Biofuels: A small group makes a big, bad decision

Posted by benet - 25 October 2007 at 1:47pm - Comments

On Tuesday afternoon, a small group of MPs met in committee room 11 at the House of Commons to vote on the Renewable Transport Fuels Obligation (RTFO). It was a "delegated legislation" committee; which means they vote on things that would take up too much time on the floor of the House of Commons.

However, this time it was no small legal technicality being decided. Instead they voted to allow a measure which could lead to further trashing of the rainforests.

The RTFO means that, by April 2008, all fuel suppliers will need to ensure that 2.5 per cent of their sales in the UK come from biofuels - rising up to 5 per cent by 2010. But the measure contains no safeguards to ensure these biofuels come from a sustainable source. So from next spring your local forecourt could be selling supposedly 'green' biofuels which were grown on cleared rainforest land, increasing the threat of catastrophic climate change.

This hasn't given the government a moment's hesitation. They are pushing ahead, even though their own briefings admit: "There is currently no internationally agreed definition of a 'sustainable biofuel', nor a working standard that could be imposed." They also ignored nearly 3,000 submissions from Greenpeace supporters and those from other green organisations to their own consultation on the RTFO.

However, some in the business world are already questioning whether they should be using biofuels. National Express have suspended their trials of biodiesel: just one example of the increasing scepticism of the role biofuels can play in cutting CO2 emissions. Only last week, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Jean Ziegler, criticised biofuels for pushing up world food prices, saying: "It's a total disaster for those who are starving."

What was really surprising was that only the Conservative Party members rejected the measure out of hand in the committee. There was some disquiet amongst the Labour ranks, but they all followed the party whip in the end and the two Liberal Democrats members of the committee abstained.

This measure really needed a rebellion, but instead there was barely a whimper. It was a big decision by a small committee and the RTFO is now law. Oh dear.

Article tagged as: biofuels, climate change, deforestation, forests, palm oil, politics, RTFO

Comments Commenting is now closed

I must immediately declare an interest in that I am a director of a renewable energy company looking to develop a bioethanol project in the UK (using locally and sustainably sourced, non-human-food wheat) so I do have a vested interest. My company has lobbied intensively for carbon reduction and sustainability criteria to be introduced into the RTFO at the earliest possible opportunity. Carbon reduction (which is, after all, what this is all about) will be 'hard-wired' into the workings of the RTFO from 2010 and sustainability criteria as soon as possible thereafter. Yes it should, ideally, have been in place from April 2008 but without agreed criteria this would have opened the UK up to charges of unfair trade practices from the WTO and then the UK would, effectively, be unable to play a role in the sustainable development of renewable transport fuels.

What we need to do now is lobby for robust, transparent and internationally agreed sustainability standards so that the UK is not flooded with biodiesel made from unsustainably produced Indonesion palm oil or bioethanol made from Brazilian sugar sourced in plantations with dubious labour and ecological practices.

And please, please, distinguish between the two currently available biofuels: biodiesel (made from vegetable oils and tallow) and bioethanol (made from sugars and cereal-based starches) have virtually nothing in common except that they can be used as renewable transport fuels. Their supply sources are different, the process by which they are made is completely different and the finished products have nothing in common. Nearly all adverse comment on biofuels (trashing of rainforests, sustainability issues, direct food v fuel competition) is applicable only to biodiesel.

GedR

By gedrussell - 25 October 2007 at 5:44pm

Monbiot has another column on biofuels in today's Guardian, highlighting how the government of Swaziland is exporting ethanol made from cassava instead of feeding the population. There are also figures for the impact of the fertilisers used on fuel crops on emissions, making them greater for some biofuels compared to oil-based fuels.

web editor
gpuk

By jamie - 6 November 2007 at 10:34am

Noted on the biofuel distinction, but I have to disagree that bioethanol is less destructive than biodiesel. Forests are also at risk from sugar cane plantations (although one in Uganda was recently knocked back) and if land is being used to grow crops for fuel, it's not being used to grow crops for people. George Monbiot made a salient point some time ago that "the market responds to money, not need. People who own cars have more money than people at risk of starvation. In a contest between their demand for fuel and poor people’s demand for food, the car-owners win every time." Biodiesel, bioethanol - it all has to be grown somewhere.

web editor
gpuk

By jamie - 5 November 2007 at 10:46pm

Big, bad decision? I don't think so! Putting aside the slightly dubious nature of the democratic process in this case, at least the RTFO will push the transport sector to start making another small contribution towards reducing carbon emissions and we all know how many small steps we'll need to start making a difference. I must immediately declare an interest in that I am a director of a renewable energy company looking to develop a bioethanol project in the UK (using locally and sustainably sourced, non-human-food wheat) so I do have a vested interest. My company has lobbied intensively for carbon reduction and sustainability criteria to be introduced into the RTFO at the earliest possible opportunity. Carbon reduction (which is, after all, what this is all about) will be 'hard-wired' into the workings of the RTFO from 2010 and sustainability criteria as soon as possible thereafter. Yes it should, ideally, have been in place from April 2008 but without agreed criteria this would have opened the UK up to charges of unfair trade practices from the WTO and then the UK would, effectively, be unable to play a role in the sustainable development of renewable transport fuels. What we need to do now is lobby for robust, transparent and internationally agreed sustainability standards so that the UK is not flooded with biodiesel made from unsustainably produced Indonesion palm oil or bioethanol made from Brazilian sugar sourced in plantations with dubious labour and ecological practices. And please, please, distinguish between the two currently available biofuels: biodiesel (made from vegetable oils and tallow) and bioethanol (made from sugars and cereal-based starches) have virtually nothing in common except that they can be used as renewable transport fuels. Their supply sources are different, the process by which they are made is completely different and the finished products have nothing in common. Nearly all adverse comment on biofuels (trashing of rainforests, sustainability issues, direct food v fuel competition) is applicable only to biodiesel. GedR

By gedrussell - 25 October 2007 at 5:44pm

By jamie - 6 November 2007 at 10:34am

Thanks for declaring your interests and for lobbying, and your project sounds like it could be the sort of small-scale instance where biofuels can be developed and used sensibly, but it's the industrial-scale levels of production that are causing the problem. While we wait for sustainable definitions to be discussed, argued about and watered down, huge areas of rainforest in places like South East Asia are cleared to grow palm oil. Governments and companies in the region are already ramping up production to satisfy the demand created by the EU biofuels directive. I can't decide if 'putting the cart before the horse' or 'shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted' is the right analogy. Producing biofuels on a limited and well-managed level could help reduce emissions, but not at the scales currently being discussed. Noted on the biofuel distinction, but I have to disagree that bioethanol is less destructive than biodiesel. Forests are also at risk from sugar cane plantations (although one in Uganda was recently knocked back) and if land is being used to grow crops for fuel, it's not being used to grow crops for people. George Monbiot made a salient point some time ago that "the market responds to money, not need. People who own cars have more money than people at risk of starvation. In a contest between their demand for fuel and poor people’s demand for food, the car-owners win every time." Biodiesel, bioethanol - it all has to be grown somewhere. web editor gpuk

By jamie - 5 November 2007 at 10:46pm