Biofuels: seeing past the sound and fury
May 6, 2008
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
Back in January this year, I explained in this blog how biofuels fitted into the EU’s developing policy on energy and climate change.
Since then, biofuels have become a very fashionable issue – but not in a helpful way. Public anxiety about sudden rises in global food prices has whipped up a storm of media controversy, and in the confusion, biofuels are seeing the ills of the world laid at their door.
In fact, all too often the current debate on food prices lacks perspective. Even if we take recent increases into account, cereal prices have halved in real terms since 1975.
In any case, as I explained today at a conference organised by the European Policy Centre, recent price movements have relatively little to do with biofuels.
The EU uses less than 1 % of its cereal production to make bioethanol. The US uses more, but its domestic maize production has responded quickly to biofuel demand – so that the US has managed to produce more bioethanol and raise its exportable maize surplus. This has temporarily displaced soya crops to some extent, but we expect the global soya supply to respond rapidly.
A much stronger motor of price increases has been a rise in meat consumption in populous countries like China and India. Let’s remember that it takes about 4 kg of cereals to produce 1 kg of pork.
Another factor has been the weather. In 2006, poor weather hit cereal production in the US, the EU, Canada, Russia, Ukraine and Australia. In 2007, we had the same bad luck again – except in the US. This was always going to have a heavy impact on world markets.
On top of these influences, we have seen spectacular increases in oil prices (which likewise inflated agricultural prices in the 1970s) and a weaker US dollar.
Finally, market speculation may also have played a part – especially in terms of short-term volatility.
Positive case for biofuels is strong
In view of these facts, the Commission still believes that biofuels can be a valuable tool if used well.
They can help us in the fight against climate change. 20 % of the EU’s greenhouse gas emissions come from transport, and these are climbing faster than those in any other sector. The transport sector must make a contribution to cutting total emissions.
Biofuels can also be part of our insurance policy against fuel supply problems. The importance of this is obvious at a time when oil prices are breaking records and we rely so heavily for oil imports on a very short list of countries.
To get the best out of biofuels in the EU, we need to move together, with clear objectives - so that we can develop a well-functioning internal market and give investors the confidence to put money into developing second-generation fuels. This is why EU heads of state and government agreed last year that every Member State should be obliged to draw 10 % of its transport fuel needs from biofuels by 2020.
10 % target can be achieved - sustainably
Hitting this target will not mean burning rainforest to the ground or effectively pumping the world’s food supply into our cars’ fuel tanks, as some allege.
EU Member States have made it clear that the 10 % target will be finally accepted only if we agree on the right combination of criteria and safeguards to make sure that our whole biofuel supply comes from sustainable production.
And the European Commission’s analysis suggests that meeting the 10 % target would mean using about 15 % of our arable land for energy crops by 2020. This assumes – realistically – that yields continue to increase, that second-generation technologies become viable and that we import a reasonable share of what we need.
The figure of 15 % is in a sense artificially high, because a hectare of cereals used for biofuel production also gives valuable by-products for the feed sector – so that each hectare is not used “only” for biofuel production.
The EU institutions will continue their discussions until we all agree on the details of our approach to biofuels. We want a package that delivers solid net benefits.
In the meantime, I hope that the debate about biofuels and agricultural prices will become a little less hysterical (you can expect more comments on these issues in this blog in the future).
Fashions come and go in media coverage, just as they do in the shops. But being a slave to fashion is never a good thing. Biofuels policy must be based on facts and on sound analysis.
Print This Post
Email This Post
RSS comments feed on this entry
May 6th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
Dear Ms Mariann Fischer Boel,
I would like to suggest to use the words agrofuel instead of biofuel for the first generation of agrofuels .This will help us to remind about the origin of the fuel. I believe “bio ” has a generally accepted positive connotation in the community and the agrofuel still has to earn this positive connotation. Second generation technologies should be promoted and , personnaly , I support the idea of a moratorium on the first generation.
Sincerely
Marcel De Wilde
Engineer , involved in wind energy projects over 25 years
May 6th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
I’ve been concerned about mountains of negative publicity surrounding political support for biofuels these past months. I’ve found this to be mostly populist tripe. There is nothing new about subsidising agricultural production, CAP and its predecessors have done it for years. Food security is a far more directly emotive topic than energy security, but would people really be happy to forgoe biofuels as the only currently viable renewable fuel? What else is going to help keep our current fleet of vehicles, our public transport, airlines and emergency services going in the event of unaffordable oil?
Commissioner for agriculture, Marianne Fischer-Boel has set an excellent common sense perspective on the industry in my opinion in her blog this week.
Regards
Tom Bruton
BioXL, Bioenergy Consultancy
May 6th, 2008 at 9:22 pm
Dear Ms. Boel, I find your comments attributing a price-rise in commodities to an increased consumption in India and China to be quite reprehensible. The average Indian for example, consumes much less than the average European and while India has been growing, it clearly can’t be the case that they’ve all of a sudden started consuming three times as much. Moreover, a substantial portion of Indians are vegetarian (thereby debunking your argument on meat). Lastly, India is close to self-sufficient in food production. I wonder if your arguments are merely ill-informed or whether there is a racist motive.
May 7th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
Thanks for the clarifications about biofuels and ethanol, right on !
here in the USA, we know it’s the Oil Industry and the Meat Industry , among others with political agendas, behind the massive media campaign against ethanol and biofuels in general ( great idea the term agrofuel above ), they are literally buying editorials and stories daily with rumors of hunger and expensive foods due to ethanol, without explaining that the white corn ( maize) used in food like tortillas,etc., is not the one yellow used in ehanol, the MIS-INFORMATION ABOUT ETHANOL AND BIOFUELS IS BRUTAL AND CONSTANT!
They refuse to explain that is the fertilizer ( made of nitrogen,phosporus and potash) used in crops that has gone up 100% and more to come due to “futures” and wild speculation.
They refuse to explain that is the diesel used for tractors, farm equipment, packaging and handling what is going through the roof and adding to the price.
They refuse to mention the Hedge-Funds speculating in commodities are adding 20 % to the prices of foods, according to Congress Report in Hearings last week.
They refuse to mention the massive use of diesel ,gasoline, kerosene and electricity from it used in the war in Iraq - Afghanistan that is lifting future contracts to the 150-200 dollar a barrel level ( bankers are waiting for this to happen to celebrate )
so thanks for making sure the EU consumers know the truth.
May 8th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Food-for-fuel policies only makes sense in environmental terms if there is a net benefit in terms of reducing carbon emissions compared to using fossil fuels.
Unfortunately for the food-to-fuel boosters, the evidence is not on their side. The most authoritative study to date, by Professor Tim Searchinger of Princeton University and his colleagues shows that all of the first generation biofuels (with the possible exception of ethanol from sugar in Brazil) have a negative impact on climate change - the cultivation of these food crops for fuel actually releases more CO2 into the atmosphere than it saves, partly because of intensive use of oil-based agrochemicals and fuel and partly because of the release of CO2 and other greenhouse gases when marginal or retired land is brought back into use.
Many of the so-called second generation fuel crops also have a negative carbon balance, for instance switchgrass.
For more see the article itself over here:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1151861
If the EU wishes to reduce carbon emissions then the best way is to tax carbon emissions or introduce a cap-and-trade system for carbon emission permits. The market will respond to the price signals and adopt low carbon technologies without subsidies.
May 9th, 2008 at 12:49 am
I just have questions, biofuel, please correct me if I have got this wrong are there not biomass needs that has to be satisfied between heating, decicated biomass power plant, co-fired electric in large fossil fuel plants, transport fuels and combined heat and power(CHP). All these technology have a need for biofuel, what about biodiesel what yields do we get per hectare. If we try to satisfy all these needs how do the numbers stack up in land usage for biofuels vs food (food should be biased against biofuel).
The arguments above look imprssive and well-intended, but as I am not yet conviced that this is correct way to go.
May 9th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
Dear Commissioner Fischer:
as Mr. Thurston above points out, sugar-cane for ethanol is smart and cheap, last week Brazil started a new partnership to get diesel from ethanol, so while we in the USA and EU keep on talking about this and that, the brazilians are energy independent and now with diesel from sugar-cane they will be able to fuel their ships, trains, heavy machinery and even propeller planes, so why not a g.m. sugar-cane strong enough to withstand cold weather ?
Hemp and jathropa are also crops that deliver cheap ethanol in hard conditions ,why not use them?
this week in the USA Congress Hearings , see them daily at http://www.c-span.org/ radio and video, they show that in some cases speculation is one third of the price of oil, they use programs for “futures” that are self-multipliers, but since there is no Legislation, who will stop them?
also this week in Washington D.C., they are starting Conferences about the “Gusher of Lies of Biofuels and Ethanol”, so the Oil lobby is all-out to destroy these very important farmers and consumer tools, and while the big neocon financial media creates political and military problems with Venezuela,Russia and Iran to try to cut them off the Oil markets and keep the Middle East , Iraq-UAE-SaudiArabia-Kuwait-etc.and others in the area ,as the only choice for safe oil and friends and push the prices up non-stop, and the consumers are to naive to read between the lines, so who will stop them ?
Europe and the USA must develop a full set of biofuels and ethanol choices, one solution is to coordinate with Asian countries to avoid duplicity and unnecessary competition in crops , and because oil and gas are finite, soon with 7.000 million humans eating ( and driving ) we need new formulas, we need synthetic fuels, for cars and for planes and for power, it’s a fact, let’s get on with it and let’s hope Universities and Technical Schools are training new experts on them right now.
May 11th, 2008 at 12:04 am
Dear Ms Mariann Fischer Boel,
I don’t understand why european comission want to increase the use of agrofuels. I think that the main point is the decrease of our energy consumption. We can’t continue to increase the energy consumption for that simple reason: we live in a limited world.
Agrofuels are like nuclear power: it gives the consumer that we found the solution and that he can continue to live as usual.
Maybe, the agrofuels can help to decrease the CO2 emission, but if the energy consumption increases, the agrofuels consumption will increase and finely, the CO2 emission will increase.
Please, let’s give me your comments.
Michiels Jean-François
Belgium
May 11th, 2008 at 8:32 am
I am an economist from India and find this fixation on ‘Indians eating more’ as the reason for the global food shortage and price increase, both amusing and absurd. First, Condoleza Rice said this, only to be repeated ad verbatim by the President of United States. Now Madame Boel is proclaiming this in an EU blog!
Let me make few things clear. Average per capita food consumption in India is among the lowest in the world and this is particularly true of meat and other non-vegetarian food. On an average Europeans and Americans consume three to four times more food than Indians. Recent reports establish that though 10 to 15 percent of Indians enjoy prosperity and may be consuming comparatively more food, the vast majority of Indians i.e. over 70% (700 million!)live on less than 1 US$ (yes, one US Dollar)a day. Their capacity to access and consume food, both in quantity and quality can only be imagined. So, please do not repeat this joke any more. It only hurts us.
It is true that transportation sector consume the largest quantum of fuel. In today’s critical situation excess consumption and wastage of this precious commodity is a crime. America and Americans continue to commit this crime and keep blaming others. As a nation USA has no public transportation system worth the name except some metros in a few cities that are being under utilised. Because Americans seem to believe that owning a fleet of fuel guzzling cars is their birth right and traveling in public transport modes is below their dignity!
Will the ‘Bio-fuel debate’ take this reality into consideration?
May 12th, 2008 at 9:46 pm
The European Farmers Coordination/CPE warned you already in feb 2007 not to play with food , with agricultural land, warned you about the risks, about the irrelevance on energetic (very poor balances), environmental (GHG, biodiversity,…), social (here and in the South), economic (they need large subsidies)levels of agrofuels. One year after the EU summit decision on the 10%, it is more and more obvious for international institutions, EEA, some ministers that this target has to be reduced. The priority is not agrofuels, the priority is to reduce transport, the priority is to local/regional food. Mrs Fischler, please look further, your health check proposals are already the past.You are still sticking in a neoliberalism of the eighties nineties which clearly fails to feed the world and manage the markets.
After years of deregulation of the European and international market,the result is severe and dramatic. The current food crisis shows that we can not play with food and that market regulation at the international level as well as at the European level is indispensable to the food security the of populations.
Then it is in a context of sharp decline in food stocks that the industrial agrofuels developed worldwide in the last 2 years, increasing pressure on the markets. The decision of the EU to finance their development and to oblige the market to incorporate them, has increased the perspectives of competition with food production.
(how will you explain that you resume all common Market organisations in one, on a very reduced level of management, and that on the other side you put in place a super CMO for agrofuels, with very strong public intervention: why intervention is “past” for cereals and “future” for agrofuels ???)
After repeated droughts in Australia that have weighed on the prices, that is the international financial speculation, as off the summer of 2007, which led to a new and brutal increase of certain agricultural prices. In many countries, the privatization of food stocks promotes local speculation.
The planet is not short on food globally; indeed the wheat harvest has never been as good as in 2007 and that of rice was very good. The problem is poor people’s access to this food and the dependence of many countries on imports, promoted by international institutions and the dumping of the past and present CAP.
Don’t forget that food prices have increased much more than is justified by the increase of some agricultural prices. The agro-industry and large retailers bear a heavy responsibility.
We need public policy in agriculture, to manage markets and stocks, necessary for food security. Market regulation is probably more ahead of us than behind us.
Only the social and sustainable family farming will guarantee the food security of the peoples. It can feed the entire world population.This social and sustainable family farming,associated with the priority given to local and regional markets, can also help to cool down the planet, to protect soil fertility and biodiversity.
Food sovereignty is an essential issue in both North and South.
May 14th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
Drop biobrændselskravene i EU
Af NIELS POUL DREYER Brunemosevej 10, Fuglebjerg
Offentliggjort JP 08.05.08 kl. 03:00
Mariann Fischer Boel ser forbi fødevarekrisen og fortsætter kursen mod flere biobrændstoffer.
MARIANN FISCHER Boel har i en kronik i JP 29/4 stædigt fastholdt, at EU-kravet til brug af biobrændstoffer skal opretholdes på trods af stigende fødevarepriser og utallige advarsler fra FAO, OECD, miljøorganisationer, humanitære organisationer og en række kendte økonomer.
EU-kommissæren bagatelliserer biobrændstoffers betydning for fødevarepriserne og arealkravet.
Denne ønsketækning står helt i kontrast til FAO’s vurdering af situationen. FN-organisationen mener, at biobrændstoffer meget er skyld i prisstigningerne.
For at nå målene skal EU bruge 15 pct. af sit landbrugsareal til biobrændstoffer samt importere halvdelen af behovet fra Sydamerika. Allerede nu bruger USA 20 pct. af sin enorme majsproduktion til bioethanol, hvilket har betydet, at prisen på majs er steget med 60 pct.
95 liter brændstof
Bioethanol-fremstilling er så energi-ineffektiv, at en påfyldning på en stor firhjulstrækker på 95 liter svarer til at forsyne en person med mad i et år.
Energiregnskabet er ifølge flere eksperter negativt, det vil sige, at vi skal importere mere olie for at fremstille bioethanol fra majs, end hvis vi benytter mineralsk olie til benzin.
Mariann Fischer Boel hævder, at bæredygtighedskravene fra EU vil forhindre afskovning og miljøødelæggelse af følsomme naturområder.
Men sådan forholder det sig ikke i Brasilien og andre tredjeverdenslande. Den store stigning i brug af bioethanol i USA har betydet, at soja-produktionen er rykket til Brasilien med det resultat, at afskovningen af Amazonas i de sidste seks måneder er nået op på et areal svarende til Sjællands.
Stærke politiske kræfter
Der er stærke politiske kræfter inden for landbrugssektoren, som ser chancen for at udvide landbrugsarealerne. F.eks. har guvernøren i delstaten Mato Grosso, Blairo Maggi, udtalt, at nu må regnskoven vige pladsen for afgrøder på grund af de stigende fødevarepriser.
Biobrændselseventyret har sat gang i en udvikling, der er umulig at styre på grund af den svage politiske struktur i den tredje verden.
Her forventes det, at bl.a. biobrændsels-dyrkning alene i Brasilien vil fortrænge naturarealer på størrelse med Frankrig, svarende til 100 mio. ha.
Desuden har de store producenter, der favoriseres af biobrændselskravene, i de senere år fordrevet 5,3 mio. fattige bønder fra deres jordlodder i Brasilien. Det er folk, der ikke får glæde af fødevareprisstigningerne, som Mariann Fischer Boel ellers påstår i sin kronik.
Problemet er, at godsejeren på Fyn ikke skelner mellem stor- og småproducenter i den tredje verden og derfor ikke har føling med uligheden skabt af storproduktion af energiafgrøder.
Mariann Fischer Boel ser det åbenbart som den store lykke, at braklægningsordningen i EU er under afvikling. Alene i Danmark kommer 50.000 ha ekstra jord under plov.
Fugle og dyreliv
Hvad gør det for vores trængte fugle- og dyreliv samt for vandmiljøet? Braklægningen af mindre egnede landbrugsområder er ifølge Dansk Ornitologisk Forening vigtig for at sikre biodiversiteten i EU, men det er et emne, som åbenbart ikke interesserer landbrugskommissæren.
Når man nu ved, at dyrkning af biobrændstoffer kræver enorme mængder af vand og kunstgødning og fortrænger natur til skade for klimaet og biodiversiteten, hvorfor så fortsætte ufortrødent på trods af advarsler fra eksperterne?
Der er andre og mere lovende teknikker på vej til at nedbringe CO -2 -udledningen i transportsektoren, så hvorfor er det så vigtigt at ofre naturen for at nå frem til anden generation biobrændstof om 5-10 år?
Det forventes at koste forbrugerne og skatteyderne i EU 250-484 mia. kr. over de næste 12 år at satse på første og anden generation biobrændstoffer.
Disse penge ville være bedre brugt på at udvikle el-biler og den kollektive trafik. Mariann Fischer Boel, du er på gal vej, så drop de skadelige mål og tænk i CO -2 -reduktioner i stedet for at insistere på en ødelæggende løsning.
May 14th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
jeg håber mit indlæg i Jp bidrager til at få Landbrugskommisæren til fornuft!
May 16th, 2008 at 11:47 am
Would it be possible for you to provide the references to the European Commission and FAO work that are referenced in your speech? Thank-you.
May 19th, 2008 at 11:52 pm
The EEC is messing with markets and making huge mistakes with both energy markets, ood markets and subsidies for the sake of ‘climate change’ and curbing CO2 levels which 19,000 scientists have claimed is effectively not a science but a global political fraud.
The hysteria over climate doesn’t look like reality. Over the last 100 years of mans industrialisation the Earth has increased in temperature by between 0.4 degrees and 0.6D depending on whose measurements you trust to believe. While CO2 elevls have increased 30% over tha past 10yrs temperature has not changed (0.00 Degrees).
I have looked long and hard at both sides of the scientific argument. One side consistently lies, exaggerates, scares people and (the UN’s IPCC, EEC and British Government). One side seems to consistently talk good sense and solid science (who don’t believe in global warming).
Just like the junk science about passive smoking that started at the United Nations, the UN is also the source of junk science for climate change and CO2. We actually do not need to change CO2 levels. We need to change the fraudulent junk science that starts at the UN, goes through the unaccountable cronies at the EEC and is diseminated on increasingly disturbed European people.
And subsidising Ethanol and Biofuel which has been bankrupt for 100 years and doesn’t produce enough energy after you subtract the energy consumed in production is yet another fraud of an energy policy. The British governments Ethanol policy is a joke.
So the EEC ministers try to smeer all doubters with “oil funding”. No. Just look at the science. It’s junk.
June 1st, 2008 at 10:45 pm
Dear Ms Mariann Fischer Boel ,
For sure you have been informed about this article by Amartya Sen.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/28/opinion/28sen.html?_r=1&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Subjects/F/Food&oref=slogin
Urgent restrictions on first generation agrofuel are required , second generation technologies should be promoted .
Sincerely
Marcel De Wilde
June 25th, 2008 at 11:05 pm
Thank you for taking the time to explain this and for your support of biofuels. There has been too much negative press out there and too many people are being swayed away from this incredibly important issues by these highly effective smear campaigns. (also known as lies)
Alex Tiller
http://blog.alextiller.com
October 17th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
Readers,
The issue on Bio Fuels cannot be separated from food security.Current models on food-for-biofuel is generated by high developed nations. On one hand research towards global food security is recieving massive financial boost from developed nations and other hand Africa seems to be lagging in the same development. In my opinion, African continent possess the greatest potentil for promoting and producing bio from non-food crops. Why not allow Africa to bridge the gap through bio fuel production and close the development gap with rest of the world. Let Africa “Use what she has to get what needs”.
Benny Mistry