Tag Archives: food
Biofuel Blunder
Lobbying trumped science as politicians lavished more than $100-billion in subsidies on morally suspect energy Canada is not alone in doling out large sums of public money for biofuels. Globally, in 2011 Canada, the United States, the European Union, China, India, Brazil and Australia, to name the major players, spent more than $40-billion on biofuel subsidies in the name of energy security, green house gas reductions and regional economic development. Since 2005 more than $100-billion worldwide has been allocated to biofuel programs with very little, if any, net improvement in reducing green house gas emissions. China has had to abandon its goals for corn ethanol production in the face of food shortages and the need to import vast quantities of corn. In the U.S., after years to transferring hundreds of millions of tax dollars to corn growers and the ethanol industry, it is now generally recognized that biofuels are not the answer to energy security. The process of fracking the oil fields of the mid-west has taken its place, even though many of the biofuel support programs are still in place. Substituting ethanol and biodiesel fuel for fossil fuels in vehicles has had little if any impact on reducing green house gases. Independent research using life cycle analysis has revealed that, at best, ethanol and most biodiesel fuel create about the same carbon footprint as gasoline. Even in those circumstances where there is a small improvement in green house gas reduction, the cost to reduce green house gas, in carbon dioxide equivalents, is hundreds of dollars per ton. In addition, there is growing concern, supported by detailed independent research, that ethanol and biodiesel production impose long term costs on forest sequestering, land use and the quality of water. The most devastating impact of opening the “corn for fuel” envelope has been the rise in food prices and food products that utilize corn as an input. The poorest in the world have suffered more than any other group. Not only has the demand for corn for ethanol increased food prices, but the increased cost has limited the amount of food aid that the United States can make available to the lowest income areas of the world. Writers have questioned the morality of polices that deliberately impoverish less developed countries. If the present global policies to support biofuels continue, the cumulative social cost that takes into consideration all the effects of subsidies and regulated production in the next decade could be close to half a trillion dollars. Such waste cannot be justified on any reasonable grounds. Most of the public subsidies for biofuels are bad policies but governments find it difficult to admit errors in judgment, decision and execution. The energy challenges of the 21 st century will not be met with simple solutions. They will require sensible choices by governments that can place the long term public interest ahead of short term political gain. Continue reading
Biofuels Debate Draws Crowds To European Parliament
Wednesday 4 September saw Members of the European Parliament (MEP) hosting ‘The big debate: Biofuels’, with a panel of experts from industry, academia and NGOs. The debate was particularly relevant given next week’s European Parliament vote on updating the fuel quality and renewable energy directives, and brought much discussion, particularly on the damaging impacts of biofuels based on food-crops. Bellona Europa, 06/09-2013 The debate was introduced by German socialist MEP Ismail Ertug. Co-host Corinne Lepage, a French liberal MEP, has for the last months been responsible for steering a report on fuel quality and renewable energy through the European Parliament. This update to the Renewable Energy Directive (RED) and the Fuel Quality Directive (FQD) seeks to rein in a standing European policy which is highly supportive of first-generation biofuels. The directives currently fail to account for biofuel’s emissions from indirect land use change (ILUC) while simultaneously aiming for 10% of transport energy from renewable sources – mainly biofuel – by 2020. First generation biofuels are those derived from soya, rapseed, palm oil and other food crops, and their extensive use has resulted in higher food prices and the destructive conversion of land. The updated directive therefore aims to limit the EU’s incentives for these first generation biofuels. The Commission proposal set a 5% limit for food-based biofuels to count toward the EU’s 10% target of renewable energy in transport by 2020. This would be a step towards mitigating biofuels’ negative climate impacts and encouraging more second and third generation biofuels, also known as advanced biofuels. The report is set to be debated in the European Parliament’s plenary session on Monday 9 September, with the vote on 11 September. It is in anticipation of this vote that more than a hundred stakeholders joined Ertug, Lepage and their diverse panel to discuss the challenges of biofuels. Compromising Lepage noted that in her role as rapporteur, the key task has not been to push through her own views, but to find compromises. One such compromise involved changing the Commission’s original proposal for a so-called 5% cap on all first generation biofuels to instead distinguish between better and worse performers. The Parliament’s report would therefore allow some biofuels, such as ethanol, to continue their production toward 10% renewable fuels in transport without such a consideration of the 5% limit. The assessment of which biofuels constitute better or worse performers will be based on their greenhouse gas emissions. One of the central reasons for promoting biofuels in place of fossil fuels is the belief that biofuels have lower, or in theory neutral, greenhouse gas emissions. Because biofuel feedstocks have already absorbed CO 2 from the atmosphere while growing, the CO 2 released when they are burned involve no emissions above those naturally occurring when the biomass rots. While this is true in theory, the added consideration of land use change means the reality can be very different. Biofuels are not automatically low emitters Indirect land use change (ILUC), and how to account for it, is one of the most contentious issues regarding biofuels. When forests and other habitats absorbing CO 2 from the atmosphere are being removed to make room for biofuel crops and new farm land, the result is increased greenhouse gas emissions. This is both from less forest to absorb CO 2 and from machinery and transport emissions, increased use of chemicals and fertilizers, reduced biodiversity, labour and social migration. In some cases then, when including ILUC considerations, emissions from first generation biofuels are not significantly lower than emissions from fossil fuels. And several research publications over the last year have indicated that they could be the same or higher. The Costa Pinto production plant set up to produce both sugar and ethanol fuel, at Piracicaba, Sao Paulo, Brazil. Creative Commons, Mariordo, 2009. The problem is the policy, not the fuel Amongst the 4 September debate’s panelists was ActionAid, whose representative made the point that the problem is not with biofuels, but with the existing policy which encourages excessive use and reliance on first generation biofuels. The debate, however, focused more on the challenges of these first generation biofuels, particularly regarding ILUC and accounting for greenhouse gas emissions, when it could have been an opportunity to delve into the opportunities of advanced biofuels. Broad progress is being made in these areas, as with the Spanish All-gas project producing biofuel from wastewater algae, and Bellona launching Ocean Forest . The related Sahara Forest Project has in the past year harvested several of its first food crops, illustrating how growing biomass for energy does not need to compete with food production. And combining biofuels with existing technologies such as CO 2 Capture and Storage (CCS) could potentially reverse global warming. Bellona Europa initiated and co-authored the first-of-its kind report on Bio-CCS, outlining the combination of CCS with conversion of sustainable biomass to remove CO 2 from the atmosphere over time. Following the recent debate, Jonas Helseth, Director of Bellona Europa and Steering Committee member of the European Biofuels Technology Platform (EBTP) noted that: “It is paramount that the discussion regarding biofuels does not only address the problems, but also looks at these solutions being developed.” The industry-led initiative ‘Leaders of Sustainable Biofuels’ was therefore welcomed when launched in February this year to work towards policy measures encouraging advanced biofuel production. A more robust and predictable 2020 and post 2020 framework is needed to encourage further investment. On the ground The need for compromise is stark in the debate, largely between industry and NGOs. Amongst the debate’s panelists was Nur Hidayati of WALHI, Indonesia’s Friends of the Earth, who came to Brussels to bring the reality of Indonesian biofuels production to EU policy makers. Hidayati illustrated the current expanse of Indonesian palm oil plantations, which are set to expand to three times the size of Portugal by 2020. Hidayati said EU biofuels policy has been a hidden trap for Indonesia. Partly as a result of expansive biofuels production, Indonesia is now the world’s third largest greenhouse gas emitter. The debate was moderated by the Institute for European Environmental Policy, and other panelists included representatives from the European Biodiesel Board (EBB), the University of Potsdam, European Feed Manufacturer Association (FEFAC), and Transport & Environment. Transport and Environment have engaged heavily in the biofuels debate and have campaigned for EU legislation to better address and account for the impacts of ILUC. For more information, visit their website . Continue reading
Food Price, ILUC Studies Released In Run-Up To EU Biofuel Vote
According to information published by the European Parliament on Sept. 5, draft legal measures to cap traditional biofuel production and accelerate the switch to advanced biofuels will be debated on Sept. 9 and put to vote on Sept. 11. The notice specifies that the legal measures aim to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that result from the increased use of farmland to produce biofuel feedstocks. One proposal from the Environment Committee, drafted by Corinne Lepage, a MEP representing France, calls for a 5.5 percent cap on first-generation biofuels. The Environment Committee also wants new biofuels policy in the EU to include ILUC impacts. Alternatively, the Energy Committee is advocating for a 6.5 percent cap on first-generation biofuels, and is against including ILUC in the legislation. Within the report, the authors assert that their analysis has determined that ILUC emission calculated using the latest version of GTAP—a model that is undergoing near constant revision—are much less than those calculated by International Food Policy Institute (IFPRI). The lower results are attributed to higher yields of new cropland than assumed by IRPRI and the fact that less forest land is converted. EBB Secretary General Raffaello Garofalo said the results of the study questions the validly of including ILUC science in policy making. “Policy makers can no longer deny the immaturity of science to serve for policy making,” he said. According to ePURE, the study examines the casualty between biofuel production, global crop commodity prices and implications for food security, with particular focus on poor regions of the world. The study determines biofuel demand in Europe through 2010 only increased world grain prices by 1-2 percent, and would only increase world grain prices by another 1 percent through 2020 if no cap is placed on first-generation biofuels. The study also stresses that because commodity prices are only a small component of actual food costs, and that local food markets are often disconnected from global markets, the actual impact of biofuel on food prices is far less than 1 percent. Continue reading
