Drax (UK): "green" burning of Canada's old growth forests

[myata]

The licenses were granted provincially (BC) but the attitude is surely, national. The cod is gone, the salmon is going, and forests are on the way. The happy mindless party has to go on.

Canadian politicians are paid a lot. Like possibly / probably in no other democratic country but hey, aren't them democracies all different so why not have one that pays outrageously edging on obscene? And for all that who can figure out this little adage:

Hi there, we're green environmental blah power company that uses sawdust and byproducts that anyways blah so can we have a license to cut a few of your last primary forests?

Makes sense right? Incentives out of UK's taxpayer pocket naturally flow to BC provincial forestry integrity office running hard to catch up, but of course! Take it all (the famous Canadian generosity). And have it at half price too, will ya? What kind of country is that? What kind of democracy?

This is a scandal nothing less: a foreign "green energy" company cuts Canadian forests to burn to generate "green" electricity (and get juicy taxpayer credit). Trees that have been growing for centuries, long before parties and ministers burnt in flash. Taxpayers there pay out, taxpayers here couldn't care less red twin or blue twin, CEO get pretty bonuses, great green chat everybody happy - and no forests.

Drax: cuts down primary forests in Canada (BBC)

Edited October 3, 2022 by myata

[ExFlyer]

Canada has nothing to trade or sell except it's resources.

All, or most, manufacturing has moved out of the country as it is no longer economical to make things here.

We even have to import workers to feed ourselves because Canadians do not want to work on farms.

This is not a government (now and back then) issue, it is a Canadian mentality (superiority?) issue.

[Nefarious Banana]

Logging is a sustainable/renewable resource in BC. 

Drax report:  Misinformation at its finest. Triggers the uninformed.

[Michael Hardner]

They are using different language... is "primary" meant to mean "old growth" ?

 

TFW for farm workers has been happening in the US and Canada for many decades, so that's not new @ExFlyer

[Michael Hardner]

10 minutes ago, Nefarious Banana said:

Logging is a sustainable/renewable resource in BC. 

Drax report:  Misinformation at its finest. Triggers the uninformed.

Old growth or farmed though ?

[ExFlyer]

52 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

They are using different language... is "primary" meant to mean "old growth" ?

 

TFW for farm workers has been happening in the US and Canada for many decades, so that's not new @ExFlyer

That is my point.

We haven't built or made anything for years, we just sell our resources.

[Michael Hardner]

Just now, ExFlyer said:

That is my point.

We haven't built or made anything for years, we just sell our resources.

Yes, this is our specialty it seems.

[ExFlyer]

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

Yes, this is our specialty it seems.

To be a bit more correct, Drax, the power company in the UK also gets it's wood pellets form US sources.

Canada has become a resource supplier and material buyer. Our primary industry/business is the service industry.

[Michael Hardner]

58 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

1. To be a bit more correct, Drax, the power company in the UK also gets it's wood pellets form US sources.

2. Canada has become a resource supplier and material buyer. Our primary industry/business is the service industry.

1. Ok.
2. Also ok - BUT ... how is wood graded as a 'green' source especially old growth ?    My two posts above are waiting to be answered - not by you, necessarily, but anybody.

[ExFlyer]

23 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Ok.
2. Also ok - BUT ... how is wood graded as a 'green' source especially old growth ?    My two posts above are waiting to be answered - not by you, necessarily, but anybody.

I think the term "green" is loosely interpreted as sustainable. Meaning we can grow more trees.

On the West coast, there is a moratorium on old growth. Northern Vancouver Island and the Queen Charlottes (or whatever they are called now) had old growth logging but is was stopped (last I heard was first nations were tasked to determine which and where and how much of old growth forest areas to protect)).

The OP's initial comment is made without much research. In fact "60% of the pellets burned by Drax that year were imported from the Southeastern US, 22% from Canada and 11% from the Baltic States."
Pellets are generally made from lumber processing byproducts and low quality wood. So, maybe that is also where they claim "green"? Using sawdust and bark to make pellets?

Edited October 3, 2022 by ExFlyer

[Nefarious Banana]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Old growth or farmed though ?

Coastal Douglas fir 'old growth' is being protected more and more these days.  Some 2nd growth fir is 5+ feet in diameter at the stump. Many folks mistake this as 'old growth'  . . . 

There is nothing wrong with harvesting mixed species cut blocks (logging areas) and getting the value-added bonus from low grade timber in the form of pulp, and pellets, etc.

The article is extremely misleading and designed to trigger folks with no knowledge of Canadian (BC) logging sustainability and renewal.

It would take pages to lay out the mistakes and deception in the article to folks that know little/nothing about Canada's forest industry.

[Michael Hardner]

6 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

1. I think the term "green" is loosely interpreted as sustainable. Meaning we can grow more trees.

2. On the West coast, there is a moratorium on old growth. Northern Vancouver Island and the Queen Charlottes (or whatever they are called now) had old growth logging but is was stopped (last I heard was first nations were tasked to determine which and where and how much of old growth forest areas to protect)).

3. The OP's initial comment is made without much research. In fact "60% of the pellets burned by Drax that year were imported from the Southeastern US, 22% from Canada and 11% from the Baltic States."
Pellets are generally made from lumber processing byproducts and low quality wood. So, maybe that is also where they claim "green"? Using sawdust and bark to make pellets?

1. Not good enough IMO.  Two reasons: 1) We can't "grow" old growth and 2) burning wood is a bad way to increase CO2 in the atmosphere
2. Ok
3. You seem to have answered this, thanks.  I can see a bit more how this would be cited as 'green' since they burn refuse anyway... but still a little surprising.

[herbie]

The report doesn't mention why they use the wood pellets. Mixing those in actually reduces the CO2 and pollutants from coal burning plants. Enough to meet the standards there, but diddly squat compared to overall world-wide coal emissions.
And "primary forests" simply means where it is most commercially feasible to perform forestry operations. I live there.

Pellets are made from sawmill scrap, forest waste and logs not best suited for lumber. So some Old Growth" content might be included. No one cuts down evergreen timber just to make pellets.
We do live in a market economy so if the sawmill isn't buying and a pellet plant is that's life. The tree's already cut down. Doesn't happen a lot and not for really good logs.
And what's the author's alternative? Stop using the pellets and increase their CO2 output in those coal plants?

 

Edited October 3, 2022 by herbie

[myata]

duplicate

Edited October 4, 2022 by myata

[myata]

It took some minutes to extract direct quotes from the piece. Now the only way anyone can claim "misleading" is to prove that they are factually incorrect (produced by investigative reporters with recorded evidence)

"The company says it only uses sawdust and waste wood."

"Drax later admitted that it did use logs from the forest to make wood pellets".

"One of the Drax forests is a square mile, including large areas that have been identified as rare, old-growth forest."

"Drax told the BBC it had not cut down the forests itself and said it transferred the logging licences to other companies. But Panorama checked and the authorities in British Columbia confirmed that Drax still holds the licences."

"But documents on a Canadian forestry database show that only 11% of the logs delivered to the two Drax plants in the past year were classified as the lowest quality"

"Panorama wanted to see if logs from primary forests cut down by logging companies were being transferred to Drax's Meadowbank pellet plant. The programme filmed a truck on a 120-mile round trip: leaving the plant, collecting piles of whole logs from a forest that had been cut down by a logging company and then returning to the plant for their delivery."

"The company also said the sites identified by Panorama were not primary forest because they were near roads. But the UN definitions of primary forest do not mention proximity to roads and one of the sites is six miles from the nearest paved road."

WTF the "proximity to roads" excuse? Is there a square centimeter of old forest left on this planet by this standard?

Just blind or worse?

Edited October 4, 2022 by myata

[myata]

I suspect the answer is easy: Drax invented another miracle technology buzz green words, taxpayer incentives, tax incentives, cosy CEO bonuses, publicity, billion $$$ IPO ahead and a great renewable future.

Only one problem: not commercially viable. Too expensive only from sawdust and reject material that would go anyways as was in the great rosy story. So needed a little boost at a critical moment in the new green miracle story. And yes there's one place on this precious planet where any kind of boosts can be gotten no questions asked or almost. Taxpayers couldn't care less and governments even better (care less) no we first, the bicentennial fun race. Cod is gone by the way, salmon going fast, only a background.

Trees grew for a thousand years, long before great European environmental drive (and even climate change itself) now goes in a flash in a Drux pellet. That's called "renewable", right? Somebody knows.

Edited October 4, 2022 by myata

[ExFlyer]

5 hours ago, myata said:

It took some minutes to extract direct quotes from the piece. Now the only way anyone can claim "misleading" is to prove that they are factually incorrect (produced by investigative reporters with recorded evidence)

"The company says it only uses sawdust and waste wood."

"Drax later admitted that it did use logs from the forest to make wood pellets".

"One of the Drax forests is a square mile, including large areas that have been identified as rare, old-growth forest."

"Drax told the BBC it had not cut down the forests itself and said it transferred the logging licences to other companies. But Panorama checked and the authorities in British Columbia confirmed that Drax still holds the licences."

"But documents on a Canadian forestry database show that only 11% of the logs delivered to the two Drax plants in the past year were classified as the lowest quality"

"Panorama wanted to see if logs from primary forests cut down by logging companies were being transferred to Drax's Meadowbank pellet plant. The programme filmed a truck on a 120-mile round trip: leaving the plant, collecting piles of whole logs from a forest that had been cut down by a logging company and then returning to the plant for their delivery."

"The company also said the sites identified by Panorama were not primary forest because they were near roads. But the UN definitions of primary forest do not mention proximity to roads and one of the sites is six miles from the nearest paved road."

WTF the "proximity to roads" excuse? Is there a square centimeter of old forest left on this planet by this standard?

Just blind or worse?

There is "good wood" and "bad wood" in the forest. There are a number of species that are of no use to the lumber trades. These are cut and often just left on the forest floor. Now, they can be used for pellets.

A cutting/timber license is like a mining claim. It is sometimes used and sometimes not. Sometimes used by the owner or leased to someone else.

Drax sawmills cut and sell lumber to builders and use the sawdust , chips and bark for pellets. The sawmills are a business unto themselves.

 

5 hours ago, myata said:

I suspect the answer is easy: Drax invented another miracle technology buzz green words, taxpayer incentives, tax incentives, cosy CEO bonuses, publicity, billion $$$ IPO ahead and a great renewable future.

Only one problem: not commercially viable. Too expensive only from sawdust and reject material that would go anyways as was in the great rosy story. So needed a little boost at a critical moment in the new green miracle story. And yes there's one place on this precious planet where any kind of boosts can be gotten no questions asked or almost. Taxpayers couldn't care less and governments even better (care less) no we first, the bicentennial fun race. Cod is gone by the way, salmon going fast, only a background.

Trees grew for a thousand years, long before great European environmental drive (and even climate change itself) now goes in a flash in a Drux pellet. That's called "renewable", right? Somebody knows.

Drax is an international conglomerate and is responsible to it's shareholders.

The make pellets to use in energy production in the UK and use scraps, sawdust, bark and unusable and junk trees to make those pellets. Better that is used to make energy than being used for mulch or bedding.

Taxpayers? A commercial business doing commercial business.

Tree waste can be waste or a "Drax pellet"

Not sure what point you are trying to make with this thread, let alone with these posts.  Just another anti corporation rant?

[myata]

19 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Drax sawmills cut and sell lumber to builders and use the sawdust , chips and bark for pellets. The sawmills are a business unto themselves.

You're obviously blind and deaf (both, effectively) so what connection do you expect this response to have to the reality? The facts are only a second ('s thought) away.

"Drax later admitted that it did use logs from the forest to make wood pellets".

Just too bad there isn't a larger font here. Would it help though?

19 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Taxpayers? A commercial business doing commercial business.

See above.

Edited October 4, 2022 by myata

[ExFlyer]

21 minutes ago, myata said:

You're obviously blind and deaf (both, effectively) so what connection do you expect this response to have to the reality? The facts are only a second ('s thought) away.

"Drax later admitted that it did use logs from the forest to make wood pellets".

Just too bad there isn't a larger font here. Would it help though?

See above.

You clearly know nothing about the lumber business.

Yes, trees are cut.

Not all trees are good enough for construction lumber. As I have said, lots of trash trees and slash that is cut an left on the forest floor when getting to and cutting the useful trees. So yes, trees are cut to make pellets but they are most likely those trash trees and slash.

I lived on Vancouver Island for 12 years and flew over BC forests for 15 years. I know exactly what logging is and what it does and the landscape after the clear cut has been done. I am actually glad to know that all the slash and trash trees are being put to use instead of lying there rotting.

Just too bad ....you don't understand.

Edited October 4, 2022 by ExFlyer

[myata]

50 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

You clearly know nothing

1. "Drax sawmills cut and sell lumber to builders and use the sawdust , chips and bark for pellets"

2. Drax later admitted that it did use logs from the forest to make wood pellets.

3. "But documents on a Canadian forestry database show that only 11% of the logs delivered to the two Drax plants in the past year were classified as the lowest quality"

Blind and deaf or a willing idiot? No offense but are there any other logical options?

 

[myata]

56 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Just too bad ....you don't understand.

An epitome of (near) future Canada? According to the database only a couple of dozen of old growth forest areas left in the entire "ad mare", as much as half unsustainable tiny patches. A fine job for less than two centuries of prosperity.

[Nefarious Banana]

37 minutes ago, myata said:

1. "Drax sawmills cut and sell lumber to builders and use the sawdust , chips and bark for pellets"

2. Drax later admitted that it did use logs from the forest to make wood pellets.

3. "But documents on a Canadian forestry database show that only 11% of the logs delivered to the two Drax plants in the past year were classified as the lowest quality"

Blind and deaf or a willing idiot? No offense but are there any other logical options?

 

You don't know what you're talking about. 

Low quality logs are chipped for the pulp mills, and used for pellets, etc. 

Was a logger for 43 years . . . . betting you couldn't tell the difference between hemlock and a ham sandwich. 

[myata]

9 minutes ago, Nefarious Banana said:

Low quality logs are chipped for the pulp mills, and used for pellets, etc. 

only 11% of the logs delivered to the two Drax plants in the past year were classified as the lowest quality

Sudden mass blindness strikes! Total blackout of consciousness. We urgently need larger fonts here. Please help!

[myata]

Wait, in this 21st century, why do you need to raze (sure "harvest") entire forests even if the trees cannot be used? Can you be more efficient (less lazy and dumb) in this century? Or because they did it like that some centuries back and you're too lazy (etc) to think again, expensive? Drop a bomb in the pond to catch a few fish, as a blueprint for "renewable" future.

[Nefarious Banana]

5 minutes ago, myata said:

 . . . in this 21st century, why do you need to raze entire forests even if the trees cannot be used? 

The wood is used. You don't know what you're talking about. Pulp/paper, cardboard, pellets, bark/debris burned as fuel for pulp mills, etc.

Do you think forestry workers just spend huge amounts for machinery, wages, fuel, time, etc.  just so they can "raze entire forests" without a use for the wood and compensation for their time and labour?

Think of the forestry workers every time you reach for the toilet paper.