Environmentalists take the United Kingdom to Court

The British government has decided to invest billions of pounds in BECCS (Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage), or 'biomass with carbon capture and storage.' This decision has triggered protests from environmental groups, leading them to sue the British government, with the case scheduled for Monday, November 13th.

First and foremost, let's seek to unravel what exactly the British government is fostering. BECCS, endorsed also by the European Union, is a technology aimed at removing CO₂ (carbon dioxide) from the atmosphere. Currently, there is no single and precise definition of BECCS as it can encompass a wide variety of industrial processes, raw materials, and energy conversion methods. Essentially, the core concept of the technology is straightforward: capturing CO₂ from biomass, such as during the generation of electricity or the manufacturing of biofuels. Despite the straightforward concept and the European Commission's encouragement to promote CCS solutions, there are still insufficient elements to endorse this technology on a broad scale, particularly if it is regarded as an effective instrument for fulfilling the goals of the Paris Agreement.

It is precisely this Agreement that has prompted environmental groups to take the British government to court. According to the government, the carbon captured from wood combustion through BECCS technology is considered a negative emission – in other words, it contributes to reducing the emissions balance. However, this process can be at best described as neutral. In a statement from The Lifescape Project and Partnership for Policy Integrity, the suing environmental groups declared that "the government's justification regarding BECCS as a source of negative emissions violates international protocols on carbon accounting foundational to the Paris Agreement, of which the United Kingdom is a signatory."

Indeed, one of the main challenges with BECCS - viewed as a technology capable of contributing to the achievement of decarbonization goals by 2050 - lies in the considerable amount of time required to observe meaningful results, especially when applied in relation to biomass combustion. While the usual timeframe for carbon offset in solar and wind energy is a few years, for biomass, the timelines are considerably uncertain and predominantly hinge on the specific type of biomass utilized.

Furthermore, even among the supporters of BECCS numerous criticisms have been raised regarding the limitations of this technology in its current state, especially in reference to the plans of the British government. One frequently cited source of concern is the United Nations accounting rules, which state that wood should be considered a source of carbon that increases the amount of CO₂ in the atmosphere. Therefore, it is treated as a zero in the energy sector to avoid double-counting the reduction. According to Mary Booth, director of the Partnership for Policy Integrity, re-counting emissions when the biomass in question is burned could be due to a mathematical error or an accounting loophole by the British government in its current implementation.

According to The Lifescape Project and Partnership for Policy Integrity, the legal case affecting the United Kingdom could also have repercussions in the European Union, which is endorsing BECCS as a technology capable of achieving negative emissions. The European Union had previously put forward approximately 180 million euros in funding for the conversion of an existing Swedish biomass plant into a BECCS facility. However, according to Mary Booth, the project will, under the best conditions, result in zero emissions rather than negative emissions.

In conclusion, the outcome of this case pursued by environmental groups in the United Kingdom remains to be seen. It undeniably serves as a prime example of the challenge in reconciling potential “simple” solutions to the complex issue of decarbonization as it collides with the harsh reality: the time to achieve neutrality is diminishing, and we cannot afford to lose it by pursuing uncertain solutions when effective methods to address the problem already exist.

Translated by Iuliana Cindrea

Mondo Internazionale APS – All rights reserved ® 2023