For anyone interested in my non denier stance on the green agenda. Using Drax as a specific example. I originally was brought onto this subject I think in the run up to Brexit where EU policy and other green agreements were "under threat from Brexit." There was probably an element of calling out the hipsters and metro lot about their use of wood burning stoves which are all the rage these days.
It is not black and white, either/or that you either toe the line on the green agenda or you are a denier. You can believe in climate change and want something done about it while at the same time disputing all the BS that we are presented with as being necessary, viable or even truthful solutions;
In 2016!! (it will be way more now) all of our bills had a joint 700m worth added to them in subsidies that were given to the coal>biomass transfer.
Drax started converting from coal to Biomass in 2012. They quite proudly boast of being carbon neutral and enivronmentally friendly and under EU rules did not have to disclose their actual carbon output as Biomass was deemed carbon neutral because trees can be replanted and would soak up the CO2 created from burning the old trees. This of course is a ridiculous concept when trees take decades to mature and completely ignores the destruction of habitats etc. We'll not go into the whole aspect that nobody is replanting trees anyway.
So when tests are done on the CO2 produced by coal and from the equivalent amount of biomass needed to produce the same energy..........yes of course Biomass produces 8% more yet because of EU guidelines Drax did/does not have to disclose any carbon data on it and it is classed as carbon neutral.
Drax burns more wood per year than the whole of the UK wood production but yes of course we import our wood products from Poland or elsewhere. Let them take the hit on that one not us.
So why do I question a lot of the green agenda?
Drax is classed as carbon neutral despite it actually being the UKs largest single emitter of CO2!
Because it is allowed to be classed as carbon neutral it helps the UK in its aims to reach net zero, despite it producing 8% more carbon than it did when it was a coal power station.
For the above we get the privilege of subsidising them through levies on our energy bills.
Forests and habitats in other parts of the world are destroyed, to make products for the green agenda, that are supposedly going to be replaced but aren't ignoring that trees and habitats can be destroyed in minutes but take decades to recover!
So I am not a climate denier. I just question why we are paying a bootload of extra money in the name of net zero for these people to destroy the environment and actually put more CO2 into the air, as well as a lot of nasties in wood burning that are worse than the coal nasties?
Does it not make you question motives? We are paying massive amounts of our energy bill for a multinational body to approve practices that pretend to reduce CO2 emissions yet actually increase them and get to destroy the environment while they call out other countries for destroying forests? How can our biggest CO2 polluter be classed as carbon Neutral and why are we paying so much extra for it to be so? Wonder where that extra money goes?
How can this all be drawn into this 2030/2050 argument when it will take 100 years for new trees (if they planted them) to offset the carbon they are producing now from the trees they cut dowwn?
I can't remember the original stuff I researched on but this is pretty close. Also turns out Ch4 forgot they "uncovered" this in 2017 and so they've now "uncovered" it twice now it seems. lol:
https://theecologist.org/2017/apr/10/no-drax-theres-nothing-sustainable-about-big-biomass
https://www.nrdc.org/stories/no-burning-wood-fuels-not-climate-friendly
This is just one of the swindles of this age that will be the next Diesel scandal, that TPTB pushed us all to support.
