Until recently, biofuels seemed like the magic solution to Europe’s fuel problems. In a single bound, the idea went, upping biofuel use would loosen the grip of authoritarian oil rulers, support farmers in both Europe and the developing world, and significantly reduce carbon emissions.
But an idea that once seemed like a simple, win-win solution has, on closer inspection, turned into a battle between lawmakers, scientists and interest groups about whether pushing biofuels is a good idea.
Taking another look
The basic idea behind biofuels — fuels made from plants such as corn, rapeseed and sugarcane — is that the plants the fuel is made out of soak up more carbon when they are growing than they emit when burned, making them carbon neutral. Also, a new batch can be grown every year, making plant-based fuels renewable, as well as profitable for farmers around the world.
With ambitious greenhouse gas goals to reach, the European Union pledged to raise the percentage of biofuels in its total fuel use from two percent to 10 percent by 2020. In January, the EU’s bumper climate change package confirmed these targets.
But important, originally overlooked flaws have exposed huge chinks in biofuel's armour. Shortly after the release of the EU’s energy plan in January, the UK parliament’s Environmental Audit Committee, as well as the Royal Society of London, both produced reports saying the environmental benefits of biofuels were being oversold by the EU’s plan. What was not being considered, the reports said, was the total environmental impact of green fuel production. Aside from leaving out the energy it takes to harvest and refine biofuels — most of which are still largely fossil fuels — EU scientists were not taking into account the effects production would have on the ecosystems. A report released this week in the journal Science seconded those opinions.
What the EU had not originally considered was the impact plant fuel production would have on speeding up deforestation and biodiversity loss. Developing countries in particular often clear rich forestland and drain peat bogs — which absorb so much carbon that scientists refer to them as “carbon sinks” — to grow fuel crops. EU scientists also failed to take into account the effects of fuel production on already-scarce water supplies, or the increased toll polluting fertilizers would have on the environment.
"Biofuels can reduce greenhouse gas emissions from road transport -- but at present most biofuels have a detrimental impact on the environment overall," Tim Yeo, chairman of the Environmental Audit Committee said.
In mid-January, a leaked paper from the European Commission’s research arm also blasted the EU’s current biofuels policy as unsustainable.
Increased production of plant fuels has raised huge concerns about world food prices, which are already hitting record highs. The International Monetary Fund has found that biofuel production has raised the price both for food and non-food crops as precious land traditionally used to grow food crops gets swallowed up to grow fuel crops. UN special envoy on the right to food, Jean Ziegler, made headlines when he characterised the use of crops to produce fuel instead of food as “a crime against humanity.”
Many see an increased emphasis on biofuel production as an excuse to avoid forcing car companies to make their vehicles more efficient. “The idea that we could risk tropical forest destruction and force up world food prices in order to featherbed our car manufacturers is frankly sickening,” said Chris Davies, a Liberal Democrat member of the European Parliament.
Responding to the backlash, in mid-January EU Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas admitted the Commission had missed some of the negative effects of plant fuels. "We have seen that the environmental problems caused by biofuels and also the social problems are bigger than we thought they were,” Dimas told the BBC.
Still, the EU is sticking to its guns, insisting that biofuel’s benefits, as well as its problems, should be taken on the whole. "The key contribution of biofuels to the sustainability of the transport sector should not make us forget its other benefits which are as important as the environmental ones, namely: reducing our dependency on imported oil; providing a development opportunity for poor countries and paving the way for second-generation biofuels,” said EU Energy Commissioner Andris Piebalgs in a statement released on Jan. 21.
The way forward
Currently the debate is focused on deciding the criteria for making biofuel production sustainable. Many NGOs — including Oxfam and Friends of the Earth — have called for much stricter guidelines or an end to required energy targets, saying without stronger restrictions, plant fuel production will not help to reverse climate change.
But stronger guidelines would have to be easy enough to comply with that small farmers in the developing world could abide by them. They would also have to honour World Trade Organization rules.
And there is constant concern that while biofuel crops could meet the EU’s standards, whatever crops plant fuel production displaces would simply be pushed onto newly-cleared land, leading to further environmental harm.
One thing the EU and most NGOs agree on is that any new criteria should include incentives for development of so-called second generation or biomass fuels made from waste products like grass clippings, wood chips or algae. But marketable second generation fuels are still several years away. And, as many of them rely on GMO algae and trees, they are only likely to be introduced after a heated debate.
Meanwhile, producers are complaining that biofuel production should not be confronted with more restrictions than food production has under the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy. And, biofuel producers say, fossil fuel companies face far fewer environmental restrictions.
Until recently, biofuels seemed like a real solution, and they still could be. But through all the bickering, statements and counter-statements, one thing stands out: when it comes to Europe’s fuel problems, there is no panacea.