Why current biofuels are not the answer to climate change and sustainable development?
 Matti Liimatainen, Greenpeace Finland
Avoid deforestation would sequester more carbon on the same area of land than it would have been saved by using biofuels.
Zoom In |
The role of biofuels in tackle climate change and other objectives has been disputed by reputable scientific bodies. Current biofuels fail in all areas including:
Poor use of money
The Joint Research Centre (JRC) from the European Commission conducted a cost-benefit analysis on the use of public money to support biofuels with the stated objectives of cutting GHG emission, security of supply and employment benefit. They concluded that despite all the uncertainty around biofuels, even for the most favourable possible combination of assumptions, ‘there is virtually no chance of benefits exceeding costs’. The net cost to society of EU biofuel policy would cost the taxpayers of Europe throughout 2007-2020 between 33 and 65 billion euros, with 80% probability.
Poor use of biomass
Biofuels for transport is not the only way to utilize energy from biomass. Modern biomass burners is nearly as efficient as fossil fuel burners, with 1MJ biomass replaces about 0.95MJ fossil fuel, compared to 1MJ biomass replaces only around 0.35-0.45MJ crude oil in the transport sector (JRC, 2008). It would be especially efficient to use biomass in combined heat and power (CHP) production, where the ‘waste’ heat generated during electricity production is captured and supplied to industry or homes or public utilities.
Poor use of land
In a time of global food crisis, the use of land to produce biofuels instead of food is morally unacceptable. In October 2007 the UN special Rapporteur on the right to food, Jean Ziegler, said that ‘It is a crime against humanity to convert agricultural productive soil into soil which produces food stuff that will be burned into biofuel’ (UN news, 26 October 2007). The impacts of biofuels have on land competition and food prices are said to have caused 30 million people into poverty in poor countries (Oxfam, 2008).
On the other hand, measures like avoiding deforestation, restoring degraded peatland and grassland habitats will be more cost-effective to capture carbon than avoid emissions by producing biofuels on the same land. A study published in Science by Righelato and Spracklen found that reforestation would sequester between two and nine times as much carbon over 30 years than would be saved by burning biofuels instead of fossil fuel (Righelato & Spracklen, 2007). Moreover, conversion of land back to secondary forest provides additional environmental services, such as prevention of desertification, provision of forest products, maintenance of biological diversity, and regional climate regulation.
 Andy Hay/RSPB Images
|
Does not reduce transport emissions
There is a need to reduce car transport; without such policy, there will be more and more biofuels (as well as fossil fuel) needed to satisfy the ever increasing transport demand. Improving vehicle efficiency, encouraging public transport and zero-carbon transport, and better driving habits are all readily available, cheaper, and more efficient ways of tackling climate change without the huge sustainability question marks that surround many of today’s commercial biofuels.
The Cars and CO2 Regulation – a much-needed approach to reducing EU carbon emissions from transport
In order to reduce the carbon emissions from cars transport, the Commission proposed a regulation in December 2007 to limit new cars produced in the EU to have an average CO2 emissions lower than 120 g/km by 2012 (from a level of 161g/km in 2004). This regulation aims to encourage the car manufacturers to produce smaller, more fuel efficient and less polluting cars.
The regulation, if formulated appropriately, could play a significant role in tackling emissions reductions from transport without the inherent sustainability risks associated with conventional biofuels. However, resistance from the motor industry on this target shows that they are reluctant to play a significant role in tackling climate change even though the technologies to achieve significant improvements in vehicle efficiency are already available. Indeed, the King Review on low-carbon cars, conducted for the UK Government, concluded that technology to reduce CO2 emissions by 30 percent is already close to market and could be standard within 5 -10 years (King, 2008).
A joint position statement by RSPB (BirdLife Partner in the UK) and Friends of the Earth (England, Wales and Northern Ireland) is calling for 2012 target of 120g/km CO2 to be met by vehicle technology measures alone without any further weakening, long term targets to be set of 80g/km CO2 by 2020 and 65g/km CO2 by 2025, and for a system of CO2 emission standards based on a vehicle’s footprint rather than its weight, preventing manufacturers from having an incentive to build heavier, more polluting vehicles.
Reference:
Joint Research Centre (2008) Biofuels in the European Context: facts and uncertainties. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/jrc/downloads/jrc_biofuels_report.pdf
King, J. (2008) The King Review of low-carbon cars. Available at: http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/A/7/bud08_king_1080.pdf
Oxfam (2008) Another inconvenient truth. How biofuel policies are deepening poverty and accelerating climate change. Available at: http://www.oxfam.org/en/pressroom/pressrelease/2008-06-25/another-inconvenient-truth-biofuels-are-not-answer
Righelato, R., & Spracklen, D.V. (2007) Carbon mitigation by biofuels or by saving and restoring forests? Science Vol. 317 (17 August 2007): 902.
Related Links
- Biofuels - Why the EU needs to drop its biofuel target
- What are biofuels? Are all forms of biofuels good?
- Environmental impacts of current biofuels
- Social impacts of current biofuels
- EU policies on renewable energy
- Inadequacy of the Renewable Energy Directive
- BirdLife's position on Renewable Energy Directive
- Cautions to further biofuels development
- Birds which would be threatened by biofuels production