Record warm summers cause extreme ice melt in Greenland: an international team of scientists, led by Dr Edward Hanna at the University of Sheffield, has found that recent warm summers have caused the most extreme Greenland ice melting in 50 years. The new research provides further evidence of a key impact of global warming and helps scientists place recent satellite observations of Greenland´s shrinking ice mass in a longer-term climatic context. Findings are published in the 15 January 2008 issue of Journal of Climate.
EU JRC report sceptical about biofuels; better use biomass for electricity
In what could be the forced start of the implementation of a 'Biopact', the European Commission's own scientific institute, the Joint Research Centre, writes in an unpublished and unreviewed report that circulated last year in the Commission, that the costs of biofuels could outweigh the benefits. According to the report, 'leaked' by Greenpeace (and sent to the Financial Times) at a strategic time - just before the publication of the new directive on renewables -, biofuels as currently produced in Europe might not be contributing to the fight against climate change.
The report notes that the decision to target emission reductions by establishing a minimum 10% of biofuels in transport reduces the benefits which could be achieved by using biomass in other sectors and with the same financial resources.
“Biomass saves much more fossil fuel and greenhouse gas emissions in other sectors,” reads the study.
Moreover, the report states that "The decrease in welfare caused by imposing a biofuel target is between 33 and 65 billion euros within an 80 per cent probability range," it adds. This is so because European biofuels cannot compete without subsidies and trade protection.
The only liquid biofuels the JCR sees as viable are highly efficient fuels like sugarcane ethanol.
Greenpeace leaks the report just in time, in a period when criticism against biofuels has reached an all-time high, with the European Parliament and environmentalists calling for mandatory greenhouse gas reduction targets before a fuel can be called a biofuel. Their proposed target - a 50% CO2 reduction against fossil fuels - would imply that only biofuels made in (sub)tropical countries, and second generation fuels, would qualify (earlier post). All European and North American biofuels would be banned.
The report buttresses worries over biofuels that suggests they may actually contribute to global warming through the deforestation and peat bog burning that is required for biofuel sources such as soya and oil palm trees.
Reactions
A Commission spokeswoman is cited by the Financial Times as saying that the JRC report had not been peer-reviewed. She said: "It is a contribution to the debate. We are looking at the whole picture and we will have sustainability criteria."
Rob Vierhout, secretary general of the European Bioethanol Fuel Association (eBIO), also stressed that the report, as it stands, means nothing as it has not yet been reviewed. "I am not surprised by the report as it has always been the agenda of the JRC to discredit biofuels ever since they started their Well-to-Wheel project with the oil and car industry," he told EurActiv.
Vierhout added: "We have long asked to be a partner in this study but so far we have been completely left out. This is not the way democracy should function." According to him, "the fact that the study is being leaked now – one week ahead of the Commission legislation on biofuels – is a deliberate attempt by the oil industry to kill off the EU's biofuels policy."
He further questioned NGOs' positioning in the debate, saying: "If we want to reduce emissions from fossil fuels, we have only biofuels. Carmakers are certainly opposed to making more fuel-efficient vehicles, and they are getting their way as we saw in Parliament this week. Do NGOs have some sort of unholy alliance with oil companies?"
But according to Frauke Thies, Greenpeace's EU energy policy campaigner for renewable energies, the report "shows that the 10% target for biofuels in transport could even undermine the overall EU target for renewable energy, since it forces the use of biomass in an inefficient way. There is a much better use of biomass in the electricity and heating sectors and Greenpeace therefore demands that the 10% transport target be dropped."
Ariel Brunner, EU agriculture policy officer for BirdLife International said in response to the report: "The proposed EU biofuels policy offers hardly any climate benefits at outstanding environmental risks. Now that even the Commission's own experts say so, it is time for the biofuels target to be set aside and for fresh thinking on how to really tackle climate change while preserving natural habitats":
energy :: sustainability :: biomass :: bioenergy :: biofuels :: ethanol :: biodiesel :: EU :: Greenpeace ::
Development NGOs are also concerned that already the growth in the use of biofuels is pushing up food prices. Last year, during the 'tortilla crisis', thousands of Mexicans demonstrated against the rise in tortilla and corn prices caused by the growth in US demand for ethanol. However, economists have said not all biofuels contribute to this price rise: again, sugarcane has not led to increases so far.
Meanwhile, the competition commissioner, Neelie Kroes, plans to adjust rules on state aid for environmental projects in order to permit an increased government subsidy of endeavours such as carbon capture and storage (CCS), public transport projects and emissions trading, according to a report in the weekly European Voice.
The rule change is one of a raft of proposals that make up the commissions package on climate change that will be officially announced next Wednesday (23 January).
Governments would be able to contribute up to 60% of the cost of environmental projects coordinated by large enterprises – up from the current 40%; up to 70% for medium-sized enterprises; and up to 80% for small businesses. For projects awarded by competitive tender, governments can fund up to 100% of their cost.
References:
EU Observer: Commission's own scientists question biofuels - January 18, 2008.
EurActiv: Commission scientists blast EU biofuels policy - January 18, 2008.
Biopact: EU could ban its own biofuels and be forced to import all fuels from poor countries - January 16, 2008
The report notes that the decision to target emission reductions by establishing a minimum 10% of biofuels in transport reduces the benefits which could be achieved by using biomass in other sectors and with the same financial resources.
“Biomass saves much more fossil fuel and greenhouse gas emissions in other sectors,” reads the study.
Moreover, the report states that "The decrease in welfare caused by imposing a biofuel target is between 33 and 65 billion euros within an 80 per cent probability range," it adds. This is so because European biofuels cannot compete without subsidies and trade protection.
The only liquid biofuels the JCR sees as viable are highly efficient fuels like sugarcane ethanol.
Greenpeace leaks the report just in time, in a period when criticism against biofuels has reached an all-time high, with the European Parliament and environmentalists calling for mandatory greenhouse gas reduction targets before a fuel can be called a biofuel. Their proposed target - a 50% CO2 reduction against fossil fuels - would imply that only biofuels made in (sub)tropical countries, and second generation fuels, would qualify (earlier post). All European and North American biofuels would be banned.
The report buttresses worries over biofuels that suggests they may actually contribute to global warming through the deforestation and peat bog burning that is required for biofuel sources such as soya and oil palm trees.
Reactions
A Commission spokeswoman is cited by the Financial Times as saying that the JRC report had not been peer-reviewed. She said: "It is a contribution to the debate. We are looking at the whole picture and we will have sustainability criteria."
Rob Vierhout, secretary general of the European Bioethanol Fuel Association (eBIO), also stressed that the report, as it stands, means nothing as it has not yet been reviewed. "I am not surprised by the report as it has always been the agenda of the JRC to discredit biofuels ever since they started their Well-to-Wheel project with the oil and car industry," he told EurActiv.
Vierhout added: "We have long asked to be a partner in this study but so far we have been completely left out. This is not the way democracy should function." According to him, "the fact that the study is being leaked now – one week ahead of the Commission legislation on biofuels – is a deliberate attempt by the oil industry to kill off the EU's biofuels policy."
He further questioned NGOs' positioning in the debate, saying: "If we want to reduce emissions from fossil fuels, we have only biofuels. Carmakers are certainly opposed to making more fuel-efficient vehicles, and they are getting their way as we saw in Parliament this week. Do NGOs have some sort of unholy alliance with oil companies?"
But according to Frauke Thies, Greenpeace's EU energy policy campaigner for renewable energies, the report "shows that the 10% target for biofuels in transport could even undermine the overall EU target for renewable energy, since it forces the use of biomass in an inefficient way. There is a much better use of biomass in the electricity and heating sectors and Greenpeace therefore demands that the 10% transport target be dropped."
Ariel Brunner, EU agriculture policy officer for BirdLife International said in response to the report: "The proposed EU biofuels policy offers hardly any climate benefits at outstanding environmental risks. Now that even the Commission's own experts say so, it is time for the biofuels target to be set aside and for fresh thinking on how to really tackle climate change while preserving natural habitats":
energy :: sustainability :: biomass :: bioenergy :: biofuels :: ethanol :: biodiesel :: EU :: Greenpeace :: Development NGOs are also concerned that already the growth in the use of biofuels is pushing up food prices. Last year, during the 'tortilla crisis', thousands of Mexicans demonstrated against the rise in tortilla and corn prices caused by the growth in US demand for ethanol. However, economists have said not all biofuels contribute to this price rise: again, sugarcane has not led to increases so far.
Meanwhile, the competition commissioner, Neelie Kroes, plans to adjust rules on state aid for environmental projects in order to permit an increased government subsidy of endeavours such as carbon capture and storage (CCS), public transport projects and emissions trading, according to a report in the weekly European Voice.
The rule change is one of a raft of proposals that make up the commissions package on climate change that will be officially announced next Wednesday (23 January).
Governments would be able to contribute up to 60% of the cost of environmental projects coordinated by large enterprises – up from the current 40%; up to 70% for medium-sized enterprises; and up to 80% for small businesses. For projects awarded by competitive tender, governments can fund up to 100% of their cost.
References:
EU Observer: Commission's own scientists question biofuels - January 18, 2008.
EurActiv: Commission scientists blast EU biofuels policy - January 18, 2008.
Biopact: EU could ban its own biofuels and be forced to import all fuels from poor countries - January 16, 2008
posted by Biopact team at 2:25 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home