From Legal Struggles to Environmental Justice: The Fight Against Drax’s Greenwashing and Biomass Deception

On December 14, 2021, a freight train transporting wood pellets to the Drax Power Station was halted outside Selby, North Yorkshire. Standing in front of the train in orange high-vis, Diana Warner, a retired GP and member of Extinction Rebellion and the Axe Drax coalition, decried UK’s “most ridiculous power station” chopping down forests to produce “renewable” electricity and perpetuating environmental racism in marginalized communities in Canada and Southern US.

Diana’s courageous actions have left her in a legal struggle which could land her in prison, the decision being taken to Leeds Crown Court in the last week of February. Climate activists are about to launch a campaign in the Leeds City Centre, to support Diana and to further expose Drax’s greenwashing operations.

Carbon Neutral wood pellets?

Formerly the UK’s largest coal power station, Drax began switching from coal to biomass fuel, namely the wood pellet; small compressed cylinders formed from sawdust, wood shavings and forest leftovers in this century. Today, Drax burns 6.5 million tonnes of imported wood pellets annually, generating about 6% of the nation’s electricity and receives over £700 million government subsidies on average every year for this “renewable energy source”. However, with a closer look, wood pellets are by no means as “renewable” as Drax claims, but explicit greenwashing. 

Drax’s claims that these wood pellets are carbon-neutral are incredibly misleading. One is led to believe that the CO2 released during combustion is countered by the carbon absorbed by newly planted trees that replace removed forests, delivering climate benefits as a fossil fuel substitute. But this explanation is flawed since burning wood pellets releases carbon immediately, whereas replanted trees take decades to recapture equal CO2. Scientific analyses indicate that the regrowth of new trees to maturity spans 44 to 104 years, meaning “burning wood pellets would create a carbon debt that would not be paid off” in the current climate emergency.

The replanted forests are not capable of recreating the original natural forests, which serve as irreplaceable carbon sinks and wildlife habitats due to their rich biodiversity and complex ecosystems. BBC Panorama discovered data from British Columbia’s Ministry of Forests showing the company took over 40,000 tonnes of wood from old-growth forests in 2023, which may permanently degrade carbon-rich ecosystems.

Struggling with compliance 

Drax has a poor track record in regard to long term sustainability. Its wood pellet factories in the US and Canada have repeatedly exceeded toxic air pollutant limits and contaminated waterways in marginal communities. In Gloster, a low-income, majority-Black community in Mississippi, local residents around Drax’s Amite BioEnergy pellet factory have suffered from respiratory diseases related to air pollution. The Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality penalized Drax $2.5 million for exceeding emission limits and Drax Group’s six pellet factories in the US have had over 8,700 similar breachers since 2020. Drax also paid a £25 million UK government fine in 2024 for misreporting its wood sources. 

£470 million subsidies a year from 2027?

The UK government has determined that Drax’s must halve their annual subsidy to £470 million from 2027 to 2035 but only if their wood source is 100% sustainable. However, this compromise is not adequate in light of the urgency of the climate crisis, £470 million a year is still far too high. The prior subsidies and enormous number of “sustainability-linked loans” (SSL) issued by large commercial banks with reduced interest rates and accountability requirements has meant that Drax faces limited constraints in expanding its biomass business. As of August 2024, Drax has accepted its biggest $553 million SLL to date.

As studies from E3G show, biomass is not necessary to meet the UK’s 2030 energy decarbonization target, green hydrogen, produced from renewable energy, is a better alternative for back-up power. The real focus should be accelerating offshore wind generation and related infrastructure, smart metering and regulations on gas-fired plant rather than funding a bogus option with taxpayer’s money.

Diana’s trial is on February 24th-26th. Extinction Rebellion Leeds is going to hold a funeral for the trees and a court support in the city centre, bringing more awareness to Drax’s deeds and energy transition strategies. We are calling for more people to join in. If you’re interested, join the campaign’s group chat by contacting Zane via xinzhi0902@gmail.com Hope to hear your voices outside the Court!

Words by Xinzhi Zhou

Image credit: Gerard Liston
Image credit: Gerard Liston

Turning the tide:  A new era of Trump’s climate policies 

With Donald J. Trump set to return to the Oval Office on January 20th 2025, a new era of climate politics is on the horizon. Historically, Trump has made a habit of having a contradictory ‘flip-flop’ approach when making his stance on a political issue clear and his environmentalism is no exception to this. 

Predominantly, Trump is a climate change denialist, having referred to it upon numerous occasions as nothing more than a ‘hoax’, ‘nonexistent’ or a ‘very, very expensive form of tax’. Despite this, in 2009 Trump did sign a political advert appearing in the New York Times which expresses support for legislation combating climate change quoting ‘‘If we fail to act now, it is scientifically irrefutable that there will be catastrophic and irreversible consequences for humanity and our planet’. But one quick Look at his twitter / X history realigns one with the reality that any past sympathy Trump may have held for our planet is long gone. 

‘The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese’ Trump’s twitter account 2012 6 Nov

Not to mention his consistent rhetoric of making light of a concerning situation in which he will either jest that any cold weather is evidence enough that climate change is not real or mock those who are taking steps towards change. Take his online outbursts directed at climate activist Greta Thunberg for example, in which he has suggested she has an ‘anger management problem’ and should ‘chill.’ 

During his presidential term of 2017-2021, Trump’s policy only weakened climate action, whilst the majority of the world’s leading countries were setting and meeting their climate targets. One of the most shocking decisions made during this time was Trump’s withdrawal from the 2015 Paris Agreement after deeming its terms incompatible with his commitment to delivering economic freedom to the American people. A theme which continually halts any hope for climate delivery as ultimately, first and foremost, Trump is defined by his businessman persona and deregulatory agenda; for him climate change policy infringes upon the private lives of Americans. 

Throughout this time, Trump continued to undo much of the progress of his democrat predecessor, Barack Obama, such as cutting his Clean Power Plan which was set to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 32% from 2005 levels by 2030 through prohibiting new coal plants. Instead Trump went forward with his Affordable Clean Energy Rule which was used to pacify as in reality it was only reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 1% and allowed him to continue with his ulterior motive, revitalising the coal industry. 

At present, if the evidence is anything to draw from, it would appear that Trump’s 2025-2029 presidential term will be no different than what we have already seen. From what one can gather from his presidential campaign, climate change still remains a non-issue, in fact when asked about it directly in an interview with Fox News host Tucker Carlson, Trump remarked

‘Nobody talks about nuclear…the biggest problem we have in the whole world. It’s not global warming, it’s nuclear warming.’ 

Demonstrating clearly that Trump does not care to discuss climate change at all as he quickly diverted the question in a way which allowed himself to express matters he aligns himself more closely with such as the American military. Additionally, in an almost familiar state of events, it is expected that Trump will yet again withdraw from the Paris Agreement after his democratic predecessor, Joe Biden rejoined it. 

If the allusive project 2025 is anything to go by, we can also expect to see the approval of more oil and gas infrastructure, expected to release billions of tonnes more carbon pollution. Plans are also currently circulating that would suggest Trump will not leave protected areas alone in this pursuit as is made clear in his decision to open Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, home to polar bears and caribou, to drilling. 

In the midst of what appears to be a disastrous outcome for America’s climate, it is important to remind oneself that Trump, whilst president, is still just one man. There are climate protections in place which even he cannot penetrate. Undoing significant legislature such as the Inflation Reduction Act which made historic investments in climate action will be impossible to alter without congressional approval. Whatsmore, hope can be found in the federal government and its ability to pass its own climate initiatives beyond Trump’s jurisdiction such as California’s ‘The Great Implementation’ plan, which is set to achieve net zero carbon pollution by 2045.

Words by Libby McGuinness