DECC Scientist Takes Green Groups’ To Task Over Biomass Claims

Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and RSPB under fire from government for using unfinished research to campaign against carbon impact of biomass power By Jessica Shankleman 01 Aug 2013 Tension between the government and green groups over the environmental impact of biomass has cranked up a notch, after it emerged DECC’s chief scientist has written to three of the UK’s leading NGOs to criticise their publication of unfinished research as part of their campaign against biomass subsidies. Earlier this year, Greenpeace, RSBP, and Friends of the Earth (FoE) unveiled a factsheet claiming biomass generation in some instances produces more emissions than burning coal. Under the government’s current plans biomass energy will have to show lifecycle reduction in emissions of at least 60 per cent compared to emissions of the EU fossil fuel grid average, such as cutting down trees and transporting fuel. The government is expected to confirm the new sustainability standards for biomass this month, with the rules likely to come into effect next year. But green groups fear the new standard will not fully take account of the full lifecycle emissions associated with growing, harvesting and distributing biomass for fuel and have been lobbying for stricter sustainability standards on generators . They believe rising subsidies could cause a huge surge in demand for the UK’s forestry harvest over the next four years, potentially having an adverse impact on biodiversity and leading to greater reliance on imported biomass. The RSPB, Greenpeace and FoE factsheet Burning Wood for Power Generation , revealed preliminary findings of a nine-month research project by David Mackay, DECC’s chief scientific adviser, that was presented to them at a stakeholder meeting in March. Unlike Ofgem’s current carbon calculator, MacKay’s calculator includes the net reduction in the carbon stock caused by the removal of timber from forests, and the indirect emissions of burning biomass that would have been avoided if it had been used for other industries, such as construction. Mackay’s initial findings showed the carbon impact of biomass rises significantly when these two sources of emissions are taken into account. The preliminary results suggested biomass generation produces more emissions than burning coal in five scenarios of the 12 scenarios considered. The factsheet prompted an angry response from the biomass industry with the Renewable Energy Association’s Gaynor Hartnell accusing the NGOs of using “half baked” arguments to scaremonger the public about the impact of the sector. However, BusinessGreen has learnt the publication also drew criticism from MacKay, who accused the three NGOs of exploiting the “open and collaborative” approach to research at the department. A letter , released under freedom of information request, was sent to Rose Dickinson, parliamentary officer for RSPB, Mike Childs, head of policy, research and science for Friends of the Earth and Doug Parr, chief scientist of Greenpeace, on May 15th criticising the decision to publish data from the draft report. In the letter MacKay said he was both “surprised and disappointed” that the factsheet quoted his draft findings. Mackay said the NGOs had been told the calculator his team developed, known as the the Bioenergy Emissions and Counterfactual (BEaC) calculator, was not intended for public circulation until its final launch – originally expected this summer but since delayed to the Autumn. “I acknowledge that the factsheet describes BEaC as a prototype and the results as preliminary; but I don’t think using the material in this context without specific permissions accords with the spirit in which we shared the model with the reviewers,” he wrote. “I wish to continue an open and constructive relationship with all of DECC’s stakeholders and I would like to urge you to treat unfinished analysis and material shared for review with more care in future,” he concluded. All three NGOs have since told BusinessGreen they published the data in good faith, believing they had permission from DECC to share the information so long as it was made clear it was not the final version. They also all said they removed the BEaC information from their websites after receiving MacKay’s letter. Harry Huyton, head of climate change for the RSPB, defended its decision to publish, arguing DECC should be more transparent around its thinking on biomass. “The bigger point is that the [BEaC draft] findings were consistent with major research by the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre so we didn’t see it as controversial,” he said. “But we did see it as important and in the public interest for people to understand what this tool was showing.” Huyton also raised concerns that the government has delayed the final publication of the BEaC to Autumn, despite previously promising to published in the summer. He urged the government to include the findings of the BEaC in its final sustainability standard when it comes out this month. “We need an open public debate about impact of biomass and that’s in the interest of the industry as much as ours,” he said. “Otherwise, the risk is we repeat what we’ve seen in biofuels sector where denial of indirect impacts has mean that even now many years down the line we’re still having a big debate about how to get emissions right. We should get it right from the outset.” Childs similarly argued the preliminary findings were important for the future of the industry. “The draft results were very interesting – they showed that burning whole trees compared to trimmings was bad news for the climate,” he said. ” The companies involved in the industry may need to change their practices to make them sustainable.” Greenpeace’s Parr added that many other countries would be looking at the UK’s standards as a template and it was therefore crucial the government got it right first time. “We urgently need the best available science informing standards at UK and EU level given the reliance on bioenergy to reach renewable targets,” he added. However, a spokesman for the government maintained it was committed to supporting only sustainably produced bioenergy, which delivers “real” greenhouse gas savings, is cost effective, takes account of wider impacts across the economy, and manages possible risks such as adverse effects on food security and biodiversity. “We are developing a model BEaC to investigate the carbon impacts of different bioenergy feedstocks and help ensure we have robust evidence behind our bioenergy policies,” he said. “A preliminary version of the tool has been discussed with stakeholders, however, the tool is under development and is subject to review.” He added that the draft version of the model should not yet be used to draw firm conclusions. Paul Thompson, head of policy for the REA, said the letter highlighted the need for all sides of the debate to treat complex information on the environmental impact of biomass sensitively. “This letter confirms that certain groups have misused data from the Calculator, which was in draft form and not intended for public use, to support pre-existing positions,” he said. “It is important to be more careful in the treatment of these sensitive issues and data in order to advance the rational debate that we need on biomass sustainability. “We look forward to working with NGOs and the Government on implementing the forthcoming RO Sustainability Criteria in order to ensure high carbon savings and ecologically sustainable forestry practices.” Taylor Scott International