Will Negative Publicity for Biofuels Damage Uptake of Anaerobic Digestion of Waste Materials?

"Biofuels tax drivers €18 billion but don't reduce emissions"

The sub-headline above is the one used by the Edie Net website newsroom on 2 February (see quoted exerpt below), and it combines the concerns of a number of campaign groups about EU targets for bio-fuels. That biofuel production from specially grown energy crops isn't really environmentally beneficial, has been realised for the past few years by many in the industry. However, a number of governments are locked-in with historic commitments to biofuel producers to allow them to achieve EU bio-fuel targets that no longer make sense on the basis of sustainability (if they ever did). The biggest example of that is Germany, with several thousand energy crop biogas/ biofuel plants installed and operating.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Biofuel: People and Cars Competing for Grain

In the US last year enough grain to feed 330 million people for one year, at average world consumption levels, was instead turned into ethanol to fuel cars, according to new data from the US Department of Agriculture.

View full article at Next Generation Power and Energy US

Graphic by Tiffany Farrant

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The situation is emphatically NOT the same for waste organic material fed anaerobic digestion plants. The benefits of those remain very good for climate change, but the worry is that the public, and many politicians likewise, will fail to be aware of this. All our readers should bear this in mind and take every opportunity to make this distinction known to the public and their politicians.

Motorists across Europe are to pay €18 billion a year for petrol and diesel as a result of EU biofuel targets that do not to reduce emissions, according to new research today (February 2).
The research, carried out by the Global Subsidies Initiative and the FiFo Institute for Public Economics, for Friends of the Earth Europe and ActionAid claims the planned increase in biofuels use could cost European motorists an extra €94bn to €126bn between now and 2020.
At the same time the report claims demand for biofuels is pushing up global food prices and driving millions of poor people off their land and into hunger. 

In also says at least 37m hectares of land has already been grabbed globally to produce biofuels.
It also alleges Africa is hardest hit with 60% of land grabs for biofuel crops, depriving local communities of land and water essential for growing food. 

Friends of the Earth Europe biofuels campaigner, Robbie Blake, said: "Europe's squeezed consumers and taxpayers are paying the price for a flawed green policy that delivers no environmental benefits. 

"Motorists and the environment will bear the brunt of these ill-conceived biofuel targets - with higher prices at the pump and higher CO2 emissions. 

"Europe must scrap its biofuel targets and subsidies and replace them with more cost-effective policies that actually reduce emissions from transport and don't wreck the environment."

ActionAid's European policy and campaigns manager, Laura Sullivan, said: "Biofuels are an expensive climate con. 

So, may I make a plea to Edie Net and anyone else listening, that when they say this about biofuels (i.e. bio-diesel) made from crops THE SAME DOES NOT APPLY TO BIOFUEL MADE FROM WASTE ORGANIC MATERIALS. THESE ARE ENVIRONMENTALLY SUSTAINABLE AND VERY BENEFICIAL TO CLIMATE CHANGE REDUCTION TARGETS.

We would love to hear your comments on this. Why not submit your comment now! All comments will be viewed before they are visible to users of this site - but we WILL be most likely to approve all genuine commenting efforts!! It won't be a waste of time. Unfortunately, we simply can't let comments be approved without checking them over first as that is an invitation which the spammers would abuse very quickly...

Bluster and Biofuels - The Biofuels Con?

We thought that you might be interested in this investor's view on Biofuels and the Audit Committe report. I am sure Gary won't object to our potentially feeding him signups to his report page by printing this!

The Environmental Audit Committee has got it right says Smart Commodities UK editor, Garry White. Biofuels are currently a net negative for the environment...

Bluster and Biofuels
By Garry White

So, could this be the end of the biofuels con..? Let’s hope so…

The all-party Environmental Audit Committee headed by Tim Yeo will today say that the target to more than double the amount of biofuels used in the UK should be scrapped.
Yeo said: “Biofuels can reduce greenhouse gas emissions from road transport but at present most biofuels have a detrimental impact on the environment overall”.

The committee wants a moratorium on the biofuel targets. They have considered the whole cycle rather than just a part of it. They said that biofuels produced less greenhouse gases than fossil fuels when burned, but these savings are negated by the use of fertilisers, deforestation and the energy needed to process them into fuel. I could not agree more.

There are, however, dissenters form this point of view – notably the National Farmers Union (NFU).

The NFU rejected the committee’s calls for a moratorium.

“Biofuels represent the only renewable alternative for replacing fossil fuels in transport and a way of tackling the one quarter of UK carbon emissions which transport is responsible for” said NFU President, Peter Kendall.

“UK Biodiesel reduces greenhouse gas emissions by 53% and UK wheat bioethanol by 64% compared with their fossil fuel equivalents.

“Those savings can and should be improved. But for the committee to conclude that, because the savings are small, they are not worth having at all, is illogical and ill-informed.

“Of course, biofuel crops must be produced sustainably, both at home and abroad, and of course we should be developing more efficient biofuel technologies and encouraging motorists to take other measures to reduce transport emissions.

“And to criticise biofuels for using land that could otherwise be growing food when, in virtually the same breath, the Committee calls for land to be taken out of food production and given over to forestry and habitat creation shows just how muddled their thinking is.

“The best thing for the Government to do with this report is to consign it to the dustbin of history and focus instead on the infinitely more balanced and better informed report published by the Royal Society on 14 January 2008.”

The problem with this however, is that the Royal Society fudged the issue. I was at the press conference last week and one thing was made clear before it started; the report was not going to give any clear answers. The chairman said there would be no “yes” or “no” answers to anything, even though he accepted that was what the audience wanted.

This may be regarded as “good science” but when the world is looking for a solution to a major problem, sitting on the fence can do more harm than good. It’s time for people to nail their colours to the mast. I salute the Environmental Audit Committee for doing just this.

Regards,

Garry White
for The Daily Reckoning

The Anaerobic Digestion News Blog is always interested to hear your views on the future of biofuels. Apart from clicking on "Comments" below, another good place to post your views and where you see them immediately displayed is by continuing to the Anaerobic Digestion Forum. You can also publicise your own business by adding a link.