Time To Ecolabel Biofuels?
by April Streeter, Gothenburg, Sweden on 11. 7.07
It wasn't too long ago that biofuels were basking in the glow of nearly everyone's approval - a quick fix for reducing CO2 emissions from transport. The EU aims to fill 10% of its transport needs with biofuels by 2020. But biofuel's easy ride may be over. One of Sweden's leading gas chains, OKQ8, last week canceled its plans to introduce a palmoil-based biodiesel to the market after critics like Greenpeace chided the company, saying that palm oil production can be as destructive to the environment as burning fossil fuels. Ethanol has experienced a 100% increase in demand here in the last year due to all the bio-fuel cars now entering the Swedish market, and ethanol producers are also getting criticized for CO2 emissions from its production.
As governments the world over and in Europe rush to subsidize biofuel production the warning lights are flashing brighter. We've reported on the UN's special rapporteur Jean Zigler recently saying that converting arable land to biofuel production is a "crime against humanity" and calling for a moratorium on biofuels until the next generation of cellulosic biofuels - from wood, straw, non-food fibers and waste - are ready for prime time.
Perhaps to forestall criticism, Sweden's Moderate-led government coalition is proposing a green biofuel identification system be launched within the European Union. A green biofuels identification system would be, the governement implid, a way for consumers at the pump to verify the 'bio' in their biofuel. An EU committee is already working on environmental criteria for biofuels and the green marking or certification system would be part of the EU directive on fuel quality. The idea is to put in place rules to enforce reduced CO2 emissions both from fuel's production and its use.
If biofuels weren't so subsidized (and thus lobbied-for), the market wouldn't be so distorted and the downsides would have been taken into account much sooner.
Just cut the subsidies and let the dollars go to the more promising technologies (by cutting subsidies, prices for biofuels rise, so investors will find alternatives more promising (solar, EVs, PHEVs, etc)).
Jean Zigel's comment will get in the way of itself. If bio-fuels are not used and developed now, they will fade away. Maybe this is what Jean wants, but I think using them is part of developing them. The production should be watched to avoid taking food off the plate, but to sit on our thumbs and wait for new technology is unrealistic. What do people use in the meantime, oil? Should we hold off on electric cars until we find a battery that has less of an impact, and wait for solar panels to use fewer resources? Should we hold off on wind turbines until we achieve a zero bird death rate?
I was a little bit shocked to read in The Express (The Washington Post's free daily paper) that U.S. breweries are already facing rising prices for hops, since farmers were more interested in planting crops to make biofuels. It will be more difficult on smaller breweries than on large ones, of course.
I don't know what this world is coming to if I work all day to "save the environment" and then I can't even afford to enjoy the luxury of a nice craft-brewed beer on the couch because the price of hops went up... and if my favorite brewery goes out of business... I will be very disappointed. My point being that you can't have dark without light. One man's fuel is another man's food.
I kinda feel like crops should be used for food and drink. Millions of people are starving across the world... how attractive will be to use biofuels if the fuel that propels one across the highway could have fed people?
What about changing the infrastructure of the cities and societies throughout the world to not rely on so much fuel for transportation. Then we wouldn't be trying to solve all these problems with problems.
what about other alternative oil (such as mamona, dende... which are under R&D in Brazil?
and sugar cane ethanol?? as far as i know there is a pressure on land use and occupation on sugar cane production, but the carbon emissions are completely neutral through regular production
Think Different
Ah Anonymous, out for a morning troll? Okay, I'll bite...
Bio-fuels can be made from the waste oil stream from restaurants so you get your food AND your fuel. Switch grass (Panicum spp.) can be used from open land in pyrolic fuel processing, utilizing a native plant from open spaces (I remain hopeful you still want those)...
And our number one food crop, corn, has huge amounts of waste product that considering the high input nature of corn (water, fertilizer and carbon; corn is a C4 plant and pulls 25% more carbon from the soil than most other plants), we should really utilize the waste stream to the best of our abilities...
As for your hops, this plant is a weed (in more ways than one: it is in the same family as Cannabis) that will grow virtually anywhere. If farmers in the Willamette Valley find a more profitable crop in fuels, this opens up the market to someone else to grow hops. Markets are what they are and they will change and they will stabilize. I too am a lover of good beer, and will pay what I need to get it. Much as I love it I can't in good conscience value it above the rest of the planet...