Dear Glenda Jackson MP,
As my Member of Parliament please will you call urgently on the UK Government to lead a review of the economics of biofuels based on the latest evidence before any decision is taken to ratify the EU biofuel targets?
Either next month or in December, the Council of Europe is due to ratify EU legislation of its March 2007 resolution to ensure mandatory 10% 'renewable' vehicle fuel penetration by 2020, most of which is expected to come from biofuels (part of the Renewable Energy Directive).
I am concerned that since March 2007, several studies have concluded that biofuel support policies are placing an inordinately high cost on our economies, for low/doubtful CO2 gains. In particular:
- An OECD report this July advised that OECD biofuel incentives were costing an exorbitant $960-1,700 per tonne CO2-eq abated, even before the indirect land-use emissions are added (p98), and further, in 2007 biofuels used up 8% of world coarse grain production and 9% of world vegetable oil production, yet these sources only delivered approximately 1.2% of total world transport fuel energy (see footnote 1 below).
- A report by the EU Joint Research Centre this March advised that: “the costs of EU biofuels outweigh the benefits”, in particular that achieving a 6.9% penetration of biofuels by 2020 was likely to cost the EU a net € 33 - 65 billion from 2007-2020 with 80% probability - even after potential benefits in CO2 savings and security of oil supply are counted; that EU use of biofuels is currently likely to worsen CO2 emissions in the case of 'first generation' biofuels, even if we are choosy about where our biodiesel is sourced [2]; and that 'second generation' biofuels are likely to be considerably more expensive than 'first generation' biofuels even by 2020, and conflict with better ways to use biomass for CO2 abatement [2], so again potentially worsen CO2 emissions.
The above economic issues and findings were not covered by the Gallagher review of the indirect effects of biofuels. The Gallagher report briefly mentioned that higher food prices would worsen some national trade balances, but didn't say if this would amount to £ billions for the UK or EU, even what kind of £ quantity it would be.
So, please will you without delay:
(i) Ask what has been done to digest the above economic findings of the OECD and JRC, and the economics of increased food aid, and
(ii) Call for the UK to lead a review of the economics of the proposed EU 'biofuel'/vehicle targets, as well as the EU 2010 Biofuel Directive, as well as other abatement options, before any decision is taken to ratify the EU biofuels targets?
We are about to go into a prolonged recession so why make it worse? The UK and EU governments should evaluate what the economic cost of the current EU biofuel target proposal actually is, using the latest food and oil price data, and not just risk blundering into causing further, unnecessary harm to the economy. The JRC report above concludes:
"The decision to specifically target GHG (greenhouse gas) reductions in the transport sector reduces the benefits which could be achieved in other ways with the same EU resources."
It pointed out that using biomass to replace coal, or make materials, abated emissions more cost-effectively. So, with money saved we could fund more true renewables, like solar, wind or wave energy, which often achieve 90% or more CO2 savings over a 30-year period, and require orders of magnitude less land to deliver energy than biofuels. Or promote fuel-efficiency measures that are even more cost-effective.
The OECD report above notes: "Despite the rapid and substantial increase in crude oil prices… the cost disadvantage of biofuels has widened in the past two years as agricultural commodity prices soared and thereby feedstock costs increased."
Biofuels not only tend to be very expensive as I have described, but often worsen emissions over 30 years, including second generation biofuels if they displace other farming, as the Gallagher report noted. As for making them from hay and straw - this year there is a shortage of those resources in the UK due to rain losses (Farming Today, BBC Radio 4, 10/9/08).
Increasing inequality and poverty?
The above analyses didn’t evaluate the effect on inequality and poverty of higher food prices. These have turned many arable farmers into multi-millionaires, in turn benefiting some of their equipment and service suppliers, but this is at the expense of almost everyone else, in higher shopping bills. We can't afford to award every teacher, clinician or civil servant a multi-million pound bonus, so why do arable farmers deserve suddenly to be enriched like this, at most other peoples' expense? A government review of biofuel economics should also report on this.
Deforestation effects: more costly than the banking crisis?
The lead economist in a major EU-commissioned study 'The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity' (TEEB) has told BBC News (10/10/08): 'whereas Wall Street by various calculations has to date lost, within the financial sector, $1-$1.5 trillion, at today's rate we are losing natural capital [from deforestation] at least between $2-$5 trillion every year.'
Amazon deforestation in Brazil has increased by 228% (i.e. the rate has more than tripled) since a year ago, largely driven by rising food prices, reversing past improvements (The Guardian, 30/9/08). The IMF (8/4/08) noted 'Almost half the increase in consumption of major food crops in 2007 was related to biofuels'.
Can long-term hunger be 'sustainable'?
The March 2007 Council of Europe resolution noted that the 'binding character' of the 10% biofuel target was appropriate 'subject to production being sustainable'. Since then,
- According to the FAO (18/9/08), food prices rose 52% to 2008 from 2007, whereas the number of hungry had already risen by 75 million to 2007 from 2003-05. This 'silent tsunami', as described by a World Food Programme spokesperson, is jeopardising Millennium Development Goals.
- This year, small farmer harvests in the global South have been reduced by the scarcity/price shock in mineral fertilizers, caused in part by demand from biofuel expansion (The Guardian, 12/8/08).
- Fertilizer use for biofuels is depleting the world's mineral phosphorus reserves faster, meaning an even harder future food shock for the world (The Times, 26/6/08).
- Recent food price rises have led to food unrest in many countries including Egypt, Pakistan, India and Yemen, thereby accentuating new geo-political threats, for very small oil savings (see OECD figures above).
- Can it be sustainable if the projected effect is to worsen CO2 emissions, which is not prevented by choosing biofuels from longstanding farmland [2], and deforestation is already being accelerated (see above)?
Please, Glenda, if you’re serious about doing the right thing for the planet – think long and hard about biofuels because they are going to make things worse.
Rgds, your constituent, Cllr Alexis Rowell
[1] The OECD report notes that 1.8% of total world transport fuel energy came from biofuels (p15), of which 10.44/ 36.12 was Brazilian ethanol (table 1.1, p16) = appx 0.52% of total world transport fuel energy. P17 notes that Brazilian ethanol is exclusively derived from sugarcane. Deducting also the much smaller quantities of sugar-ethanol and wheat-ethanol by the figures in table 2.1 (p78) leaves appx. 1.2% of total world transport fuel from coarse grains and vegetable oil.
[2] Current EU legislative proposals are for a mandatory 10% 'renewable' vehicle fuelling target by 2020 and a 5% target by 2015, of which the first 6% and 4% respectively may be 'first generation' biofuels; the remainder must be from 'non-food and feed-competing' biofuels, electricity or hydrogen.
For 'first generation' biofuels:
The JRC warned that 'if 2.4% of biodiesel comes directly or indirectly from palm oil grown on peatland, the GHG savings from EU biodiesel are cancelled out… unless there are large changes in the pattern of palm oil development, [an expected] 12% of the extra vegetable oil for biodiesel would come indirectly from palm oil on peat land (more than enough to negate the GHG savings from all EU biofuels).'
Increased use of biodiesel from any open market feedstock in turn increases the indirectEven if it is another oil that is goes into biodiesel, that other oil then needs to be replaced. Either way, there's going to be a vacuum and palm oil can fill that vacuum - be it for biodiesel or for food,' said Carl Bek-Nielsen, vice chairman of United Plantations Bhd, a major palm oil producer in Malaysia, concerning EU biofuel incentives (Dow Jones Newswires, 24/2/2006)
Even so, current DfT biofuel reporting guidance allows biodiesel directly from palm oil grown on peatland to be reported as making a carbon saving! The peatland-riven forests are also among the last refuges of many endangered species, including the critically endangered Sumatran Orangutan. Oil palm plantations are also a major cause of human displacement, both in South East Asia and South America.
For 'second generation' biofuels:
The JRC (ibid. pp7,8) noted that these will be competing for biomass resources with stationary heating and electricity, in which these resources tend to abate much more CO2, more cost-effectively, than in biofuels for transport (p23). Biomass also tended to abate CO2 more effectively if used to make materials.
As for claims of 'marginal lands' going spare for biofuels, see 'Agrofuels and the Myth of the Marginal Lands'. The African Biodiversity Network wrote in August 2008 to EU MEPs concerning the 2020 biofuel target: “We strongly challenge the myth that there is plenty of free land, going spare, in Africa. Farmers, pastoralists and indigenous peoples use these so-called “marginal” territories, but their existence and rights are often not recognised by their own governments.” (ibid.) See also 'Colonizing the commons: it is jatropha now!' concerning India.
No comments:
Post a Comment