Biofuel worse than petroleum?
Biofuel won't save the environment
Wednesday 25 April 2007
Climate change due to global warming has become quite a sensitive issue among the European public. In an attempt to show they care, EU leaders have, in the framework of the Lisbon agenda, taken various commitments for energy efficiency and reduction of CO2 emissions. Thus, the Council of Ministers has committed itself to an independent decrease of 20% of greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 compared with 1990 or a binding target of a 20% share of renewable energies in overall EU energy consumption by 2020.
Because they are presented as a renewable energy that produces zero emissions, biofuels are part of both strategies. As a result, the Council as decided to actively promote biofuels with an aim of making biofuel 10% of all fuel consumption by 2020. The European Commission has already under the Energy Taxation Directive made it possible for member states to grant tax reductions/exemptions in favour of biofuels. Other incentives such as encouragement of environmental systems for vehicle users, eco-labelling, price differentiation through emission charges and product levies, environmental quality promotion through educating and informing both consumers and producers, tradable permits, environmental performance bonds, funds and environmental risk assessment in banking procedures are currently being studied.
But are biofuel really an environmentally-friendly solution?
The promoters of biofuels usually present it as a carbon zero process that can help reduce the quantity of carbon dioxide emitted by cars and trucks. The claim is that they absorb carbon as they grow and, once it is burned, the carbon is released again. However, several studies have proven that biofuels, although good in theory, can in fact be more harmful for the environment than petroleum production. It has been shown that the propagation of a market for biofuel has put rainforests and populations at danger and that the production of the first generation of biofuels requires highly technical and polluting processes.
The first major problem is what George Monbiot has called the competition for food between the people and the cars. This competition opposes 800 million cars (worldwide) to over two billion people standing below the poverty line. In this competition and in the context of economy-driven world, the people would probably lose as those who can afford to drive are much richer than those who are in danger of starvation. The recent food riots in Mexico were only the visible part of the iceberg: since the beginning of last year, the price of maize has doubled, the price of wheat has reached a 10-year high, while global stockpiles of both grains have reached a 25-year low, Monbiot said.
This leads us to the second problem. In an attempt to respond to such demand, the farmers are trying to intensify the production by planting more and by ploughing virgin habitat. Thus the next victims are rainforests. As a result, the expansion of production has become one of the main causes of rainforest destruction in South-East Asia and in the Brazilian Amazon. The UN has recently published a report stating that 98% of Indonesian natural rainforests will be degraded or gone by 2022. European demand for palm oil is believed to play an accelerating role in the destruction of biodiversity in such regions. The loss of biodiversity is not the only problem as the cutting down of trees releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Therefore destruction of the rainforest in order to produce biofuel has a very high impact on climate change. The Dutch consultancy Delft Hydraulics has calculated that every ton of palm oil results in 33 tons of carbon dioxide emissions, or 10 times more than petroleum produces.
Managing director Guenther Buck of food-giant Unilever also states that the intensification of agriculture is expected to lead to severe environmental problems, excess use of fertilisers, water scarcity, erosion and loss of flora and fauna. On top of this, there is likely to be further global pressure to move towards more GMO crops, Unilever argues.
According to Monbiot, the reason governments are so enthusiastic about biofuels is that they dont upset drivers. They appear to reduce the amount of carbon from our cars without requiring new taxes. Therefore, the reduction of emission in the EU is presented as a positive action against global warming, even though the sideffects of that small reduction is reaped ten fold in Southern countries.
So what is so interesting with biofuels? People in need see the price of food rise, environmentally aware drivers are being deceived, rainforests are being cut down, species are in danger. It seems that the only beneficiary is: the car industry. Encouraged by governments, millions are invested in developing green cars and billions are expected in return. This is just another example of the collusion between industry and the political elite.
Sources: EUobserver, Newscientist.com, The Guardian