Biofuels are being widely touted as a panacea to our energy problems. Barbara Bramble of the National Wildlife Federation explains some of the risks and opportunities.
Barbara Bramble is Senior Programme Advisor, International Affairs at the National Wildlife Federation.
After many years of labouring in obscurity, the producers of biofuels have suddenly entered the international spotlight. The speed of the industry’s expansion has been breathtaking over the last year or two, sparked by high oil prices, fears of further volatility in many of the oil-producing regions and the promise of a reprieve for farming communities who have suffered from decades of low commodity prices.
Many experts and lawmakers are now looking to biofuels as part of the solution to climate change. While policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions should include raising fuel efficiency standards and increasing funds for public transport, substituting low carbon biofuels can be done within the current infrastructure.
Although some biofuel feedstocks and technologies are controversial, those following the industry have been encouraged by recent advances in technologies which convert cellulose from crop and municipal waste into ethanol. Other advanced technologies are also expected to speed the transition to the ‘next generation’ biofuels which could replace a greater portion of gasoline and diesel.
Along with transportation fuels, a range of bio-energy technologies are being developed to use biomass in the production of heat and electricity. While these may turn out to be more efficient ways to use biomass, at present most attention is concentrated on the simple conversion of sugars, starches and oils to liquid fuels for use in vehicles. The quantities of ethanol and biodiesel produced globally have jumped from under 5 billion gallons in 2000 to around 15 billion gallons in 2006 with expansion continuing to skyrocket.
But controversy confronts this industry, and in just 18 months the biofuels debate has swung from obscurity to euphoria to concern. The extraordinary speed of the expansion has bred fears that biofuels may create new environmental problems. Challenges to the industry include the large amount of water needed for irrigation and refinery processing, how to avoid biodiversity loss and hikes in food prices for impoverished consumers, and how to ensure that small farmers and other workers get a fair share of the profits.
The quantities of ethanol and biodiesel produced globally have jumped from under 5 billion gallons in 2000 to around 15 billion gallons in 2006.
Experts are studying ways that these challenges can be surmounted, with appropriate policies that safeguard environmental and community interests. Many of the problems can be minimized or solved now, and promising research is under way to deal with others. The biofuels industry will benefit from taking these concerns seriously and responding
positively to the call for safeguards.
One of the major debates is the question of ‘net energy’ balance – whether biofuels provide more energy than it takes to produce them. Recent research shows that the ‘energy balance’ argument is often portrayed in a misleading way, by both sides.
While some claim that certain biofuels take more energy to make than they produce and others who disagree leave out some of the major variables, it turns out that the answer is: “it depends”. Most biofuel feedstocks and technologies, even those of the first generation, can produce at least a little more energy than it takes to make them. But the range of energy balance calculations is sensitive to the conditions of feedstock production, distance from fields to refineries and whether bioenergy is used to power the refineries. The more that conservation practices such as “notill” cropping and perennial native crops are used, the better the net energy will be.
The key factor in the calculation of greenhouse gas reductions that biofuels can provide may turn out to be land use conversion, including deforestation, and especially indirect conversion (when energy crop production in one place pushes other uses to virgin land). This has the potential to undo all the benefits of using biofuels, especially by creating a “carbon belch” if millions of acres of forests, peatlands or deep-rooted prairies are ploughed up to produce energy crops.
Experts recently calculated that Indonesia is the third largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world, and the major cause is clearing forests and peatlands for palm oil. Importing palm oil to reduce greenhouse gases associated with fossil fuels in vehicles, is simply exporting the problem.
Biofuels development must not exacerbate the pressures for deforestation or increase biodiversity loss. But the right policy solutions are available. They include incentives and monitoring to direct energy crops and plantations to degraded lands, which could be restored to productivity through planting of palms, jatropha and other crops appropriate to the location. With careful planning, biofuel feedstocks can take their place in a mixed landscape that provides food, fibre and fuel, and conserves nature.
There are other concerns over the impacts of the biofuels industry on poverty and development. Some claim there is an unavoidable conflict between using crops for food or fuel. But both fuel and protein products can be extracted from many first generation crops, making good use of the whole plant (soy, maize and sorghum). And the second generation of cellulosic feedstocks for ethanol will be especially suited to growing on land that is less productive for food.
Others are worried about the trade-off between the potential of biofuels to provide access to modern energy for underserved local communities (which is often most successful with small scale production under local control) and the drive for solutions to global warming and energy security (which argues for large scale industrial production and international investment and trade). One possibility is to preserve special incentives for small producers in national level programmes, as is done with the Social Fuel Stamp of Brazil’s National Program of Biodiesel Production and Use.
With appropriate public policies, many of the negative impacts can be minimized but environmental and social safeguards are needed to ensure benefits across the board. These may be provided through laws and regulations or through market-based mechanisms such as certification.
The need for safeguards has already been recognized by the governments of the Netherlands, the UK, California, and the European Union, all of which have called for, or already begun working towards, sustainability standards for biofuels. Others have called for a voluntary third party independent certification system, possibly modeled on the Forest Stewardship Council, which recognizes well-managed forests with an eco-seal, and rewards products from those forests in the marketplace.
While there are high hopes for advanced biofuels, such as cellulosic ethanol, they are not likely to be widely available for seven to 10 years. Since first generation crops and refineries will not be displaced for many years, the biofuels industry needs to get the safeguard policies right early on, for both people and the environment.
Climate change is the paramount challenge of the new century. So if biofuels can play a useful part in slowing greenhouse gas emissions, it is essential that they are deployed as effectively as possible to become part of “the solution”.