Brussels, 24/09/2001 (Agence Europe) - The European oil industry represented in Brussels by Europia and the European Environmental Bureau (EEB) will not have awaited the Commission's presentation of biofuel presentation measures early October for making their position known on this issue. Oil companies consider it is necessary to carry out further studies before adopting a decision, while environmentalists are highly critical of a project that they consider dangerous for biodiversity.
Loyola de Palacio, Commissioner for Transport and Energy, is preparing to propose an action plan aimed at increasing the share of "alternative" fuels for vehicles beyond 20% in 2020 (see EUROPE of 28 July, p.7). A communication and two preliminary draft directives are currently being fine-tuned by Commission services. This "package" provides for biofuel taxation to be lightened and for targets to be set by 2009 for each Member State.
In a recent position paper, Europia stresses in essence that "premature or prescriptive advancement of biofuels without sound environmental, logistical and economic consideration may lead to regretted actions". The association does, however, acknowledge that biofuels may contribute to the EU's energy supply security and to the reduction of CO2 emissions. With reference to some studies, however, it insists that the "quantification of the energy balance and CO2 reduction potential (which may vary with different biofuels and different crop feedstocks) should be the subject of further study before decisions are taken".
The EEB quite simply calls on the Commission to withdraw its proposal, which, it believes, would have a negative impact on biodiversity by placing more wildlife in danger of extinction. The Commission proposals "would impose high costs on taxpayers via agricultural subsidies" and would "attack our natural ecosystems, destroying the ecological value of set-asides", states the EEB. It also recalls that some analyses of the life cycle have shown that "the potential of biofuels to combat climate change was often negative or neutral right away" and that, in terms of cost effectiveness, the bio-fuel solution was of less interest than other options, such as the use of public transport, smaller cars or improved engine technology.