Cross-party Peers call on UK Government to stop burning trees for power

Photo: Annie Spratt via Unsplash

A cross-party group Peers have urged the Government to phase out the use of forest biomass in the UK’s energy system as soon as possible, warning that it exacerbates climate change, harms nature and undermines energy security.

They have also underlined that the UK imports millions of tonnes of biomass every year from Estonia, Latvia, the US and Canada. As recent global events have demonstrated, relying on imports to feed our power stations undermines energy security.

While they strongly support efforts to decarbonise the UK’s power system, the Peers warn that forest bioenergy – like that currently burned for electricity at Drax’s site in Yorkshire  – generates massive carbon emissions and harms the world’s forests and biodiversity.

Their principal concerns with the UK’s proposed new sustainability rules for biomass are:

1. Using biomass as a source of electricity exacerbates both climate change and biodiversity loss, and is not carbon neutral in the time we have to tackle these twin threats;

2. Using biomass exposes the UK’s energy system to significant risk and insecurity;

3. Protections for primary and old growth forests may be meaningless;

4. Forest biomass harms biodiversity, ecosystems and human health;

5. The new contract for Drax is outside the sustainability framework; and

6. In the future private contracts, for example to power data centres, could bypass sustainability requirements

The full letter, sent as part of the consultation, reads:

To whom it may concern,

We write as a group of Peers in response to the consultation on a new Common Biomass Sustainability Framework, setting out our concerns regarding the proposed criteria.

While we strongly welcome efforts to decarbonise the UK’s power system, the burning of forest bioenergy should not play any role in the UK’s future energy system. Not only have major bioenergy companies committed a series of wrongdoings, but the fundamental carbon benefits of forest bioenergy, on which its definition of renewable is based, is at best questionable and at worst willfully misleading. Emission savings are needed in a timescale which is incompatible with forest bioenergy which is usually only carbon neutral after several (often over 10) decades and near perfect regrowing conditions. Electricity produced from forest bioenergy today is unlikely to be carbon neutral this century.[1]

We welcome the steps the Government has taken recently to recognise the problems with forest biomass, including the limits placed on power generation by Drax and Lynemouth power stations in their new contracts. However, we are concerned that the proposed sustainability criteria in the consultation are not strong enough to ensure that biomass provides a climate benefit or that ecosystems and human health are protected.

We would urge the Government to phase out forest bioenergy as soon as possible. The UK is rich in wind and wave resources, and with faster deployment of renewables, including solar, and battery storage, does not need to burn the world’s dwindling forests to keep the lights on.

1. Burning forest bioenergy is not renewable in the short-medium term: the consultation states that forest carbon stocks can decline, so long as they remain stable or increase over the long-term (which can be anywhere from decades to centuries according to biomass sustainability schemes^[2]). This allows UK bioenergy to release millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide today, banking on it being offset by other countries’ forests decades from now – so while in practice bioenergy could be renewable, at scale it has proved not to be, and importantly not within the timescales we have to prevent the worst effects of global heating. Bioenergy companies are being awarded billions in subsidies on the premise that they produce instantly low-carbon, renewable, energy despite their power stations being among the most polluting in Europe – and the most polluting in the UK – exacerbating the current situation.[3][4] The proposed sustainability standards only corroborate what many scientific studies have already concluded.^[5]

2. Using bioenergy undermines UK energy security: forest biomass leaves the UK dependent on imports of millions of tonnes of wood. This undermines the goal of making the country more energy independent by using domestically available sources, such as wind and solar. In his recent Independent Review on Greenhouse Gas Removals, the then Dr Alan Whitehead (now Lord Whitehead) recommended that the UK move away from using imported biomass,^[6] in line with projections in the Climate Change Committee’s Seventh Carbon Budget which states that biomass imports fall to near zero by the 2040s.^[7] Continuing our reliance on imported biomass will only increase the amount of land overseas that the UK’s energy system depends on.^[8]

3. Protections for primary and old growth forests may be meaningless: the Government seeks to prevent any wood from primary and old growth forests being used. However, existing protections for primary and old growth forests have failed. Despite claims to the contrary by bioenergy producers, repeated investigations by BBC Panorama, and more recently by Stand.earth, have found that wood is coming from primary, old and ancient forests in Canada.^[9] In turn, whistleblowers have leaked documents that show there were internal concerns that the public denials about where pellets were sourced from these forests were not accurate.^[10] This has been corroborated by court documents released to news organisations in 2026 showing that senior executives did raise concerns.^[11]

The UK Government will undoubtedly say that its new protections will ensure primary and old growth wood is not sourced in future. However, this does not account for the loopholes in the proposed standards and the cynical and exploitative practices of the forestry industry in Canada. The proposed new standards in the consultation leave exceptions which state that it is permissible for wood from primary and old growth forests to be harvested for biomass so long as it is connected to fire management, windblow, or trees affected by pests and diseases. The forestry industry in Canada already exploits these loopholes by conducting what it calls salvage logging.^[12] This practice uses fire management or infested wood as a pretext for industrial and destructive clearcutting. But examinations of logs that were supposedly infested with bark beetle showed that the majority of them had no signs of infestation whatsoever.^[13] Considering these points, alongside the fact that it is seemingly impossible to police or trust the importers of pellets, we would urge the Government to set out a timeline for banning the import of pellets.

4. Forest biomass harms biodiversity, ecosystems and human health: the evidence demonstrates that bioenergy harvesting, especially intensive clearcutting, harms biodiversity and ecosystems in Canada, the southeast United States, and European countries.^[14] In Estonia and Latvia there has been recorded logging of Natura 2000 sites to produce wood pellets for bioenergy.^[15] Wood pellet mills also cause harm to human health, like in Gloster, Mississippi where residents are suing Drax for health harms caused by mills which produce biomass destined for the UK.^[16] In many cases biomass is certified as sustainable by third party schemes, some of which were set up by the bioenergy industry itself, meaning companies effectively get to mark their own homework.

5. The new contracts for Drax and Lynemouth are outside the sustainability framework: Drax and Lynemouth have already signed a new contract from 2027-31 with arrangements similar to, but outwith, the consultation, meaning that the two largest recipients of bioenergy subsidies have agreements which have not been subject to parliamentary or public scrutiny. It is remarkable that this has been allowed to be the case while one of these companies is subject to an ongoing investigation by the Financial Conduct Authority. It is also concerning that the Government continues to explore arrangements for bioenergy power plants to receive contracts for carbon capture in the 2030s, under the pretext of being carbon negative. We are very concerned that multi-billion pound biomass contract decisions have been made before this consultation was issued and outside its scope.

6. Private bioenergy contracts like data centres might totally bypass sustainability requirements: while there will be a power generation cap on what Drax can sell to the grid under its contract with government, it will be able to pursue private arrangements to sell electricity beyond this. As it stands in the sustainability consultation, the sustainability criteria will only apply to subsidised bioenergy generation, meaning in the 2030s large bioenergy companies could sell electricity privately (for example to data centres) with no biomass sustainability requirements whatsoever. While it is welcome that there would be no public subsidy for this, if we are to have any sort of electricity produced by bioenergy in the short term, while we transition to other sources, it is crucial that the sustainability criteria apply to it on an equal basis.

Yours faithfully,

Lord Ashcombe

Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist

Baroness Boycott

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoombe

Lord Randall of Uxbridge

Earl Russel

Lord Sikka

[1] Brack, D; Birdsay R; Walker, W Greenhouse gas emissions from burning US-sourced woody

biomass in the EU and UK, Chatham House, October 2021, https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/2021-10/2021-10-14-woody-biomass-us-eu-uk-research-paper_0.pdf

^[2] Sustainable Biomass Program, webpage, accessed February 2026, SBP Standards v2.0, https://sbp-cert.org/documents/normative-documents/version-2/standards-v2/

[3] Harrison, Tom Biomass plant is UK’s top emitter, 31 July 2023 https://ember-energy.org/app/uploads/2024/10/Biomass-plant-is-UKs-top-emitter.pdf

[4] Mayo, Frankie, Drax is still the UK’s largest emitter, 17 July 2025 https://ember-energy.org/latest-insights/drax-is-still-the-uks-largest-emitter/

^[5] Mackey, B. G., et al., 2025, Burning Forest Biomass Is Not an Effective Climate Mitigation Response and Conflicts With Biodiversity Adaptation, Climate Resilience and Sustainability, 4(2), https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/cli2.70015 and also European Academies Science Advisory Council,  2018, Commentary by the European Academies’ Science Advisory Council (EASAC) on Forest Bioenergy and Carbon Neutrality, https://easac.eu/fileadmin/PDF_s/reports_statements/Carbon_Neutrality/EASAC_commentary_on_Carbon_Neutrality_15_June_2018.pdf

^[6] UK Government, Dr Alan Whitehead CBE, 2025, Independent Review of Greenhouse Gas Removals, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/68f8d27a0794bb80118bb764/independent-review-of-ggr.pdf

^[7] Climate Change Committee, 2025, The Seventh Carbon Budget, https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/the-seventh-carbon-budget/

^[8] https://cutcarbonnotforests.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Bioenergy-Is-Putting-Britains-Energy-Security-at-Risk.pdf

^[9] Crowley, J. and Robinson, T., BBC Panorama, 2022, Drax: UK power station owner cuts down primary forests in Canada, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-63089348 and Crowley, J., BBC Panorama, 2024, Drax: UK power station still burning rare forest wood, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-68381160 and Stand.earth, 2025, Truckloads of Trees: Drax sourced wood pellets from old growth forests in B.C. in 2024, and likely 2025, https://stand.earth/forest-eye/2025/11/09/forest-biomass-research-2025/

^[10] Millard, R., Financial Times, 2026, Drax manager questioned public statements on wood sourcing tribunal documents show, https://www.ft.com/content/6913f97d-9065-42dd-b01f-d75f084e5278 and Millard, R. and Hodgson, C., Financial Times, 2024, UK power stations burnt wood from old forests, Drax emails show, https://www.ft.com/content/34550e7d-9d65-4756-8ffa-53f821dd14d0

^[11] Ambrose, J., Guardian, 2026, Drax insiders privately raised concerns over its sustainability claims, court papers show, https://www.theguardian.com/business/2026/feb/04/drax-sustainability-claims-court-forests-power-plant

^[12] The Narwhal, 2019, ‘Hundreds of hectares of moonscape’: B.C. spruce beetle infestation used to accelerate clear cuts, https://thenarwhal.ca/hundreds-of-hectares-of-moonscape-b-c-spruce-beetle-infestation-used-to-accelerate-clear-cuts/

^[13] Stand.earth, 2022, Canada’s growing wood pellet export industry threatens forests, wildlife and our climate, https://stand.earth/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/report-canada-wood-pellet-industry.pdf

^[14] NRDC, Southern Environmental Law Center, Dogwood Alliance, 2025, Global Markets for Biomass Energy are Devastating North American Forests, https://cutcarbonnotforests.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Web-Version-Investigation-Booklet-2024.pdf

^[15] Van der Wal, S., Greenpeace Netherlands and Centre for Research on Multinational Corporations, 2021, Wood pellet damage: How Dutch government subsidies for Estonian biomass aggravate the biodiversity and climate crisis, https://www.somo.nl/wood-pellet-damage/ and Cut Carbon Not Forests, 2022, Biomass Sourcing in Estonia May Violate UK Sustainability Standards for Biomass, https://cutcarbonnotforests.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Biomass-Sourcing-in-Estonia.pdf

^[16] Villareal, A. and Ambrose, J., Guardian, 2025, Mississippi residents sue UK-owned biomass firm granted permit for more emissions, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/oct/17/mississippi-suit-drax-biomass-air-pollution