping indulgent vanity projects and military hardware.
3. banning of practices that are grossly wasteful of energy - for example: most flying, all Virgin space travel, cars above a certain size, houses above a certain size, domestic heated swimming pools and airconditioning.
Bioenergy is a false solution. Contact Biofuelwatch to find out more or to support our work.
Robert Palgrave
e-mail: robertpalgrave@hotmail.com
Homepage: www.biofuelwatch.org.uk
To the above comment
24.10.2011 16:01
sensible heat
biomass is incineration
24.10.2011 16:35
10th November 2009: "Mr. Tyrie: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change what recent assessment he has made of the effects of the use of biomass boilers installed to meet Renewable Energy Strategy targets on (angel) air quality, (b) levels of particulate emissions and (c) levels of (i) morbidity and (ii) mortality.
Jim Fitzpatrick: (angel) The Government have, in support of the development of the Renewable Energy Strategy (RES), carried out modelling of the effect of an increase in the use of biomass for heat and power on the emissions, ambient air concentrations and public health impacts of fine particles (PM2.5), coarser particles (PM10) and nitrogen dioxide. The key air quality results of this analysis are given in the Renewable Energy Strategy on page 121.
(b) As part of the analysis the increases in the emissions of particulates were estimated over a number of different scenarios. For PM2.5 these were between 0.75 and 9.1 ktonnes from a baseline in 2007 of 82 ktonnes. For PM10, emissions were estimated as being between 1.3 and 9.5 ktonnes from a 2007 baseline of 135 ktonnes.
(c) (i) The impacts on morbidity resulting from the uptake of biomass as a renewable energy source were not assessed.
(ii) The mortality health impacts of these scenarios were estimated to be between 340,000 and 1,750,000 measured as the number of life years lost in 2020 from the impact on air quality of increased biomass combustion."
Ian Lander
Ian Lander
e-mail: ianalander