Biofuel Crop Mix ‘Not Favourable For Environment’

A report by the European Environment Agency found benefits vary significantly depending on the source of crops Rayhan Uddin guardian.co.uk , Wednesday 3 July 2013 16.46 BST When sourced from agricultural residues or waste, bioenergy is more efficient than fossil fuels both in terms of greenhouse gas emissions and the impact on ecosystems. Photograph: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images[/color] The current mix of crops used for energy are “not favourable to the environment”, according to a report published on Wednesday by the European Environment Agency. It said that the environmental benefits of such bioenergy vary significantly depending on the source of crops. When sourced from agricultural residues or waste, bioenergy is more efficient than fossil fuels both in terms of greenhouse gas emissions and the impact on ecosystems. But growing crops for energy has knock-on environmental impacts such as deforestation, the EEA warned. The report comes as the EU continues to debate a plan cap the percentage of biofuels made from food crops , with a final vote due to occur on 10 July. Proponents say the cap is needed because of environment concerns over the EU’s biofuel policy – which sets a target of 10% of transport fuels coming from biofuel by 2020, but the proposed cap has come under fierce criticism from biodiesel companies and farmers. The industry says the EU is destroying a booming £14bn sector while farmers feel demand is being taken away from them at a time of increasing volatility in global food prices. Hans Bruyninckx, director of the European Environment Agency, said “We see huge potential for bioenergy in the transition of the energy system that will occur over the coming years, but our research shows that this potential must take into consideration resource and climate efficiency. For example, food crops and other first generation pathways are a particularly inefficient use of biomass.” Most of the environmental impacts cited in the EEA report are a result of deforestation, draining of peatlands and other land clearance for biofuels , together known as indirect land use change (ILUC) . The report notes that adverse environmental effects associated with ILUC, such as an increase in carbon emissions or reduction in biodiversity, currently fall outside of the EU bioenergy policy framework, and believes that this needs to be addressed. Friends of the Earth Biofuels campaigner Kenneth Ritcher said: “This report is a stark warning to lawmakers about the urgent need to differentiate between the types of bioenergy, based on their real impact on climate change. If the European parliament is serious about cutting emissions it must support proposals next week to penalise biofuels that increase emissions through deforestation.” Taylor Scott International