Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Graham Stringer and Thérèse Coffey

Thursday 21st February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Dr Coffey]

It is incorrect to say that the EU has taken the Government to court four times. We are in the middle of infraction proceedings, and we will be going on with that. Nevertheless, I am aware of the correlation put forward by scientists between air quality and depression, and that is something we need to tackle. The House will be aware that we have set in statute air quality standards until 2030, and we will continue to drive down emissions and pollution in our air. I am sure the Welsh Government will want to do the same.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

The Minister will remember from the joint Select Committee report on air pollution, “Improving air quality”, that the Committees were dissatisfied with our knowledge about air pollution because direct measurements were not being made. What action is the Minister taking to ensure more accurate knowledge and measurements of existing pollution, rather than relying on models?

[Dr Coffey]

Local authorities undertake air quality monitoring, but not necessarily to the same level as is required for standards that have been set and agreed across the European Union. We will continue to increase the monitoring network across the country. Local authorities already have powers to tackle such issues, and we are encouraging them to do so.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Graham Stringer and Thérèse Coffey

Thursday 29th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Dr Coffey]

My right hon. Friend is right. It has been a pleasure to work with Birmingham City Council, which is making reasonable progress on producing its plan. There is no doubt that “dieselgate” had a massive impact on people’s willingness to do what the Government were recommending, so it has not had the intended consequences. We will continue to work with car manufacturers, and the Chancellor has changed vehicle excise duty to ensure that people are incentivised to buy the cleanest possible vehicles.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

The burning of biomass makes a major contribution to air pollution. The Government have estimated that 1.7 million lives are lost every year because of the burning of biomass, but they have now stopped making those calculations. Why?

[Dr Coffey]

I am not aware of the figure to which the hon. Gentleman has just referred. I am conscious of the impact that burning has, which is why we have a consultation about the domestic burning of household smoky coal, wet wood and similar materials, but I will look carefully into the issue that he has raised.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Graham Stringer and Thérèse Coffey

Thursday 18th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Dr Coffey]

Disposable nappies have become a consumer convenience. I am very pleased that Procter & Gamble has invested in technology, which we see in Italy. We are encouraging it to bring it here, not only for disposable nappies but other forms of absorbent hygiene products. We can do something about this, but I am not convinced that we will be seeing an end to the disposable nappy any time soon.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

One of the barriers to the successful recycling of plastic is that many simple packaging materials are actually made up of composite plastic with a number of polymers, which is particularly difficult to recycle. Will the Minister consider bringing in regulations to simplify this packaging?

[Dr Coffey]

I am pleased to say that the Government have been working with a mixture of organisations, retailers and manufacturers to try to simplify the polymers that are being used. Technical innovations will need to happen, but I am confident that some good news will be coming out very shortly.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Graham Stringer and Thérèse Coffey

Thursday 12th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

T5. A recent paper by the International Solid Waste Association has shown that much of the plastic we declare as recycled, when it is exported to China and other Asian countries, ends up in rivers and accounts for at least 25% of the plastic pollution going into the seas. Is the Secretary of State aware of that, and what action does he intend to take to improve the situation?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)]

The Environment Agency is the regulator in this regard, and operators are bound to ensure that what is exported gets recycled appropriately. I have not looked at that report yet, but I am happy to look into this and write to the hon. Gentleman.

Future of Biomass

Debate between Graham Stringer and Thérèse Coffey

Monday 20th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Graham Stringer]

That is the point that I am making.

There is another trap to avoid. It is important to make the distinction between biomass that is good and biomass that is bad for the carbon balance in our atmosphere; otherwise, the danger is that biomass will be tarnished in the same way that first-generation biofuels were, creating a wall of cynicism about biofuels in general. Installing bad biomass plants around the UK rather than good ones would not only be a prodigious waste of taxpayers’ money, but embed into our electricity generation system for years to come a significant proportion of unsustainable electricity production.

I was drawn to the opinion of the European Environment Agency scientific committee on greenhouse gas accounting that was published on 15 September 2011, a copy of which I have submitted to the Minister’s officials. It knocks on the head the assumption that biomass combustion is always inherently carbon neutral, and points to the “double counting” that causes that error. The report explains that the assumption

“ignores the fact that using land to produce plants for energy typically means that this land is not producing plants for other purposes, including carbon otherwise sequestered.”

If biomass production replaces forests or reduces forest stocks or forest growth that would otherwise sequester more carbon, it can increase net carbon concentrations. If biomass displaces food crops, as biofuels did, it can lead to hunger if crops are not replaced, and to emissions from land use change if they are. The committee concluded that to reduce carbon in the air, bioenergy production must increase the net total of plant growth, or must be derived from biomass wastes that would otherwise decompose.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is making an eloquent contribution. Another unintended consequence could involve the cost of crops. Biofuels have already been mentioned, but my farmers are also concerned about straw and about raising costs when they could be subsidising a biomass plant.

[Graham Stringer]

The hon. Lady makes an important point.

The committee warns that the danger of that error is “immense”, stating that

“current harvests…have already caused enormous loss of habitat by affecting perhaps 75% of the world’s ice- and desert-free land, depleting water supplies, and releasing large quantities of carbon into the air.”

On that basis, it urges that European Union regulations and policy targets should be revised to allow bioenergy use only from additional biomass that reduces net greenhouse gas emissions without displacing other necessities such as the production of food and fibre. It advises that accounting standards should fully reflect all changes in the amount of carbon stored by ecosystem, and that energy production from biomass should be based on by-products, wastes and residues rather than on stem wood that would otherwise continue happily to grow as forest biomass.

The implications of that analysis were explored by Atlantic Consulting in “Biomass’ Forgotten Carbon Cost”, published on 8 November 2011. I have sent a copy of that paper to the Minister’s Department, as well. Atlantic Consulting looked at the pattern of typical biomass plants in the UK and found that 58% of their fuel tonnage derived from wood. Some of that is waste, such as end-of-life furniture and arboreal cuttings, and some is residue, such as that from sawmills. Unfortunately, however, the largest fuel component of biomass power is stem wood—that is, tree trunks harvested with the intent of using them for boiler fuel.

Atlantic Consulting proceeded to estimate the carbon footprint of a typical UK biomass plant. Interestingly, its footprint is 690 grams of carbon dioxide equivalent per kWh, which is well above the current UK average footprint of 520 grams per kWh and the lowest-carbon conventional gas-fired combined cycle at 401 grams per kWh. It also far exceeds the eligibility hurdle of 285.12 grams per kWh set for renewable obligation certificates from 2013. In that light, more than half of biomass-powered capacity would not qualify for credits under the renewables obligation. That could be a shock to the owners if they found that they did not benefit, and it would certainly be a shock to taxpayers if they found that they were subsidising higher-carbon power generation than the existing average.

Will the Minister provide the owners and the taxpayers with a measure of reassurance, because it appears that the current sustainability criteria for biomass are not stringent enough? If the European Environment Agency scientific committee or Atlantic Consulting are wrong in their thinking, will he please explain the situation, so that we can get this right for all concerned? The interests of the economy and of the environment demand clarity.

In October last year, the Scottish Government published a consultation that proposed removing all subsidy from large-scale woody biomass electricity plants. Large-scale electricity-only biomass was, in their view, inefficient and required more wood than the UK could produce. Although current plans are to import wood, there is no guarantee that biomass plant operators will look exclusively abroad for their wood, and the overseas supply might not be stable or secure. The current subsidy means biomass providers will be able to afford more than the current market rate for wood, which might push prices up and price out traditional wood industries such as sawmills, wood panel mills, furniture manufacturers and construction, which in turn, the Scottish Government said, puts hundreds of skilled rural jobs at risk. What is the Minister’s view of the Scottish policy stance? Are the Scottish Government wrong, or are they ahead of the game?