Biomass Strategy 2023: Cross Sectoral Sustainability Framework Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateBaroness Sheehan
Main Page: Baroness Sheehan (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)Department Debates - View all Baroness Sheehan's debates with the Department for Energy Security & Net Zero
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberMy Lords, I declare at the outset that I have a biomass boiler, which came with the house I live in—but, honestly, we are trying to get rid of it. It takes trees between 44 and 115 years for sequestration of carbon. The lower estimate takes us well beyond 2050, the upper beyond the lives of anyone born today. So clearly biomass is not renewable within the timeframe needed to tackle climate change. Will the Government take that into account and ensure that the UK applies the precautionary principle and ends the ridiculous classification of biomass as a renewable power source?
I am pleased to hear that the noble Baroness has a biomass boiler. In fact, she does not need to get rid of it, because if she sources her pellets from the appropriate sources, that is a renewable resource. These are not pellets from virgin forests but by-products from the timber production process. There are very strict sustainability criteria attached to them and, even if those pellets were not used for biomass production, they would be a waste product because the timber would still be harvested for its other uses. So the noble Baroness does not need to feel so guilty.
I am not sure I know what third and fourth generation biomass is. I will have to have a cup of coffee with noble Lords afterwards and we can have a chat about it.
Does the Minister agree that trees decompose only once they are felled?
I suppose, if we want to get into a debate about that, they absorb CO2 when they are growing. If they are felled and just rot on the ground they emit CO2, but also when they are burned.