27 January 2008
A fashionable delusion about biofuels
Interesting that Open Europe, the anti-European campaign group, has published a report criticising the EU policy on biofuels. Read a summary of the report here and the whole report here.
Why are opponents of the EU choosing its biofuel policy as target? They are right that there is something wrong with biofuels, but wrong to draw conclusions about the EU as a result.
First, the biofuels. They are a type of fuel derived from agricultural crops such as wheat, maize and sugar cane which, because they come from crops rather than from fossil fuels, do not add net carbon dioxide to the atmosphere when they are burned. That is the theory.
In practice, however, biofuels need fossil fuels when they are grown, for sowing, pest control, fertilising, harvesting and refining. As a result, their net emission of carbon dioxide can be substantial. And if rainforests and other natural habitats are grubbed up in order to plant biofuel crops in the first place (as happens with palm oil plantations in south east Asia), their carbon dioxide output can actually be even worse than that of fossil fuels. (A friend of mine suggests that they should be called agrofuels, not biofuels: the word biofuel implies something natural, which biofuels resoundingly are not.)
While the production of biofuels within Europe itself does not lead to the destruction of rainforests, it does divert crops which might otherwise be used for food. This leads to a rise in food prices, which falls particularly hard on the poor.
For these reasons, the idea that biofuels can provide a simple replacement for petrol is wrong. But if the notion that everyone can carrying on driving their cars as they did before is a delusion, it is a delusion that is widely shared.
But there is a second delusion, which is Open Europe’s alone, which is that it makes sense to criticise the EU on the strength of its biofuels policy.
After all, the biofuel policy about which they are complaining was agreed by unanimity, their preferred method of decision-making. This is the European Council acting in its much-vaunted strategic capacity. If Open Europe objects to the supranational elements of the EU system, preferring the intergovernmental parts, they should be careful what they wish for. Intergovernmentalism often dodges the difficult decisions because of the overriding need for unanimity. (The Financial Times carried a comment on the subject here.)
The second mistake they make is to imagine that biofuels can be separated from the rest of the EU’s energy policy. I have already noted the severe limitations on the ability of biofuels to take over from fossil fuels in powering our present economy, but that does not mean there is no place for them in the future. Energy policy has to balance out several different concerns – environmental sustainability, economic competitiveness, security of supply – and the resort to biofuels is actually part of this wider energy policy. Within the single market, given that we have so many common interests with our neighbours in this field, energy policy has to have a European dimension.
And thirdly, it is a mistake to suppose that if the UK were not part of the EU policy, things would be any different. As I have said, biofuels are fashionable right now. The Americans are developing biofuel production of their own, for the same reasons and with the same weaknesses as in Europe. Neil O’Brien, director of Open Europe, has complained about the number of lobbyists in Brussels, as if this was the cause of the EU adopting the wrong policy. Does he really suppose that there are none in London or in Washington DC?
And, if the supposed power and influence of lobbyists is a concern, then that is another reason to support the Lisbon Treaty. The treaty will bring an unprecedented level of openness and scrutiny to the decision-making of the EU. Open Europe ought to support this change, not oppose it.
Why are opponents of the EU choosing its biofuel policy as target? They are right that there is something wrong with biofuels, but wrong to draw conclusions about the EU as a result.
First, the biofuels. They are a type of fuel derived from agricultural crops such as wheat, maize and sugar cane which, because they come from crops rather than from fossil fuels, do not add net carbon dioxide to the atmosphere when they are burned. That is the theory.
In practice, however, biofuels need fossil fuels when they are grown, for sowing, pest control, fertilising, harvesting and refining. As a result, their net emission of carbon dioxide can be substantial. And if rainforests and other natural habitats are grubbed up in order to plant biofuel crops in the first place (as happens with palm oil plantations in south east Asia), their carbon dioxide output can actually be even worse than that of fossil fuels. (A friend of mine suggests that they should be called agrofuels, not biofuels: the word biofuel implies something natural, which biofuels resoundingly are not.)
While the production of biofuels within Europe itself does not lead to the destruction of rainforests, it does divert crops which might otherwise be used for food. This leads to a rise in food prices, which falls particularly hard on the poor.
For these reasons, the idea that biofuels can provide a simple replacement for petrol is wrong. But if the notion that everyone can carrying on driving their cars as they did before is a delusion, it is a delusion that is widely shared.
But there is a second delusion, which is Open Europe’s alone, which is that it makes sense to criticise the EU on the strength of its biofuels policy.
After all, the biofuel policy about which they are complaining was agreed by unanimity, their preferred method of decision-making. This is the European Council acting in its much-vaunted strategic capacity. If Open Europe objects to the supranational elements of the EU system, preferring the intergovernmental parts, they should be careful what they wish for. Intergovernmentalism often dodges the difficult decisions because of the overriding need for unanimity. (The Financial Times carried a comment on the subject here.)
The second mistake they make is to imagine that biofuels can be separated from the rest of the EU’s energy policy. I have already noted the severe limitations on the ability of biofuels to take over from fossil fuels in powering our present economy, but that does not mean there is no place for them in the future. Energy policy has to balance out several different concerns – environmental sustainability, economic competitiveness, security of supply – and the resort to biofuels is actually part of this wider energy policy. Within the single market, given that we have so many common interests with our neighbours in this field, energy policy has to have a European dimension.
And thirdly, it is a mistake to suppose that if the UK were not part of the EU policy, things would be any different. As I have said, biofuels are fashionable right now. The Americans are developing biofuel production of their own, for the same reasons and with the same weaknesses as in Europe. Neil O’Brien, director of Open Europe, has complained about the number of lobbyists in Brussels, as if this was the cause of the EU adopting the wrong policy. Does he really suppose that there are none in London or in Washington DC?
And, if the supposed power and influence of lobbyists is a concern, then that is another reason to support the Lisbon Treaty. The treaty will bring an unprecedented level of openness and scrutiny to the decision-making of the EU. Open Europe ought to support this change, not oppose it.
Posted by Richard Laming at 17:29
A rather defensive note here. Do we assume that you are against the biofuels target? Welcome to the club if so.
One of the (inevitable) problems with doing things at the European level is that it is very hard to correct mistakes. Programmes with zero credibility survive for decades in Brussels. Biofuels are likely to go the way of the CAP (indeed biofuels are a nice way to boost farm spending).
You make a rather hazy, lazy argument for the EU to run energy policy:
"Within the single market, given that we have so many common interests with our neighbours in this field, energy policy has to have a European dimension."
Not exactly a crunchy or clear argument. What do you want to achieve that cannot be done by the MS?
The provisions for greater "transparency" in the Constitution / Treaty are a joke. None of the key meetings where decisions are made are covered. Babble about greater "transparency" is just strategic eyewash for fools. We are disappointed to see you going along with it.
Indeed most supporters of more powers for the EU don't ultimately accept transparency. Will the Federal Union campaign for TV cameras to be allowed into COREPER? We guess not.
You don't need to guess: you can read some ideas about openness in the EU here:
http://www.fedtrust.co.uk/admin/uploads/PolicyBrief28.pdf
Aha.
Rather convoluted note but I take it that the answer is "no" to cameras in Coreper...
Federal Union takes the view that the making of legislation should be conducted in public. I'm not sure how anyone could read our arguments and conclude otherwise. Here it is, explained again:
http://www.federalunion.org.uk/news/2008/080130euobserver.pdf
Biofuels (and carbon capture) are a 'catastrophe' for future humankind. The decisions being taken by governments around the world in the quest for sustainability are a catastrophe for humankind in the long-term. Two of these decisions at the forefront of news are biofuels, and carbon capture and storage.
Biofuels -- the fuel revolution that will supposedly help us:
(1) Growing crops in the United States for biofuels requires around the same energy input for fertilisers and processing the crops as that saved by replacing petrol on the forecourt (Biofuels - A solution worse than the problem, Daily Telegraph).
(2) By harvesting the peat bogs for biofuels, we release 30 times more carbon dioxide than will be recouped by burning the biofuel produced (Prof. Jack Riley, University of Nottingham).
(3) Growing biofuels takes a lot of land and huge amounts of water -- neither of which the world has to spare.
(4) China and India risk famine if they proceed with their biofuels plans, because they don't have enough water to grow both fuel and food (International Water Management Institute).
(5) Biofuels are killing forests and leading to more global warming, besides taking land away from food crops (Global Forest Coalition).
(6) The diversion of land meant for food crops to agrofuel production is a "crime against humanity" (Jean Ziegler, UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food).
Carbon Capture -- putting off today what others will have to solve tomorrow:
(1) Carbon sequestration and storage (under our oceans and land) is an untried method of locking up carbon dioxide forever, but there is not a 100 per cent assurance that it will not escape. Possible escape routes include earthquakes, land shifts, terrorism (holding the world to ransom) or human disasters/accidents.
(2) Sequestration and storage of carbon dioxide is not a solution, but a problem that humankind will have to face in the future -- one that might eventually threaten the existence of human life itself on Earth, for nothing ever designed has lasted forever.
(3) Governments, as usual, are only looking at solving problems today without any understanding of what this will bring in the future. They are attempting to lock up gases that are toxic to humans -- leaving any problems for future generations to solve.
(4) If there was a rupture in the storage vessel, the ramifications for the world would be immense, to say the very least. Therefore, carbon capture is a method of putting off today what others will have to fix tomorrow (if they can).
Dr David Hill
World Innovation Foundation Charity
Bern, Switzerland
Post a Comment
Back to the top