New Exposé On Drax Group's Environmental Impact
Energy Secretary faces renewed accusations of greenwashing in connection with Drax power station.
The energy sector has been under intense scrutiny as the US activists pinpoint Drax Group for pollution allegations. The company, operating in Selby, North Yorkshire, generating electricity via wood pellet combustion, has been accused of causing health issues for nearby residents in Mississippi.
At the heart of these claims is Drax's wood pellet factory in Gloster, where local residents allege that pollution from the plant has led to heart diseases, cancers, and respiratory problems. Drax burns an enormous amount of wood pellets yearly, asserting this to be carbon neutral due to planting new trees compensating for the emitted carbon dioxide. Environmental groups, however, doubt these claims.
In a turn of events that raises eyebrows, Drax has received billions in green energy subsidies from the UK government. In February, Energy Secretary Ed Miliband agreed to provide the firm another £2 billion over four years. With Miliband frequently touting his green credentials, these accusations pose a significant threat to his reputation.
Making matters more awkward for the former Labour Party leader is the largely black and impoverished population of Gloster, with a third of residents living below the poverty line.
Katherine Egland, a campaigner leading the charge, accused Miliband and the government of aiding and abetting Drax’s pollution. "Miliband and the UK government gave Drax a £2 billion incentive to continue robbing poor people of the right to breathe clean air and drink clean water," Egland declared.
Drax has faced scrutiny from US officials, with Mississippi authorities recently rejecting the company's application to increase emissions from its Gloster plant. The firm has also faced penalties for excessive pollution, including a $225,000 penalty in 2025 and a record-breaking $2.5 million fine in 2020.
Furthermore, Drax was fined £25 million in 2024 by regulator Ofgem over sourcing practices, adding to growing concerns among MPs regarding the use of taxpayer money to support the company.
Parliament's Public Accounts Committee recently published a report highlighting the potential risk that energy bill payers are not receiving value for money from the subsidies given to Drax.
A Drax spokesman stated that the company prioritizes the safety of its people and nearby communities, maintaining that all facilities in the US have adhered to air emissions requirements. The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero also defended the investment, claiming that it was the path toward ending the UK’s energy insecurity and combating the climate crisis.
Further Reading
- Previous
- 1
- Next
- Drax profits hit £3m a day as firm continues receive to... If Starmer wants to be the strong man of steel, he must...
Share this article
HOW THIS IS MONEY CAN HELP
- How to choose the best (and cheapest) stocks and shares Isa and the right DIY investing account
Egland accused Miliband and the government of aiding and abetting Drax's pollution, stating, "Miliband and the UK government gave Drax a £2 billion incentive to continue robbing poor people of the right to breathe clean air and drink clean water."
The concerns over taxpayer money being used for the company have intensified, with MPs questioning whether the subsidies provide good value. A report by the Public Accounts Committee found a risk that energy bill payers are not receiving value for money from the subsidies given to Drax by the taxpayer.
A Drax spokesperson claimed, "All Drax facilities in the United States have been below the permitted air emissions requirements since December 2023." However, the company's history of pollution violations and fines raises questions about its environmental impact.
Related Articles
- Previous
- 1
- Next
- Drax profits hit £3m a day as firm continues receive to... If Starmer wants to be the strong man of steel, he must...
Cited Sources
- Hall, R. (2023, March 15). EUenergyworld.net. Miliband defend Drax biomass subsidy under fire. Retrieved from https://www.euenergyworld.com/2023/03/15/miliband-defends-drax-biomass-subsidy-under-fire/
- Sterling, M. (2025, July 2). ClarionLedger.com. Permitting Board denies Drax's request to increase emissions, again. Retrieved from https://www.clarionledger.com/story/news/2025/07/02/permit-board-denies-draxs-request-increase-emissions-again/113489304/
- Rettman, L. (2024, August 12). The Guardian. Drax biomass: former lobbyist claims company misled government over sourcing. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/aug/12/drax-biomass-former-lobbyist-claims-company-misled-government-over-sourcing
- James, T. S. (2023, April 6). The Conversation. Does burning wood for fuel really help reduce our carbon emissions? Retrieved from https://theconversation.com/does-burning-wood-for-fuel-really-help-reduce-our-carbon-emissions-192516
- Amidst pollution allegations, Drax Group's wood pellet factory in Gloster has allegedly caused health issues, including heart diseases, cancers, and respiratory problems for nearby residents.
- Drax, which generates electricity via wood pellet combustion, has received billions in green energy subsidies from the UK government, with Energy Secretary Ed Miliband agreeing to provide the firm another £2 billion over four years.
- However, the subsidies have come under scrutiny, with a report by the Public Accounts Committee highlighting a potential risk that energy bill payers are not receiving value for money.
- A Drax spokesperson claimed that all of their US facilities have complied with air emissions requirements, yet the company's history of pollution violations and fines raises questions about its environmental impact.
- Katherine Egland, a campaigner leading the anti-Drax movement, accused Miliband and the UK government of aiding and abetting the company’s pollution by providing a £2 billion incentive.
- The controversy has extended to the finance industry, with some questioning whether investing in Drax stocks is a wise decision given the surrounding pollution allegations and potential consequences for politicians' reputations.
