Here we go again! in the ’Shakespearean question ..biofuels or not biofuels’??? really a big mantra (2 posts)

← Group Forum   Group Forum Directory
  • Andrea Monti said 1 year, 3 months ago:

    Friday, February 11, 2011
    Despite a massive bank of evidence showing that the EU’s biofuels policy could cause more greenhouse gases than it saves, the Commission has decided to delay by at least six months any action on the phenomenon known as indirect land-use change (Iluc). T&E has said this is not only bad for the environment, but creates damaging uncertainty for the biofuels industry.

    The Commission was initially reluctant to recognise the concept of Iluc, under which the use of fields for growing biofuel crops can lead to increased greenhouse gases as new land will have to be land cleared to grow food crops. But last year it amassed numerous scientific studies and did some research of its own; a decision on how to change biofuels’ sustainability criteria to take Iluc into account was expected in December.

    But instead, Brussels said further analysis on the risks of Iluc was necessary, adding that a more detailed impact assessment will be released in July.

    T&E policy officer Nusa Urbancic said: ‘The science shows that Europe’s biofuels policy currently causes more environmental problems than it solves. Unless we have reliable sustainability criteria for biofuels, we will end up with fuels being produced that create more greenhouse gases than they save. This is why we need action to build indirect land-use change into the sustainability criteria now – a further delay helps no-one.’

    A recent study by the Institute for European Environmental Policy found that, unless the EU accounts for the effects of indirect land use change, extra biofuels coming onto the market will increase greenhouse gas emissions by between 81% and 167%.

    Oil companies such as BP and Shell are lobbying against using Iluc factors in sustainability criteria for biofuels. Oil companies are thought to want to meet much of their 6% carbon reduction target set out in the 2009 fuel quality directive by supplying biofuels.

    #
  • Oscar Leòn said 1 year, 2 months ago:

    Dear Andrea,

    the question is not if the biofuels are going to be developed in Europe, or if the European Commission is going to promote them…. etc. The question is, we have future in Europe for the biofuels production or only for biofuels consumption??. And How is going to be this future, with electric engines or biofuels engines??.

    As you said, maybe the biofuels produce more greenhouse gas emissions than they consume, but before generalize it, what kind of crops have been evaluated??, for example, if you consider the sugar cane crop and the use of the generated biomass, this concept is different.

    At the end, the main problem that we have in Europe is the cost of the biofuels production, comparing this cost with the biofuels produced in LatinAmerica or in Asia, and the second problem is the lack of land for energetic crops. What will be the future in Europe?? Who knows, but I think that our future pass through the integration of several technologies to produce more than biofuels in the same factory… bioplastics, pharmaceutical compounds, biopolymers, etc…

    If we want to produce only biodiesel or bioethanol, we are going to have the same problem that exist with the sugar or other food products (cheaper outside europe).

    The other alternative could be the reduction of the benefit for the farmers or the companies that produce biofuels to obtain the same final price than in other countries… but this is almost impossible.

    So….

    We have a lot of to discuss about the biofuels in Europe, but we need to check them from several points of view, environmental, economic, social, etc… (as is made in other countries), and not only think on the environmental aspect of the biofuels.

    At the end, it is the same that other research lines, for example the genetic modification… In Europe is very difficult to work in this aspect without have problems with the ecologist… but in other countries, like China or EEUU, the investment in these sectors have been made that they are several steps over us…

    #