Senior EU and Defra figures agree: we were too hasty on biofuel targets

Posted by jamie - 14 January 2008 at 6:11pm - 14 Comments

Biofuels may cause rather than prevent more greenhouse gas emissions

We could be witnessing a seismic and very exciting shift in how UK and EU policies on biofuels are being perceived in official circles. Both the EU Environment Commissioner and Defra's own chief scientist today went on record to say that current plans to vastly increase the amount of fuels such as bioethanol and biodiesel might need to be reconsidered.

From this April, all EU states will need to source 2.5 per cent of their transport fuel from plants, rising to 5 per cent in 2010. In the UK, this is enshrined in the Renewable Transport Fuels Obligation (RTFO) and the government readily admits this sets no criteria for ensuring biofuels come from well-managed sources which don't tear up rainforests or exploit the local population. As we've been saying for some time, this is not a good idea.

Yet some very senior people are now 'fessing up and saying they were far too hasty in setting biofuel targets. All the action happened on this morning's Today programme on BBC Radio 4 (you can listen again for the next seven days) where Stavros Dimas admitted that enthusiasm for biofuels amongst EU officials was reducing in the wake of mounting evidence that their environmental benefits have been grossly exaggerated.

Dimas said that it would be better to miss the EU biofuel target than reach it without a proper set of criteria, and claimed deforestation as a result of biofuel farming wouldn't happen when those criteria were in place. The trouble is, we don't know what those criteria are and they won't be published until next week. Meanwhile, producers and retailers are already gearing up to comply with the biofuel target from the beginning of April.

Following Dimas was Bob Watson, chief scientist at Defra, who made no bones about the fact that, in many cases, "using food for energy in many cases is flawed" and that any biofuels have to be sustainable.

"We should not use biofuels if indeed it leads to other environmental and social problems," he said, which is in stark contrast to the government's current position that we should press ahead with biofuel targets, even though full and proper safeguards will take some time to develop. "It's absolutely ridiculous to have a policy that causes further problems," Watson added.

On top of these surprising validations for our arguments, the Royal Society has also released a report confirming what we already know: that as things stand biofuels are unlikely to deliver the emissions reductions they're supposed to and could even make climate change a whole lot worse.

Now the cat is really among the pigeons, it will be fascinating to see what happens next. As mentioned above, the EU is due to announce targets for renewable energy including biofuels next Wednesday, along with the environmental and social criteria Dimas was so insistent would solve the problem. But without really solid standards (which also tackle how food production is being squeezed out and displaced by the expansion of biofuel plantations) the EU target and the RTFO are effectively redundant.

Article tagged as: biofuels, climate change, deforestation, EU, forests, rfto

Comments Commenting is now closed

The feed stock has been the problem for bio fuels.
Controlled growth and product reliability.

One main feed source is CO2 control that in any quantity and you have access to untold feed stock.

CO2 capture and release does exist and can be utilised for Algae growth, staying clear of deforestation and food crops.

www.maesanturio.org

The answer is out there..............

By maes anturio - 15 January 2008 at 4:58pm

even in the strongest gales in the uk
the force exerted on my (and your) almost six foot tall body is very rarely enough to divert one from ones path. Contrast this to the force exerted on that same body by a determined horse and it seems fairly obvious that for a six foot windmill rotor blade horse power is by far the most powerful motive force. Using grain and naturally abundant grass for bio fuel is it not time we started using naturally created power in this country? A communal living system, a low power national communications network. A national environmentally friendly transport network of tree lined bridlepaths.... we can hardly take the moral high ground on deforestation when our own forests have been decimated.

By Bruce - 15 January 2008 at 7:39pm

So Greenpeace too fell for the BBC joke. Stavros Dimas' comment was five weeks old, but was somehow propagandistically presented as something new.

The point is that nothing changes about the EU policy. The target will remain 10% and sustainability criteria will be implemented, as has always been said.

Greenpeace is however again actively destroying millions of lives in the rural areas of the developing world, by denying these people a chance to participate in one of the few new markets that help them get out of poverty.

But then, if the EU imposes criteria that constitute unfair trade barriers - and thus potentially destroying another few millions of farmers (as they're doing with their agricultural subsidies), - these farmers might decide to sell to China and other large economies, that don't impose 'green imperialist' measures.

Greenpeace will be held responsible for destroying part of the opportunity, though. It has killed many millions of people with its campaigns against GMOs and the resulting famines. Now it kills another round of millions with its attempt to destroy farmers in the developing world. Not good.

@Mr Wind. Wind power doesn't work for transport. The cheapest electric car costs $100,000 and is not very efficient. Moreover, wind is intermittent. It pushes the use of coal.

By Biopact - 17 January 2008 at 3:31pm

Much of the demand for palm oil, one of main sources of biodiesel, isn't being satisfied by farmers with smallholdings which is what you seem to imply when talking about green imperialism. It comes instead from vast plantations often owned by foreign companies. The bulk of the profits generated aren't seen by local people but are funnelled out to multinationals in developed nations. The Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) is made up of such companies which represent 40 per cent of the production and use of palm oil; that's not including companies that aren't members.

I think Bruce was talking about reviving the use of horses as beasts of burden, not cars powered by wind. Nice idea, by the way - my local library still has a horse trough outside. You're right about the moral highground though, but perhaps we can help prevent further degradation here and elsewhere in the world.

web editor
gpuk

By jamie - 18 January 2008 at 3:53pm

You say growing biofuel crops will deprive poor starving people of the right and ability to grow their own food on small amounts of land and push the price of food up. Correct. But do we hear the same argument about growing flowers in Kenya as a cash crop for the rich West? No!! Or do we hear the same argument about Cadbury growing millions of Cocoa trees in Ghana, not one of the richest countries, nor over abundant in food, when (using info from Cadbury's own web site) a single tree produces only enough pods to produce a single pound (454g) of chocolate? No!!!

Lay off biofuels. Instead look at the moral question of cash crops in general, then, if they are acceptable decide which crops are best. Is it better to grow vegetable oil, for domestic consumption for poor people in Ghana and sell excess to the rest of the world for biofuel, or a few pounds of chocolate on exactly the same area of land?

When you have that answer, you may look at biofuels differently. If growing biofuels stops us burning fossil fuels, thereby reducing pollution and global warming and preventing sea levels rising, is it still such a bad thing? Ask Tuvalu if they would rather pay more for their food and stay on their islands, or less and see them sink below the waves.

A more balanced view would be appreciated, instead of just jumping on the band wagon.

By biodave - 27 January 2008 at 3:38pm

Reforming international trade needs to be left to development organisations like Oxfam and Cafod - we don't have the expertise in that area so it wouldn't be an effective use of our resources to wade in. We're coming at biofuels from a climate change angle which is also a development issue, but it's also an environmental and scientific one. Even if biofuel crops aren't directly responsible for deforestation, they'll often displace food crops which are often forced to move into newly-deforested areas.

Then there's also the issue of biofuel production pushing up food prices. There have already been protests in Indonesia and Mexico and I'm sure they won't be the last. Perhaps a better question to ask the people of Tuvalu is if they can afford increased food prices?

But using biofuels without tough sustainability criteria (which is what's going to happen very soon) means the crops could be coming from anywhere. If it's from deforested areas of Indonesia, say, then they won't be reducing emissions, they'll be increasing them. Then the Tuvaluans will be paying more for food (we all will) and the islands will be under the briny sea as well. Bit of a lose-lose situation.

web editor
gpuk

By jamie - 28 January 2008 at 5:04pm

Please be aware that Mr, Ian Houston was removed as a director of Maes Anturio on the 10.11.07. He does not represent the views or the future of this company in any way.

By J D Jones - 6 March 2008 at 5:21pm

The feed stock has been the problem for bio fuels. Controlled growth and product reliability. One main feed source is CO2 control that in any quantity and you have access to untold feed stock. CO2 capture and release does exist and can be utilised for Algae growth, staying clear of deforestation and food crops. www.maesanturio.org The answer is out there..............

By maes anturio - 15 January 2008 at 4:58pm

even in the strongest gales in the uk the force exerted on my (and your) almost six foot tall body is very rarely enough to divert one from ones path. Contrast this to the force exerted on that same body by a determined horse and it seems fairly obvious that for a six foot windmill rotor blade horse power is by far the most powerful motive force. Using grain and naturally abundant grass for bio fuel is it not time we started using naturally created power in this country? A communal living system, a low power national communications network. A national environmentally friendly transport network of tree lined bridlepaths.... we can hardly take the moral high ground on deforestation when our own forests have been decimated.

By Bruce - 15 January 2008 at 7:39pm

So Greenpeace too fell for the BBC joke. Stavros Dimas' comment was five weeks old, but was somehow propagandistically presented as something new. The point is that nothing changes about the EU policy. The target will remain 10% and sustainability criteria will be implemented, as has always been said. Greenpeace is however again actively destroying millions of lives in the rural areas of the developing world, by denying these people a chance to participate in one of the few new markets that help them get out of poverty. But then, if the EU imposes criteria that constitute unfair trade barriers - and thus potentially destroying another few millions of farmers (as they're doing with their agricultural subsidies), - these farmers might decide to sell to China and other large economies, that don't impose 'green imperialist' measures. Greenpeace will be held responsible for destroying part of the opportunity, though. It has killed many millions of people with its campaigns against GMOs and the resulting famines. Now it kills another round of millions with its attempt to destroy farmers in the developing world. Not good. @Mr Wind. Wind power doesn't work for transport. The cheapest electric car costs $100,000 and is not very efficient. Moreover, wind is intermittent. It pushes the use of coal.

By Biopact - 17 January 2008 at 3:31pm

I can't find any reference to Dimas making similar comments in December (can you provide a link?), but true, nothing has actually changed in EU policy. What recent events have shown is that there is disquiet in political circles that these targets are being pushed through without any sort of sustainable criteria to back them up. During the consultation on the RTFO last year, the Department for Transport said these criteria wouldn't be in place in the UK until 2011 and that's still the case. That means that from April, 2.5 per cent of all fuel sold in this country (rising to 5 per cent in 2010) will contain biofuels that could come from anywhere, including palm oil plantations in deforested areas. Some fuel companies are already selling diesel mixed with up to 50 per cent biodiesel. Much of the demand for palm oil, one of main sources of biodiesel, isn't being satisfied by farmers with smallholdings which is what you seem to imply when talking about green imperialism. It comes instead from vast plantations often owned by foreign companies. The bulk of the profits generated aren't seen by local people but are funnelled out to multinationals in developed nations. The Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) is made up of such companies which represent 40 per cent of the production and use of palm oil; that's not including companies that aren't members. I think Bruce was talking about reviving the use of horses as beasts of burden, not cars powered by wind. Nice idea, by the way - my local library still has a horse trough outside. You're right about the moral highground though, but perhaps we can help prevent further degradation here and elsewhere in the world. web editor gpuk

By jamie - 18 January 2008 at 3:53pm

I'm sorry, but what hypocrisy. I am a firm believer in green issues and do all I can, including using biofuels (used vegetable oil) in my cars, but I am appalled by the stance you and others take when it comes to biofuels. You say growing biofuel crops will deprive poor starving people of the right and ability to grow their own food on small amounts of land and push the price of food up. Correct. But do we hear the same argument about growing flowers in Kenya as a cash crop for the rich West? No!! Or do we hear the same argument about Cadbury growing millions of Cocoa trees in Ghana, not one of the richest countries, nor over abundant in food, when (using info from Cadbury's own web site) a single tree produces only enough pods to produce a single pound (454g) of chocolate? No!!! Lay off biofuels. Instead look at the moral question of cash crops in general, then, if they are acceptable decide which crops are best. Is it better to grow vegetable oil, for domestic consumption for poor people in Ghana and sell excess to the rest of the world for biofuel, or a few pounds of chocolate on exactly the same area of land? When you have that answer, you may look at biofuels differently. If growing biofuels stops us burning fossil fuels, thereby reducing pollution and global warming and preventing sea levels rising, is it still such a bad thing? Ask Tuvalu if they would rather pay more for their food and stay on their islands, or less and see them sink below the waves. A more balanced view would be appreciated, instead of just jumping on the band wagon.

By biodave - 27 January 2008 at 3:38pm

Top marks for using waste vegetable oil as fuel - I'm impressed! And you're spot on with your concerns about cash crops in general. My own view is that people need to be able to feed themselves first before they worry about supply foreign markets with fresh flowers, green beans or cocoa. Unfortunately, our twisted 'free' trade system often requires the opposite and reforming that so developing nations aren't obliged to open up their markets and are forced into growing huge quantities of (say) coffee for export to the West. Reforming international trade needs to be left to development organisations like Oxfam and Cafod - we don't have the expertise in that area so it wouldn't be an effective use of our resources to wade in. We're coming at biofuels from a climate change angle which is also a development issue, but it's also an environmental and scientific one. Even if biofuel crops aren't directly responsible for deforestation, they'll often displace food crops which are often forced to move into newly-deforested areas. Then there's also the issue of biofuel production pushing up food prices. There have already been protests in Indonesia and Mexico and I'm sure they won't be the last. Perhaps a better question to ask the people of Tuvalu is if they can afford increased food prices? But using biofuels without tough sustainability criteria (which is what's going to happen very soon) means the crops could be coming from anywhere. If it's from deforested areas of Indonesia, say, then they won't be reducing emissions, they'll be increasing them. Then the Tuvaluans will be paying more for food (we all will) and the islands will be under the briny sea as well. Bit of a lose-lose situation. web editor gpuk

By jamie - 28 January 2008 at 5:04pm

Please be aware that Mr, Ian Houston was removed as a director of Maes Anturio on the 10.11.07. He does not represent the views or the future of this company in any way.

By J D Jones - 6 March 2008 at 5:21pm