By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A new report indicates that Drax power plant, the UK’s largest carbon emitter, continues to source wood from old-growth forests in Canada despite claiming to use only sustainable sources. The Stand.earth report alleges Drax’s Canadian subsidiary received hundreds of truckloads of logs, likely including trees hundreds of years old, throughout 2024 and into 2025. This raises questions about Drax’s sustainability claims, especially as it receives substantial green energy subsidies. The report highlights that Drax has sourced from areas with a high percentage of old-growth forests, even though they claimed to have stopped sourcing from designated protected areas.
Read the original article here
Drax still burning 250-year-old trees sourced from forests in Canada, experts say, and this is a story that demands attention. The core of the issue, as the article highlights, is the alleged practice of Drax, a UK-based energy company, burning wood pellets made from old-growth trees sourced from Canada. The immediate reaction is one of disbelief: why are we taking ancient trees, some of them centuries old, shipping them across the ocean, and then burning them for electricity? The environmental logic, at least on the surface, seems questionable.
It appears that a significant problem lies in how these Canadian forests are managed. Statistical methods used to assess the timber value of a harvest area often don’t accurately reflect the presence of these older trees. This can lead to the harvesting of valuable, old-growth trees that are then, somewhat ironically, deemed “waste products.” This process, especially if done sloppily, results in a lot of perfectly good timber being cut down and processed in a way that doesn’t maximize its value. This is further exacerbated by the fact that the cut blocks are often left to degrade.
The situation is further complicated by the regulatory environment. The lack of strict oversight and responsible forestry practices in Canada seems to be a major factor. The claim is that some companies prioritize profit over environmental sustainability, leading to the destruction of valuable forests. The situation calls for the question: is it truly better for the environment than simply using gas? The sheer distance the wood travels, combined with the loss of potential from such valuable trees, raises serious questions.
The argument presented is that there’s a problem with the narrative; that modern forest management does involve harvesting. The problem is also one of context: the article references “waste products” from the cut blocks, which are, as the article argues, often just the remains of a bigger harvesting operation. Yet the focus is on these smaller remnants, trees potentially infested with beetles or damaged by wildfires, not the full picture of the process.
This brings up another point: the economics. The whole process doesn’t seem to make much financial sense. Perfectly good timber, which could be used to create valuable lumber, is being turned into pellets for burning. Surely there has to be some sort of corruption, or maybe even regulatory failure, that enables such a practice to continue. The fact that Drax is allegedly making record profits while electricity prices are soaring only adds fuel to the fire, or rather, the burning trees. This highlights the inherent imbalance.
Furthermore, there is a legitimate debate surrounding the environmental impact of burning wood. While proponents argue that burning wood is carbon-neutral, since the carbon released was recently sequestered from the atmosphere, the harvesting, processing, and transportation of the wood also contribute to the release of carbon. The choice to burn old-growth timber feels like a missed opportunity when that timber could be put to use elsewhere, creating more value and extending the wood’s lifespan.
The article also highlights the role of Drax itself. While the company may not be directly felling the trees, it is certainly playing a role by purchasing the pellets. However, the UK’s move away from coal may have been premature, and the solution to the situation may be complex. The focus isn’t on Drax but more on the regulation in Canada and the practices of forestry companies that are selling the raw product.
The comments also reflect the struggles of the forestry industry itself. The closure of sawmills due to financial pressures and the prevalence of unsustainable practices by major lumber companies paint a bleak picture of the industry. The lack of enforcement against those violating laws and the overall financial challenges have created an atmosphere of unfairness. Environmental considerations need to be integral to forestry practice. It seems like the situation is that Canada’s forest industry is at a crossroads and is desperately in need of reform.
There also is a historical context to the topic. Some comments make mention of the Drax family’s legacy and its connection to the slave trade and the production of sugar on plantations.
Finally, the article raises some critical questions about the current state of affairs. While the title may be seen as sensationalist, it does point out some hard questions that must be addressed, such as: are we truly managing our forests sustainably? Are we making the most of these valuable resources? If we’re not, then why?