Energy and Climate Change CommitteeWritten evidence submitted by the British Furniture Confederation (BIO13)
Introduction
The British Furniture Confederation (BFC) represents the constituent trade associations of the UK furniture and furnishings industry in their dialogue with Government and the Civil Service.
Furniture manufacturing is a substantial industry. It contributes around £6.5billion to the country’s GDP and employs over 80,000 people within 6,000 companies. In addition to this, it is estimated that the industry comprises 18,800 self employed individuals and an estimated 25,000 interior designers generating an annual value of £2 billion.
The BFC has submitted evidence to previous bioenergy inquiries along with details in its report entitled Biomass Subsidies and their impact on the British Furniture Industry (http://www.fira.co.uk/document/biomass-government-report.pdf). The arguments within this document are still relevant to the current inquiry and have formed the basis of numerous letters and petitions to both Ministers and Civil Servants.
It is not within the scope of this submission to repeat the contents of this document but it needs to be considered within this current inquiry. The following comments supplement this document but specifically refer to the questions posed within the Energy and Climate Change Committee’s Terms of Reference.
1. There is a valid argument to suggest that woody biomass, far from decarbonising, will actually contribute to CO2 emissions in the short to medium term. Burning of wood generates CO2. If this wood were to be used for alternative, long life cycle items such as construction and furniture the carbon would remain sequestered for many years. Of course wood can be replanted and re-grown, and is thus renewable and sustainable (if effectively managed) but the effects on the carbon dioxide balance will not be achieved until a full growing cycle has occurred (45 years hence and well past the 2050 target date).
2. In addition, the magnitude of the proposed woody biomass industry will rely heavily on importing wood, often processed as pellets, which will have its own transport and manufacturing CO2 emissions implications.
3. Some estimates suggest that the combination results in 200kg of CO2 emissions for the generation of 1MWh of electricity.
4. In terms of cost effectiveness, one estimate is that, at a subsidy of £45 per MWh, it costs £225 to save one tonne of CO2 by switching from gas to wood.
5. The impact of biomass on wood prices within the UK is clear. Standing coniferous tree costs have increased by almost 50% in real terms since 2009 (ie removing the influence of inflation).
6. This has a massive impact on wood processors such as the wood panel manufacturers, whose major customer is the furniture sector. Particleboard price increases over the same period have increased by around 27% and these costs have been partially absorbed by the manufacturers but also passed on to their customers and eventually to the consumer.
7. The potential impacts on biodiversity are outside the expertise of this group but are more than adequately covered by recent RSPB reports on the subject (eg “Dirtier than coal”), plus a recent letter (23 April 2013) to Ed Davey MP.
8. Source of supply of wood will be a significant challenge. If current woody biomass generation plans continue, the volume of material required could be six times the total UK annual wood harvest by 2017. This will place a massive reliance on imports and will drive up the cost of wood as supply becomes more difficult. Interestingly, one of the major drivers for the expansion of the UK forest resource during the 20th century was the lack of wood that was needed for the First World War effort. A massive demand for wood for biomass could once again expose the vulnerability of the UK to imports.
9. The UK is not the only country seeking to massively expand biomass as an energy resource which will place even greater demands on the world wood resource.
10. Under the above circumstances sustainability and chain of custody will also be a challenge. Whilst the UK, Europe and North America have large areas of certified forest, this is not always the case for other parts of the world. As global biomass energy generation snowballs the temptation to use any source of material, irrespective of its sustainability credentials will be immense.
11. The extent of woody biomass generation in the UK must be limited, particularly the burning of virgin wood fibre. Should such power plants be built they must be small scale and local. In addition an effective, independently certified chain of custody mechanism must underpin all woody biomass energy generation.
12. Financial investment, and renewables support, should focus on technologies that generate energy from end of life materials (ie those being sent to landfill) not on virgin materials that have other, more productive, uses.
April 2013