European Union to Ban Imports of some Biofuel Crops
by Jeremy Elton Jacquot, Los Angeles on 01.16.08
Image courtesy of Wrote via flickr
Amidst renewed fears over the impact of biofuels on the environment, which a recent Royal Society report warned could "do more harm than good," the European Union has issued a draft law that would propose a ban on the imports of biofuels derived from crops grown on certain types of land — such as forests, wetlands and grasslands. It would also require them to deliver a — as yet undetermined — "minimum level of greenhouse gas savings."
The ban would particularly target environmentally harmful crops like palm oil, which Europe imports from Southeast Asia; it could also affect a few crops grown in Latin America, including soy, wheat and sugar beets. The decision to enforce a ban comes in the wake of a rash of studies that have downplayed or thoroughly discredited some of the more bullish claims made by biofuel producers.
As we've reported on before, Southeast Asia in particular has paid a high environmental cost for the production of palm oil. According to Adrien Bebb of Friends of the Earth, the draining and deforesting of peatlands in the region currently account for up to 8% of global annual carbon dioxide emissions.
Moreover, policymakers worldwide have expressed growing concern over the effects of biofuel production on the quantity and price of crops; in developing countries, where food and money are already scarce, they are worried that the shift to a biofuel-based economy could result in mass famines and an outbreak of conflicts.
“Indiscriminately increasing the amount of biofuels we are using may not automatically lead to the best reductions in emissions. The greenhouse gas savings of each depends on how crops are grown and converted and how the fuel is used,” said John Pickett of Rothamsted Research, who contributed to the Royal Society report.
Instead of seeking to make 10% of the transport fuels consumed by 2020 derived from renewable sources, the report suggests establishing emissions reductions targets.
Via ::The New York Times: Europe May Ban Imports of Some Biofuel Crops(newspaper)
See also: ::Biofuels: When Subsidies and Special Interests Collide, ::Southeast Asia Paying High Environmental Cost For Palm Oil
Would this just be for biofuels, or for imports of these goods in general?
It's not just Mexico etc where food prices have gone up. The price of wheat (i.e. bread) has risen a lot in the UK. Several sites reported the price of pasta rising considerably in Italy. A quick search says the essential food has increased in cost by 12% in the UK. The weather was bad (worldwide) and a lot of crops failed last year, which is part of the problem, energy is also more expensive, and biofuels.
rolex replica, It's not Biofuels that are the problem, it is conventional agricultural practices that are causing the destruction of land and forests and the skyrocketing food prices. I make biodiesel at a plant in Florida, and I defend it by saying that I would gladly purchase feedstock made from algae or waste greases should someone actually make them available. Right now, the use of palm and soybean oil is a placeholder until a sustainable agricultural solution can be developed. It would be a shame to give up on something that has so much promise and is at least pointing us in the right direction (away from oil), because the ag producers have not yet caught up with the technology.
The EU is moving in the right direction by targeting specific types of feedstock, not biofuels in general. Perhaps this will incentivize the algae and cellulose folks to step out of the labs and feel the sunshine.
Please don't hop on the counter-productive bandwagon of biofuel bashers who don't seem to see the whole picture. This type of thing is akin to the folks who dismiss wind power because it allegedly kills birds and "ruins" landscapes. Those folks are probably the same people who say that nukes will save the day by replacing one environmental challenge with the even greater (and costlier) one of nuclear waste management and containment.
Luc
'The EU is moving in the right direction by targeting specific types of feedstock, not biofuels in general. Perhaps this will incentivize the algae and cellulose folks to step out of the labs and feel the sunshine.'
---Correct. This will disincentivize production of the bad stuff and incentivize the development of the good stuff.
I somewhat agree with Luc(asaltic), in the sense that agrofuel production for the domestic market offers opportunities for rural development and energy alteranatives. I'm not sure yet about greenhouse emission benefits here, because these are not always true for production in countries that don't lie near the tropical climate zones.
However, Rolex replica is also right as he notes the general problem of agrofuels. As the EU's policies and targets show (if they continue with those targets), rather than choosing the source (cars), EU officials wish to create a market for agrofuels. This, as liberal economic theory holds, will allow for economic growth to continue and maybe also stimulate growth in other countries. but realistic forecasts have predicted that the EU's future demand will overshoot the global available agricultural land, leading to forest destruction and competition with other feedstock.
And now we are only talking about the EU. Consider the total agricultural land requirements if the USA, the EU and China will continue their agrofuels strategy. Instead of continuing the way we do, we should aim for more fuel efficient cars (as the EU with their latest Car-fuel policy failed to do). This is what Rolex replica was trying to say I believe.
And Matt is right as well, food prices have also risen because of other issues. What would be more interesting; where are the people hit the most severe by rising food costs?
Paul
Hi all,
I've read your comments with great interest. I tend to agree with Luc. Take a differentiated stance. Not all biofuels are created equal and the consequences of their use differ tremendously. Take biodiesel made from palm oil. The palms may have been grown in Malaysia or Indonesia on land that stems from deforestation of rainforest or from peatland, leading to great damage to ecodiversity and increased CO2 emissions. We will all agree, this is not any better than fossil fuel, probably worse. On the other hand, take sugar cane ethanol in Brazil. As opposed to popular belief, sugar cane is NOT grown on rainforest land. Rainforest climatic conditions do not allow the productive growth of sugar cane (it simply is too wet to make the cane accumulate the sugar). This is why the sugar mills are all in the south (Sao Paolo region) and not in Amazonia. Sugar cane plantations managed in a responsible way (automated harvesting without burning the leaves, reuse of the vinasse, a left over from the production of ethanol, as a fertilizer, no irrigation whatsoever, no use of artificial pesticides and herbicides (they actually use natural bugs for pest control)), can contribute significantly to saving emissions and preserving biodiversity. Additionally, you can use the leftovers (e.g., the bagasse, the cellulosic materials that's left over after the production of ethanol, agricultural and forestry waste) for the production of so called wave 2 ethanol, a technology that will come to the market as soon as 2010.
Obviously, stopping the use of SUVs would help.
Uli