R (the Lifescape Project) v Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (challenge to Biomass Strategy)

The environmental charity, the Lifescape Project, has launched a public law challenge to the Secretary of State’s Biomass Strategy. The strategy sets out government policy on the role of sustainable biomass in reaching net zero. The claimant relies on the UK Climate Change Act 2008, filing its challenge in November 2023. The Biomass Strategy, which was published August 2023, describes Biomass Energy with Carbon Capture Storage (BECCS) as a “low carbon fuel source”. This is despite, says the claimant, experts doubting its ability to help meet climate targets and be considered as renewable energy. For instance, it is said the strategy does not consider the lifecycle emissions such as through manufacturing and combustion of the biomass. BECCS involves the burning of biomass then the capturing the carbon emissions generated and storing them below ground. This process is sometimes described by its promoters as “carbon negative”, on the basis that the carbon released by burning wood is also absorbed by newly planted trees. However, according the claimant this method is expected to cost billions. It is said forest ecosystems will be threatened as the method is reliant on existing forests before sourcing from afforested areas can begin. There are argued to be other lower cost forms of renewable energy that can reliably deliver emission reductions. The grounds are as follows: 1. The Secretary of State acted irrationally by failing to conduct an adequate analysis of the extent to which the government’s continued support for the combustion of biomass, including forest biomass, will achieve genuine reductions in carbon emissions or otherwise contribute to meeting carbon budgets and the Net Zero Target. 2. Further or alternatively, such a failure breached the Secretary of State’s duty under section 13 of the Climate Change Act 2008 to have policies and proposals that will enable the carbon budgets to be met. 3. The consultation exercise that preceded its publication was unfair, because the underlying scientific analysis relied upon was not disclosed to consultees, who were as a result deprived of the opportunity to comment