New reports say indirect effects eliminate any carbon benefit from road biofuels
Wed 15 April 2009
View all news
Friends of the Earth says that the Renewable Transport Fuels Obligation (RTFO), which came into force in April 2008, has increased rather than reduced the amount of CO2 emissions from the road transport sector. Meanwhile, a separate study involving 75 scientists by Cornell University has called for a total rethink on using biofuels for transport.
An independent study for Friends of the Earth uses estimates of how much forest is being cut down to replace food crops that have been displaced in order to grow biofuels for the UK . It reveals that when the full impact of deforestation is taken into account, biofuels added to UK petrol and diesel may be producing more than twice the carbon dioxide of the fossil fuels they replace.
Friends of the Earth's Executive Director Andy Atkins said: "Until Ministers can do their sums properly and prove that growing crops for fuel actually cuts carbon - the Government should stop biofuels being added to UK petrol and diesel."
A US-based study which draws on the work of 75 scientists from across the world has also called for a total rethink on using biofuels for transport according to a summary from T&E. It says current mandates and targets for liquid biofuels 'should be reconsidered', points out that relying on biofuels has potential for increasing the gap between rich and poor, and says the first thing governments should do is to limit demand for traditional fuels.
The Cornell University study criticises the EU's reluctance to recognise that growing biofuel crops can have indirect effects caused by changes in land use.
The study casts doubt on the idea of using land that cannot be used for growing food - including many so-called 'second generation; biofuels - saying there is no evidence that non-food crops can be grown efficiently for energy production on land that could not also grow crops for food.
The report says that while opportunities for biofuel production exist which maximise social benefits while minimising environmental impacts, the extent of these 'win-win' situations is limited and their contribution to society's energy budget will be very small. It says that fuels made from organic waste are generally more benign environmentally than those from energy crops and that low-input cultivation of perennial plants may provide cellulosic biomass with environmental benefits. It also says that new liquid hydrocarbon fuels produced from cellulosic biomass currently being developed seem likely to offer several advantages over producing ethanol from cellulose.
The report warns, however, that any guidelines for sustainable biofuel production cannot be based only on product life-cycle and farming standards 'as these cannot address the difficult issue of indirect land use resulting from growing demand'.
Like the FoE report, the Cornell University report concludes that: 'In light of the potential adverse environmental consequences, potential displacement or competition with food crops, and difficulty of meeting these goals without large-scale land conversion, Current mandates and targets for liquid biofuels should be reconsidered'.
Meanwhile, ENDS reports that the European Commission is planning to bring forward by nine months legislative proposals to quantify the impact of indirect land use change when calculating biofuels emissions.
ENDS said that the Commission is accelerating its work because under the renewables law EU governments must submit national renewables action plans by June 2010. It wants to table its proposals on indirect land use change before member states' plans are finalised.
Related Links
< Back to news list