Biofuels Conference Disrupted At Concerns Over Multi-National 'Greenwash'

Photobioreactors : part of the problem or solution?
Please help, I'd like to know.
Having attended the Biofuelwatch talk at the Sumac Centre, Nottingham, I was reminded of many of the issues surrounding biofuels. I knew much of this before, but found the talk really useful and informative in reminding me of the 'greenwash' surrounding this field.

I think perhaps the main problems are that by multi-national companies are using these technologies, to extend their 'green' credentials and hoodwink the public into thinking that their activities are socially responsible after all. This is why the activist 'cream pied' the main BP speaker.

The idea of using less fossil fuel and extending fuel efficiency is not just a future ambition, but is a required activity. Rather than just adjust our lifestyle, abandon the idea of economic growth and simply use less resources, we are told that we may be able to grow ourselves out of the futures fuel shortages. The fuel Vs food tension for land use then has serious implications for us and most of the developing world. It is apparent that global agriculture as it currently constituted, does not the ability to feed us all. So, now there is pressure to tear down rain forests to make more space. Famine, follows not only wars, economic greed but also now increasingly environmental damage. If we cannot grow sufficient food for us humans, what proportion of the fertile lands should we give up to grow biodiesel and the like?

I went to the conference / exhibition, know all this and it informed most of my objection ....... but while there, I came across an exhibitor AlgaeLink. This is a Dutch company and they demonstrated their Photobioreactors! They take on, all of the above objections and they say, have some significant advantages. Among which are that
1. Algae grows 100 times faster than trees, typically doubling their weight every day.
2. They can grow in adverse conditions like desert and saline waters. [So is not in competition with food land use]
3. Requires only sunlight water some nutrients and carbon dioxide.
4. Absorbs carbon dioxide from atmosphere, hence assisting with diminishing a greenhouse gas.
5. Absorbs nitrogen from wastewaters.
6. Systems are easily installed and are fairly low tech, requiring little maintenance. Perhaps might be described as 'appropriate technology', in that they might not just be successfully maintained by 'developed economies', but generally in the world. Transporting such resources would be diminished, when locally grown.

Now, I'm not a salesman for the company :-) but I have to say that I have been wobbled in my opposition to 'biofuels' when all put into one basket. This method is described as a 'second generation' biofuel. This method does seem to address a lot of my concerns. While accepting that the so called advanced and developing countries so obviously need to consume less resources anyway, I do think that this technology, when developed, might me added to the solution side of the equation, rather than the problem column.

I add this lot here to express what I've found out, and ask others to critisise, if I'm wrong in these conclusions.

In addition to the environmental impact of biofuel production Jean Ziegler, a United Nations human rights expert, has recently highlighted the damaging effect the use of food crops for fuel production has on world food prices. Effectively pushing up the price of food, the expansion of the biofuel industry is "absolutely catastrophic" for impoverished populations around the world who already struggle to afford food.

 http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=24434&Cr=food&Cr1=

Of course the other people who could benefit from "community activism" against bio fuels are the mineral oil barons.

In this complicated world often funded by petro-dollars it is often difficult to know who to believe or trust.

It seems to me that we are in danger of conflating two separate issues.

Firstly, there is the question of whether biofuels can make a useful contribution to the control of greenhouse gases and hence global warming. It seems clear to me that they can and must. Of course, the major contribution has to come from conservation and use-reduction. But there will always be an irreducable minimum of energy use if we are to continue to use machines, cook, or keep ourselves warm. It would surely be better if that minimum was provided by sustainable production than fossil fuels, wouldn't it?

The second question is, if biofuels are to be developed, how should it be done? Destroying the rainforests, seizing peoples' land and using food to fuel rich peoples' SUVs while others starve is wrong, whichever way you look at it. Interestingly, had the protesters stayed in the hall, they would have heard Olivier Mace from BP say exactly that. (I was in the audience.) He very clearly made the point that biofuels need Government support to survive, that that support will only be forthcoming if there is public support, and that will vanish unless the biofuel industry is clearly seen to be acting in the best interests of the environment, the third world and indigenous farmers.

The same point was made over and over again through the two days of the conference. In fact, when the two protest groups were invited to make a presentation on day two (which they did, very eloquently) the only surprise was that they were echoing what had gone before.

So, my modest suggestion is this: There is a crucial role for environmental NGOs to play in keeping the big companies honest. Monitor their activities, attend the sustainability meetings such as the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil, and shout from the rooftops if you find them straying from the straight and narrow. But more importantly, recognise that some companies are trying to do this right and work with them to squeeze out the sharks who are doing all the bad things you mentioned. Working together, there is the possibility that we could create a biofuels industry which does a host of good things in the world: protects the environment, halts or reverses desertification, provides income to the poorest farmers and rural employment in 3rd world countries, and stabilises world food prices.

It would be a shame to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Biofuelling Poverty - EU plans could be disastrous for poor people, warns Oxfam

EU plans to increase the use of biofuels could spell disaster for some of the world's poorest people warns international agency, Oxfam in a new briefing published today.

Oxfam briefing note: Biofuelling poverty

EU proposals will make it mandatory by 2020 for ten per cent of all member states' transport fuels to come from biofuels. In order to meet the substantial increase in demand, the EU will have to import biofuels made from crops like sugar cane and palm oil from developing countries. But the rush by big companies and governments in countries such as Indonesia, Colombia, Brazil, Tanzania and Malaysia to win a slice of the 'EU biofuel pie' threatens to force poor people from their land, destroy their livelihoods, lead to the exploitation of workers and hurt the availability and affordability of food.

"In the scramble to supply the EU and the rest of the world with biofuels, poor people are getting trampled. The EU proposals as they stand will exacerbate the problem. It is unacceptable that poor people in developing countries should bear the cost of questionable attempts to cut emissions in Europe," said Robert Bailey from Oxfam.

Biofuels may offer the potential to reduce poverty by increasing jobs and markets for small farmers, and by providing cheap renewable energy for local use, but the huge plantations emerging to supply the EU pose more threats than opportunities for poor people. The problem will only get worse as the scramble to supply intensifies unless the EU introduces safeguards to protect land rights, livelihoods, workers rights and food security.

EU member states agreed that the ten per cent target must be reached sustainably, but Oxfam warns that the current proposals contain no standards on the social or human impact.

"The EU set its biofuel target without checking the impact on people and the environment. The EU must include safeguards to ensure that the rights and livelihoods of people in producing countries are protected. Without these, the ten per cent target should be scrapped and the EU should go back to the drawing board," said Bailey.

"Let's be clear, biofuels are not a panacea - even if the EU is able to reach the ten per cent target sustainably, and Oxfam doubts that it can, it will only shave a few per cent of emissions off a continually growing total."

Published reports show that as much as 5.6 million square kilometres of land - an area more than ten times the size of France - could be in production of biofuels within 20 years in India, Brazil, Southern Africa and Indonesia alone. The UN estimates that 60 million people worldwide face clearance from their land to make way for biofuel plantations. Many end up in slums in search of work, others on the very plantations that have displaced them with poor pay, squalid conditions and no worker rights.

Women workers are routinely discriminated against and often paid less than men.

In Indonesia almost a third of palm oil is produced by smallholders most of whom lost their land to advancing plantations and were 'rewarded' with a two hectare plot. These smallholders are bonded to the palm oil companies which provide them with credit and are required to sell to them - which means they do not get the best price for their oil.

Abet Nego Tarigan, deputy director of Sawit Watch which represents communities, farmers and plantation workers affected by palm oil development in Indonesia, said:

"Decisions on biofuels made in Europe are directly affecting millions of people in Indonesia. In the relentless pursuit of biofuel gold, big powerful palm oil companies are callously clearing communities from land they have farmed for generations, workers and small holders are shamefully exploited and we are losing valuable agricultural land to grow the food we need to feed ourselves and make a living. The proposed EU policy will only make this worse - pushing more people into poverty and concentrating land in the hands of a few.

Ends

Press enquiries to Ashish Sharma, 07808 729 195 or 01865 472498.

Note to editors:
Oxfam Briefing Note - Biofuelling Poverty: Why the EU renewable fuel target may be disastrous for poor people. Available to download

*****

Biofuel rush harmful, Oxfam warns
 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7072386.stm

"Green fuels" could be bad for the planet, say environmental and development groups
 http://www.oxfam.org.uk/applications/blogs/pressoffice/2007/03/green_fuels_could_be_bad_for_t.html

Press Release
For immediate release, December 7th 2007
www.biofuelwatch.org.uk

Climate rally to demand that Gordon Brown stops bungling with biofuels

Campaigners on Saturday’s climate rally and march in central London are demanding that UK Prime Minister, Gordon Brown reverses his Government’s decision to force biofuels on motorists from next April. The march will stop at Downing Street to hand in a letter to Mr Brown that demands his government takes urgent action on climate change, including halting biofuel production.

The letter highlights that deforestation, forest and peat fires, and peat drainage and destruction are major contributors to global warming and the main reasons why Indonesia now ranks third amongst the world’s worst greenhouse gas emitters. A recent scientific report showed that biodiesel from Indonesian Palm Oil could emit up to 36 times the CO2 than fossil diesel.

Biofuels grown in Europe also have high climate impacts. Oilseed rape biodiesel that is 80% of the European market may produce up to 70% more emissions than fossil diesel.

Dr Andrew Boswell, from Biofuelwatch, an NGO that specialises in highlighting the dangers of massive biofuel expansion said ‘UK policy under Gordon Brown is literally bungling with our futures. He is pushing for massive use of biofuels - that in turn can make climate change worse, and have disasterous consequences for the poor and disadvantaged. The UK government must drop its biofuels targets and demand that the EU freeze their targets too, so that there can be a full public policy debate on biofuels. ‘

Summary of biofuel demands in letter to Gordon Brown

· The UK government should abandon its target for 2.5% biofuels at the pump from April rising to 5% by 2100.

· The UK government should demand the EU freeze their targets under the EU Biofuels Directive and establish a moratorium under which there can be a full, evidence based, public policy debate on biofuels.

· The EU should ban importing biofuel raw materials from outside Europe

· The EU should ban production of biofuels from large scale monocultures within the EU until it can conclusively prove that these do not result in higher greenhouse gas emissions than conventional fossil-derived fuels especially through high nitrous oxide emissions from nitrate fertilisers.

Notes for editors: Background materials

1. ‘The bog barons: Indonesia's carbon catastrophe’, New Scientist, December 1st,  http://tinyurl.com/26qtzk - palm oil biodiesel from Indonesian peat lands can emit 36 times as much CO2 as fossil diesel’



2. Paul Crutzen study on nitrous oxide emissions from fertilizer used in biofuels,  http://tinyurl.com/39smo8 - rapeseed and maize biofuels are calculated to produce up to 70 per cent and 50 per cent more greenhouse gases respectively than fossil fuels

Contacts:

Dr Andrew Boswell, Director, biofuelwatch
E:  andrewboswell@fastmail.co.uk T: 01603-613798 M: 07787127881

Notes for editors: Extract from letter to Gordon Brown

We demand that the UK government immediately reverse its decision to mandate 2.5% of biofuels at the pump from April 2008 under the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation. The RTFO will increase the demand for products like Palm Oil from Indonesia, the rapid increase in the cultivation of which has been a major factor in the accelerating deforestation of the region. Deforestation, forest and peat fires, and peat drainage and destruction are major contributors to global warming and the main reasons why Indonesia now ranks third amongst the world’s worst greenhouse gas emitters, despite having relatively little industry. The RTFO will have the effect of speeding up rather than slowing down global warming. Worse than that, the deforestation that it will accelerate risks bringing about a complete collapse of tropical rain forest ecosystems which could involve a massive and very sudden release of CO2 – a ‘tipping point’ or ‘positive feedback’ that might trigger a catastrophic warming episode. This is not to mention the humanitarian crisis that could result from the effect that the production of agrofuels is likely to have in pushing food commodity prices to record levels and thereby causing more hunger, amongst the world’s poor.

We also demand that the UK government should demand the EU freeze their targets under the EU Biofuels Directive and establish a moratorium under which there can be a full, evidence based, public policy debate on biofuels. Not only should there be a moratorium on the production of biofuels from imported raw materials, within the EU (for the reasons given above) but also a moratorium on the production of biofuels from large scale monocultures within the EU – at least until it can be conclusively proved that these do not result in higher greenhouse gas emissions than conventional fossil-derived fuels especially through high nitrous oxide emissions from nitrate fertilisers.

George Monbiot,
Honorary President, Campaign against Climate Change

Phil Thornhill
National Coordinator, Campaign against Climate Change

Jonathan Neil
Secretary, Campaign against Climate Change

Peter Robinson,
Chair, Campaign against Climate Change

Jonathan Essex,
Steering committee member, Campaign against Climate Change

Andrew Boswell,
Director, Biofuelwatch and Norwich Campaign against Climate Change

Algae may be a feasible feedstock for biofuels, but not using the gear from this Dutch company and definitely not before the diesel prices are going to be EUR 5/liter.

Here's why:  http://biodieselfever.com/?p=4