A sustainability dilemma

The biofuels debate

Synopsis

Biofuels not only increase fuel security by making us less dependent on oil and gas, in turn reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions which contribute to climate change, but their production results in increased rural development in the developing world, thus reducing poverty. Although there is a certain amount of truth in this statement, it is an overly simplistic view. It is true that biofuels reduce reliance on fossil fuels; however, their use does not always result in a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. The production of biofuels can help in promoting rural development in developing countries, but mass production of biofuels can lead to a food versus fuel dilemma, which can result in food shortages, higher food prices and more poverty. The UK Government and the European Union (EU) have taken a very positive stance towards biofuels to date. But has the policy debate taken into account all of the social, economic and environmental impacts associated with biofuel production, or should we be promoting more sustainable alternatives?

What are biofuels?

Theoretically, biofuels can be produced from any biological carbon source. These primary sources include agricultural products such as corn, sugar cane and palm oil. They can also be produced from biodegradable outputs from industry, agriculture, forestry and household waste which can be digested to form biogas; this is often referred to as second generation biofuel. A large amount of primary generation biofuels can be produced in the developed world, such as corn and soya beans in the US and rapeseed, wheat and sugar beet in Europe. However, large-scale production of biofuels would result in a significant increase in the cultivation of ‘biofuel’ crops in developing countries, replacing cultivation of food. Biofuels normally take the form of biodiesel or bioalcohol which are most commonly used as an alternative to fossils fuels in transport.

Policy on biofuels

Government policy is based on the grounds that biofuels can deliver considerable net reductions in GHG emissions. Until recently, the UK Government has been proactive in supporting biofuels, and has introduced the Renewable Transport Fuels Obligation (RTFO), which went live at the end of April. The RTFO states that sales of biofuels in the UK should equal 2.5% of the total fuel sold, therefore creating a demand for 2.5 million litres of biofuel per year.[i] To meet this goal, the Government intends to use tax incentives as well as introduce certificates, which must be traded among fuel suppliers. Throughout the consultation process, there has been widespread criticism over this intended biofuels policy especially from large NGO’s such as Greenpeace, Oxfam, Friends of the Earth and The World Wildlife Fund (WWF). In response to this, the Government has now acknowledged the fact that the sustainability impacts of different biofuels vary significantly and that the production of some biofuels can lead to negative environmental and social impacts.[ii] A study was commissioned in 2007 to review work on the environmental sustainability of international biofuels production and use; this will report shortly. The Government has also proposed various environmental and social principles that aim at promoting the sustainability of biofuels production. These include, amongst others, that biofuels production will not destroy or damage large above or belowground carbon stocks nor adversely affect existing land rights and community relations. Likewise the European Commission has been forced to give more consideration to sustainability criteria that can be applied to the goals set out in its Biofuels Directive in light of environmental and social concerns.

Despite this, it appears that the UK Government and the EU seem to be a long way from adopting a mandatory assurance scheme. According to many opponents, this is the only way of safeguarding against the negative impacts of biofuels.

Biofuels: the environmental perspective

In practice, most biofuels cannot stand up to the claim of being ‘carbon neutral’. A significant amount of energy is required in cultivating, transporting and processing the raw material used in the manufacture of biofuels.  A full, holistic life cycle assessment should take into account each step in the process, along with consideration of previous land use. Different land use scenarios can result in the removal of varying amounts of original vegetation and therefore different carbon savings. For example, if a tropical rainforest was cleared in order to make way for a biofuel crop plantation, the net carbon saving would be significantly less than if desert land is used and removal of vegetation was not required.

A Swiss report performing a comparative life cycle assessment of bioethanol, biomethanol, biodiesel and biogas claimed that, in principle, each of the fuels can be produced in an environmentally friendly way, depending on what raw materials and production technologies are used. The report states that GHG emissions can be reduced by more than 30% in the production of biofuels[iii]. When selecting which raw material to use in the manufacture of biofuel, it is important to compare the crop yield per area of land and the amount of fertiliser required as well as the emissions released during final combustion. In October 2007, Nobel Laureate Paul Crutzen published findings that the release of Nitrous Oxide (N₂O) from rapeseed oil, and corn (maize) contribute more to global warming than the fossil fuels they replace. The Crutzen paper goes on to say, however, that crops with less nitrogen demand (such as grasses and woody coppicing) will have positive but lower climate impacts[iv].

Apart from the carbon emissions associated with biofuels production, it is also essential to consider wider environmental impacts such as local water pollution from the use of fertilisers and pesticides, and soil erosion from loss of root structure and ground cover. These impacts can have the greatest effect in developing countries, where in many cases they already suffer from depleted water supplies. An increased demand for biofuels would mean that there would be a greater pressure on the land and this could result in deforestation and threats to local habitats and biodiversity.

Currently, of all the production processes available for biofuels, it is the use of biogenic wastes, such as the organic matter contained in municipal and agricultural waste, that bring the greatest reduction in environmental impact compared to petrol. Biogenic wastes avoid the energy consumed during the cultivation of raw materials and also reduce the emissions that would result from the process of treating the waste. However, this type of biofuel production technology is not as developed as that of primary biofuels, which are already being mass-produced in countries such as Brazil.

Plant species such as algae are also being considered for the production of biofuels. Apart from demonstrating a higher yield per acre than current crops being utilised for biofuel, they are also fast growing, non-toxic, do not contain any sulfur and are highly biodegradable. Research is still being conducted into this type of process for large-scale biofuel production.

Biofuels: the socio-economic perspective

Whilst the Western world is aiming for increased fuel security, the developing world is still struggling to achieve food security. Food security is already being threatened by the promotion of biofuels as many are produced from conventional food crops including maize and sugar. As seen recently, a major shift to biofuels from such crops creates direct competition with the use of land for food and animal feed; resulting in diminishing food supplies and price rises. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has acknowledged that the rise in commodity prices in 2007 reflected increased interest in and demand for biofuels, weather-related events and geopolitical concerns. This, as stated by the Economic Counsellor and Director of the IMF’s Research Department, has a greater impact on developing countries where food is a much larger component of the consumer price index. For example, in China and other emerging markets, food is about 30% of what consumers buy; in many low-income developing countries, this rises to 50% or more. This means that the same global increase in the prices of corn, wheat, milk, and meat immediately results in higher inflation in poorer countries[v]. The consequences of this can be seen in the recent food riots in Haiti.

Additionally, as explained above, unregulated cultivation of crops used in biofuels can have severe environmental impacts on local resources. In developing countries, the pollution of local water resources and damage to the natural habitats can have long-term effects on the local economy.

The sustainability dilemma

The Royal Society stated in its most recent report that “it will be essential to establish a common and accepted set of sustainability criteria by which to assess not only the different biofuels, but also the different feedstocks and their production systems.”[vi] These criteria should take into account a wider view of the environmental, economic and social impacts. In order to do this, a robust evidence base must be developed so that more informed sustainability analyses and policy decisions can be made. It is also essential that policy is developed at an international level, partly because the biofuels debate is ultimately, a global issue and partly because international trade in these commodities is likely to expand in the coming years. Organisations such as WWF are pressing for mandatory standards to be established which have a minimum life cycle GHG target and which enforce strict socio-economic sustainability criteria. The WWF and other NGO’s do not believe that current standards assure sustainability, and until they do, no national targets should be set.

The challenge is to set standards that take into account every possible scenario and that balance all environmental and socio-economic considerations equally. The science to support this is still rather undeveloped; many are claiming that policy is running ahead of science with potentially severe consequences in terms of sustainability.

<< Back