Tag Archives: javascript
Food Price Fears Push EU Lawmakers To Put A Lid On Biofuels Growth
Published 12 September 2013 The European Parliament has voted to limit the use of fuels made from food crops because of fears that biofuels can push up grain prices or damage the climate, further undermining the once booming industry. Lawmakers voting in Strasbourg on Wednesday (11 September) set a ceiling on the use of such fuels at 6% of overall transport fuel demand in the European Union in 2020. Although slightly higher than the 5% cap proposed by the European Commission in October, it deals a blow to EU biofuel producers by effectively preventing them from increasing current output. In 2009, the bloc set a target for a 10% share of renewable energy in transport, with almost all of it to come from so-called first generation crop-based fuels. Biofuels, such as ethanol made from sugar or biodiesel from rapeseed, are blended with conventional transport fuels and added to vehicle fuel tanks. They were originally intended to reduce transport carbon emissions and cut Europe’s dependence on imported oil. But faced with claims that Europe’s thirst for biofuels was driving up global food prices, and scientific evidence that some biofuels are more harmful to the climate than even conventional fossil fuels, the Commission was forced into a rethink. “We can’t stick with a policy that has such a negative effect on the countries of the south and on food prices. At the end of the day, the parliament has voted in favour of an acceptable limit,” French Liberal MEP Corrine Lepage, who led the parliamentary debate, said after the vote. With first generation biofuel consumption already at around 5% of total EU transport demand, and with almost enough installed production capacity meet the 10% target, a limit of 5 or 6% would call time on the once booming industry and force some existing plants to close. Lawmakers backed an amendment that would force energy companies from 2020 to take account of the indirect emissions caused by crop-based biofuels, which increase overall demand for land and, as a result, encourage rainforest clearance or draining peatland. That would effectively ban the use of biodiesel from oil crops such as rapeseed, palm and soy, which according to the EU’s scientific models are more damaging than conventional diesel when their overall impact on the environment is taken into account. The biodiesel industry says the scientific models used in the studies are highly uncertain and based on flawed assumptions. Algae and waste In order to try to make up the shortfall created by the cap on first-generation fuels, the parliament said the EU should set a new 2.5% sub-target for the use of advanced, non-crop fuels made from algae or agricultural waste in 2020. A coalition of industry and environmental groups – including the European Climate Foundation and Danish advanced biofuel producer Dong Energy – have said that full sustainable use of agricultural and forestry waste could supply 13% of EU road transport fuel by 2020. “This potential will only be realised if EU biofuel and related industries are given investment certainty and a stable policy framework by the European Parliament and Council,” the group said in a statement. One aspect of the vote that offered a glimmer of hope to the biofuel industry was that lawmakers demanded further talks about the rules before opening negotiations with EU countries to finalise them. With EU governments yet to finalise their common position, talks on the proposals look likely to extend into next year. If they are not concluded by April, European Parliament elections scheduled for the following month could push back the law until 2015. Several European governments are opposed to capping the use of biofuels as some dispute claims the demand for crop-based oils drives deforestation and food insecurity in other parts of the world. They fear the collapse of the conventional biofuels industry after a number of countries had already begun investing in the feedstock-based fuels before the EU began advocating a move away from them. POSITIONS: French Liberal MEP Corinne Lepage , who steered the negotiations in Parliament, said MEPs had voted to set “a reasonable cap on first generation biofuels,” at 6% of overall transport fuel consumption. “This is an important signal that support should be focused on advanced biofuels from 2020,” Lepage said. “I regret however that the Parliament did not give a negotiation mandate that would have allowed the file to be concluded without further delay in order to give industry certainty regarding its investments”, she added. Speaking for the industry, the European Biodiesel Board (EBB) underlined that Parliament had “de facto” refused to give a mandate for negotiations with member states over the proposed biofuels legislation, effectively postponing a decision until after the 2014 European elections. In particular, the EBB stressed the Parliament’s doubts over proposals to measure land displacement caused by biofuels production – so-called Indirect Land Use Change, or ILUC. “The rather indecisive results seen today show that doubt persists in using a rather young discipline for policy making,” says Raffaello Garofalo EBB secretary general , adding that including ILUC factors, even for reporting, would convey the wrong signal to citizens. “European regulators should be proud of the commitment of the EU biodiesel industry to promote a greener economy, foster agriculture and support industrial jobs. European biodiesel should set an example for higher standards, not be punished based on inconclusive science,” said Garofalo, adding: “Europe cannot afford to threaten nearly 220,000 jobs based on simplistic ILUC assumptions.” Turning to advanced biofuels, the EBB said Parliament had chosen “a schizophrenic proposal maintaining present double-counting support but excluding Used Cooking Oil and Animal Fats from the 2.5% specific target allocated to advanced biofuels.” “Waste and residues based biodiesel provide up to 95% greenhouse gas reduction compared to fossil fuels and it is not justified not to count it among advanced biofuels. Should the European Union be truly committed to reduce CO2 in transport, reliance on effective solution such as biodiesel from waste and residues should be fostered and biodiesel from waste and residues should be included in the advanced sub-target,” concluded Garofalo. The Greens/EFA group in Parliament welcomed the “tentative steps” taken by MEPs to “address flaws” in the EU’s biofuels policy but said problems remained regarding displacement of food production. Green climate spokesperson Bas Eickhout said: “Ensuring that the emissions resulting from indirect land use change are accounted for under the fuel quality directive from 2020 onwards will help ensure the EU is not promoting the use of biofuels that clearly have a negative climate impact. This would help steer investors and the fuel industry away from bad biofuels in the medium-term. “However, regrettably, a narrow majority voted against starting negotiations with the Council to conclude this legislation. This will further delay the urgently needed action to tackle climate-damaging biofuels.” Eickhout also regretted that lawmakers also failed to include emissions resulting from indirect land use change in the calculation of greenhouse gas savings limit for biofuels under the EU’s renewables directive.” This contradictory vote ignores the overwhelming evidence that Europe’s biofuel consumption is leading to the destruction of tropical rainforests, with major greenhouse gas implications. There will consequently be no guarantee that land-based biofuels perform better than conventional oil-based fuels in the near future.” “It is also seriously disappointing that Parliament voted to allow a 6% share of land-based biofuels like food crops in the overall fuel mix. Feeding crops into cars has fuelled rising food prices and rainforest destruction and the EU should not be further exacerbating these trends by promoting the use of agricultural land for fuel. We should be shunning the use of food crops for fuel altogether but this 6% ‘cap’ is clearly too high. It is highly questionable why the EU should continue promoting biofuels without putting essential climate safeguards in place.” Commenting on the vote, Nuša Urbancic, clean fuels manager for Transport & Environment , said: “Today’s vote calls into question the willingness of the European Parliament to fix the failed EU biofuels policy. Until an agreement is reached, it is uncertain for investors and the environment what the future of biofuels will be. What is certain though is that Europeans will have to keep paying for another seven years for biofuels that pollute more than the fossil fuels they are supposed to replace.” Commenting on the Parliament’s vote, Imke Lübbeke , r enewable energy senior policy officer at WWF European Policy Office said: “While it is positive that MEPs have drawn a line in the sand and introduced a limit for biofuels, EU legislation needs to do more. Parliament wants to delay accounting for indirect land use change from biofuels – a significant problem – until 2020, and even only in one of the two relevant pieces of legislation, leaving a major gap. “Their action today does not give the market the right incentives to provide cleaner biofuels for the European transport sector. It is now up to the EU Member States to act responsibly, and improve the Parliament’s position, helping Europe on its transition to a more sustainable energy future.” Rob Vierhout, the secretary general of the European ethanol industry group ePure , said: “It is disappointing to see that the European Parliament has decided to significantly reduce the market for conventional biofuels in Europe. At a time when we need to boost our economy it is difficult to see why MEPs agree to curtail jobs and investment in a sector that helps Europe to grow the production of clean and sustainable fuels.” Greenpeace was more radical, saying in a statement that MEPs had “supported the increased use of environmentally damaging biofuels, while at the same time calling on the EU to account for the destructive effects of these fuels on food production and greenhouse gas emissions.” “Today’s incoherent vote was clearly the result of horse-trading. The Parliament wants the EU to drive on both sides of the road: to recognise that biofuels made from food crops are destructive to the environment, but to continue supporting them politically and financially,” Greenpeace EU forests policy director Sebastien Risso . Greenpeace called on EU countries to “stop and reverse” the expansion of harmful biofuels. “The full carbon footprint of biofuels must be accounted for and public support and subsidies for environmentally and socially damaging biofuels must be phased out. Priority must be given to real solutions for greener transport, including innovative energy efficiency technologies to reduce energy consumption in transport, green mobility in cities, and cars and trains which run on renewable electricity.” Global anti-poverty group Oxfam congratulated MEPs for having avoided “the worst case scenario”. But it said Parliament was “still guilty of neglecting the needs of both the people and the planet”, saying a 6% cap on biofuels is “far above current levels of consumption”. “Today’s vote also introduces a new 7.5% binding target for the share of bioethanol in petrol; this would mean that by 2020 Europeans will have to buy 2.5 times more grain based biofuels than they currently do,” said Marc Olivier Herman , Oxfam’s EU biofuels expert . “In their efforts to appease the biofuels industry and agricultural lobbyists, MEPs have failed in their duty to represent the best interests of their electorate and the one in eight people going to bed hungry each night. As a result, millions will continue to be susceptible to volatile food prices, deforestation and further land-grabbing. EU governments must now pick up their slack.” NEXT STEPS: 2013/2014 : EU member states to agree common position on the proposal 2014/2015 : EU Parliament and member states expected to conclude negotiation on the proposed legislation EurActiv.com with Reuters Continue reading
Trade and Environment Review 2013
Book Information UN Symbol: UNCTAD/DITC/TED/2012/3 Order from UN Publications Wake up before it is too late: Make agriculture truly sustainable now for food security in a changing Full Report ( 4979.96 KB ) Highlight Developing and developed countries alike need a paradigm shift in agricultural development: from a “green revolution” to a “truly ecological intensification” approach. This implies a rapid and significant shift from conventional, monoculture-based and high external-input-dependent industrial production towards mosaics of sustainable, regenerative production systems that also considerably improve the productivity of small-scale farmers. We need to see a move from a linear to a holistic approach in agricultural management, which recognizes that a farmer is not only a producer of agricultural goods, but also a manager of an agro-ecological system that provides quite a number of public goods and services (e.g. water, soil, landscape, energy, biodiversity, and recreation) UNCTAD’s Trade and Environment Review 2013 (TER13) contends. TER13 highlights that the required transformation is much more profound than simply tweaking the existing industrial agricultural system. Rather, what is called for is a better understanding of the multi-functionality of agriculture, its pivotal importance for pro-poor rural development and the significant role it can play in dealing with resource scarcities and in mitigating and adapting to climate change. However, the sheer scale at which modified production methods would have to be adopted, the significant governance issues, the power asymmetries’ problems in food input and output markets as well as the current trade rules for agriculture pose considerable challenges. TER13, entitled Wake up Before it is Too Late: Make Agriculture Truly Sustainable Now for Food Security in a Changing Climate was released on 18 September 2013. More than 60 international experts have contributed their views to a comprehensive analysis of the challenges and the most suitable strategic approaches for dealing holistically with the inter-related problems of hunger and poverty, rural livelihoods, social and gender inequity, poor health and nutrition, and climate change and environmental sustainability – one of the most interesting and challenging subjects of present development discourse. Agricultural development, the report underlines, is at a true crossroads. By way of illustration, food prices in the period 2011 to mid-2013 were almost 80% higher than for the period 2003-2008. Global fertilizer use increased by 8 times in the past 40 years, although global cereal production has scarcely doubled at the same time. The growth rates of agricultural productivity have recently declined from 2% to below 1% per annum. The two global environmental limits that have already been crossed (nitrogen contamination of soils and waters and biodiversity loss) were caused by agriculture. GHG emissions from agriculture are not only the single biggest source of global warming in the South, besides the transport sector, they are also the most dynamic. The scale of foreign land acquisitions (often also termed land grabbing) dwarfs the level of Official Development Assistance, the former being 5-10 times higher in value than the latter in recent years. Most important of all, despite the fact that the world currently already produces sufficient calories per head to feed a global population of 12-14 billion, hunger has remained a key challenge. Almost one billion people chronically suffer from starvation and another billion are mal-nourished. Some 70% of these people are themselves small farmers or agricultural laborers. Therefore, hunger and mal-nutrition are not phenomena of insufficient physical supply, but results of prevailing poverty, and above all problems of access to food. Enabling these people to become food self-sufficient or earn an appropriate income through agriculture to buy food needs to take center stage in future agricultural transformation. Furthermore, the current demand trends for excessive biofuel and concentrate animal feed use of cereals and oil seeds, much too high meat-based diets and post-harvest food waste are regarded as given, rather than challenging their rational. Questionably, priority in international policy discussions remains heavily focused on increasing industrial agricultural production, mostly under the slogan “growing more food at less cost to the environment”. The strategy recommended to developing countries of relying on international markets to meet staple food demand, while specializing in the production and export of ‘lucrative’ cash crops has not produced the intended results, because it relied on low staple food prices and no shortage of supply in international markets, conditions that have drastically changed since the turn of the century. Globalization has also encouraged excessive specialization, increasing scale of production of few crops and enormous cost pressure. All this has aggravated the environmental crisis of agriculture and reduced agricultural resilience. What is now required is a shift towards diverse production patterns that reflect the multi-functionality of agriculture and enhance close nutrient cycles. Moreover, as environmental externalities are mainly not internalized, carbon taxes are the rare exception rather than the rule and carbon-offset markets are largely dysfunctional – all factors that would prioritize regional/local food production through ‘logical’ market mechanisms – trade rules need to allow a higher regional focus of agriculture along the lines of “as much regionalized/localized food production as possible; as much traded food as necessary”. Climate change will drastically impact agriculture, primarily in those developing countries with the highest future population growth, i.e. in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. Against this background, the fundamental transformation of agriculture may well turn out to be one of the biggest challenges, including for international security, of the 21st century. Much slower agricultural productivity growth in the future, a quickly rising population in the most resource-constrained and climate-change-exposed regions and a burgeoning environmental crises of agriculture are the seeds for mounting pressures on food security and the related access to land and water. This is bound to increase the frequency and severity of riots, caused by food-price hikes, with concomitant political instability, and international tension, linked to resource conflicts and migratory movements of staving populations. Downloads Trade and Environment Review 2013 – Wake up before it is too late: Make agriculture truly sustainable now for food security in a changing climate (UNCTAD/DITC/TED/2012/3) 18 Sep 2013, 4980.0 KB Continue reading
Eco-Watches: Groups Attain Mixed Results In The Alternative Market
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4befe99c-eee3-11e2-b8ec-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz2fKiu01ri By Syl Tang It was just a matter of time before ecology touched the watch industry. With nearly 15m watches sold in the US alone in 2012, several new companies are trying to make the business a bit greener with biodegradable and natural material watches. In 2008, Marcella Maselli became troubled by the plastic watch trend. Michael Kors had entered the marketplace with plastic bracelet timepieces, and the Italian company Toywatch was experiencing enormous success. Ms Maselli, director of product development for E Gluck, the company in charge of the Armitron and Anne Klein licences, says: “Everywhere I looked, I saw plastic. I wanted to make something with the look but not the environmental impact.” She started working on a line called Sprout, which would be based in New York, and be biodegradable. But it was not quite as easy as she had hoped. Traditional plastics are oil-based, and therefore not biodegradable. Finally the company used polymer polylactide, extracting starch from corn, converting the sugar into lactic acid, and turning it into pellet form, which then became mouldable and injectable corn resin. Made entirely of plant-based feed, corn resin watch bracelets break down naturally over time. Sprout could not figure out some of the elements: the hands, the crown and movement had to be traditionally made. However, the crystal was replaced with one that a biodegradable mineral, and the traditional watch battery with a mercury- and lead-free option. The result was a watch that would biodegrade by 80-93 per cent in a landfill in an estimated three years, with decomposition speeding up in a compost environment. During the process, the watch would not leak toxins or chemicals, which is the biggest problem with traditional plastics. There are some style limitations to the Sprout eco-friendly watches. “Because of the nature of the materials, you cannot do everything with corn resin,” says Ms Maselli. You can’t make a gold watch or a silver-plated watch.” Not being able to take on every trend has not hampered the company. Sprout has expanded to 80 styles carried in 1,000 sales outlets, including the US department store Nordstrom, where new models such as cork and bamboo variations are introduced five times a year. Also chasing the alternative material option is WeWood, a company that started making watches in 2010 with wooden bands, and cases that had not been treated with chemicals, ideally using already harvested scraps. Historically, wooden watches have not fared well. If the wood had not been treated with chemicals, insects consumed the material. With other watches, wearers discovered the wood would simply deteriorate over time. And some cost thousands of dollars. Based in Florence and Los Angeles, WeWood makes no secret of the difficulties. Neither of the two founders, Daniele Guidi, an accessories distributor, and Alessandro Rosano, a shoe designer, had any experience. “From when we made the first sample, to understand what was going wrong, to make things work well together, [was] a work in progress. [From] that first watch to today, the failure [rate] has been reduced drastically,” says Mr Guidi. The company found its test groups by tracking the way the watches they sold fared in an increasing number of climates and locations. Wooden watches had existed for some time through other companies such as Tense, Martin & MacArthur, AB Aeterno, and SpringBreak, but WeWood’s reclaimed message, wide variety of styles and modest prices seemed to resonate. Made primarily in Indonesia and China from maple, black wood, recycled teak and rosewood, WeWood’s pieces, which retail for between $120 and $140, and weigh just 1.5 ounces, became popular with consumers. Singers Rihanna and Ke$ha, and pop group the Black Eyed Peas, are fans and the company ships to more than 30 countries. WeWood plans to make a watch with entirely ecological movements. Only the springs would be metal. But to make this a reality, the cost would be astronomical, at $20,000-$30,000 each. “This sort of thing appeals to the 20- to 25-year-olds, says Katie Nadler, chief executive of the fashion recommendation engine, TopShelf. “The ‘millennials’ became aware from a young age of the potential long-term environmental damage of everyday actions. It’s a thoughtful approach on what they wear.” However, TopShelf, which makes about 100,000 monthly purchase recommendations to its subscribers, says that, despite a growing number of requests, eco watches are still a very small percentage of the 10,000 to 15,000 watch purchases that it recommends. “The major catalyst for volume growth in eco-friendly watches will come when industry giants such as Fossil start to focus on it,” says Ms Nadler. An industry analyst who asked not to be named noted: “There’s just 11 brands that surpass $100m in sales each. It’s absurd for a start-up watch company to try to take them on.” WeWood admits it struggled initially with low production numbers and a lack of resources. Some feel that ecologically focused watch companies are simply riding a larger trend for anything green. According to LGI Network – an NPD Group company that tracks 72 watch brands – although 90 per cent of the market is battery-driven watches, the trend is just a matter of marketing. Fred Levin, president of LGI, says: “When you look at how much energy we use elsewhere in our daily lives, your watch is such a small part – the battery even smaller. It lasts for three years and is one of the most efficient sources of energy … This is a non-event. It’s just that marketers always focus on ways to appeal to consumers.” Continue reading
