Brussels, 03/09/2013 (Agence Europe) - A new American study, concluding on a much less harmful carbon footprint than that estimated by current European biofuels policy, could open new doors in the debate.
After a difficult debate between the European Council and the European Parliament on the draft directive tabled by the European Commission in October 2012 to limit the use of first generation biofuels from agri-food crops (the impact of which is considered damaging on the climate) and to replace them with advanced biofuels manufactured from waste, seaweed or biomass (see EUROPE 10712, 10862, 10872 and 10886), a new American study conducted by the University of Illinois Chicago could open the floor to question.
Accused of monopolising land reserved for food and feed, and of having a disastrous environmental track record due to indirect land use change (ILUC) - with the displacing of food production and plantations intended for biofuels leading to the destruction of forests, grassland or peatlands - biofuels (principally biodiesel) are apparently far from having a carbon footprint as disastrous as a number of previous studies have claimed. It was on these earlier studies that the European Commission based its legislative proposal.
In 2011, the French Environment and Energy Management Agency (Ademe) concluded, for example, that taking ILUC into account, biofuels do not respond to the European objectives of reducing greenhouse gas in over two thirds of their assessments. The International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) calculated that, for some biofuels, CO2 emissions are above those of fossil fuels when ILUC is included.
Unveiled on 3 September by the European Biodiesel Board (EBB), the study conducted by the University of Illinois Chicago provides much lower ILUC values for biodiesel - nearly 95% below the values on which the Commission bases its proposals. This difference is “mainly due to improved understanding as regards land use, crop yields and forest use in the EU, Canada and the US”. Account should also be taken of other factors such as the regionalisation of the analysis and the specificity of the crop yield.
“The divergence of results due to a slight change in assumptions, once again opens the floor to question the validity of ILUC science for [environmental and energy] policy making. Policy makers can no longer deny the immaturity of science to serve for policy making”, the EBB states in a press release. (EH/transl.fl)