2020 Green Agenda: Greenhouse Gases and Biofuels 23 May 2011
By Gary Titley
Social Europe Journal
A key element of the EU's 2020 green agenda has been thrown into doubt recently. A major report has raised serious questions about the benefits of biofuels in the Union's quest to reduce greenhouse gases.
Not so long ago biofuels were seen as having many benefits. As a renewable fuel they were thought to produce environmental gains, while at the same time easing Europe's security of supply dilemma and providing economic activity for farmers being weaned off expensive subsidies. In 2008 legislation set a target of 10% of transport fuel to come from renewable sources by 2020. This, though, was a significant variation from the original intention that 10% of transport fuels should come just from biofuels by 200. The change was largely because of concerns about whether biofuels could actually deliver significant savings in direct greenhouse gas emissions.
Now indirect emission savings are being scrutinised. A report has been published by David Laborde from the US based International Food Institute. In it, Laborde looks at the issue of Indirect Land Use Change (ILUC) whereby farmers, in order to grow crops for biofuel production as well as for food, plough up grasslands or destroy rainforests. This generally results in more not less greenhouse gas emissions. Furthermore, the report comes at a time of concern about global food shortages and rising food prices. Some, therefore, question the wisdom of farmers growing fuel rather than food. Inevitably, there are calls for the EU to dilute and even abandon its biofuel targets.
This is an important debate. My concern, though, is more about the effect of any dramatic switches in policy. For may years biofuels were all the rage in green circles. As MEP I was inundated by letters from individuals and groups believing that the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) surpluses should be turned into biofuels. The cautious targets the EU was moving towards were dismissed as weak and those who were sceptical of the proclaimed benefits of this latest fad were regarded as anti-green.
Yet suddenly, biofuels are bad. The letters MEPs receive on this issue are now asking for a halt to the move toward biofuels. Indeed, one woman who had written to me repeatedly promoting biofuels suddenly was demanding the opposite without any reference to her earlier demands nor exhibiting any obvious embarrassment at her volte-face. Such is the life of a politician!
There is a more serious issue at stake, though. The original targets have driven investment by industry and farmers. That investment was very expensive and presumably has yet to produce any significant returns. Any dramatic switch in policy could undermine that investment and leave companies with the prospect of big losses. This is no what we want at a time of recession.
The onus is therefore on the European Commission to proceed with great caution. European policy cannot flip-flop around according to the whims of the latest fashion. The methodology of ILUC is still in its infancy and is subject to challenge so there needs to be very careful scrutiny of this report. We have also to think of the future. There seems to be consensus that second and third generation biofuels offer great potential benefits. Policy decisions now should not hamper their evolution.
Importantly, the Laborde report shows a significant difference between the effects of biodiesel and those of bioethanol which is more environmentally friendly. That is important in policy terms. The UK, for example, produces mostly wheat of a grade that is only suitable for animal feed. There are processes which can turn this wheat into both animal feed and bioethanol. That would appear to be a win-win situation. So in the forthcoming debate we must not lump all biofuels together but judge each process on its merits.
The 2020 green agenda was a great step forward for the EU. It was a world leading initiative. It would be a pity if the policy crumbled before we even got close to that date. Perhaps the most important lesson from this saga is that policy making should be rigorously evidence based and legislators should be deaf to the siren calls of the latest fad.