On the 1st April, 2008, the addition 2.5% of biodiesel to petrol and diesel becomes UK law.
Under the terms of the Renewable Transport Fuels Obligation (RTFO), fuel suppliers have to be able to prove that 2.5% of the fuel they sell is from ‘renewable’ sources – which means biofuels.
In 2010, this obligation will rise to 5% and it is scheduled to rise to 10% by 2020.
So what’s the problem?
Well, as I’ve hinted at before, the problem with biofuels is that there is growing evidence that they result in an increase in our carbon footprint – not a decrease. And it’s not just me. This week, two leading UK scientists (both current or former government scientists) have warned that there is growing evidence that the production of biofuels is creating serious problems.
The two scientists concerned are Professor Robert Watson, the chief scientific adviser to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and Sir David King, the former chief scientific officer to the government.
Discussing the new biofuel policy in an interview on BBC Radio 4 this week, Watson said that “It would obviously be insane if we had a policy to try and reduce greenhouse gas emissions through the use of biofuels that’s actually leading to an increase in the greenhouse gases from biofuels.”
King backed Watson’s comments, saying that “What is absolutely desperately needed within government are people of integrity who will state what the science advice is under whatever political pressure or circumstances” and suggesting that policy decisions are delayed until the results of a biofuels review commissioned by the government are published.
Watson’s concerns are twofold:
- Different types of biofuel have considerably different carbon footprints. We need to differentiate between them.
- The global commercial appetite for biofuels means that areas of rainforest are being cleared to grow commercial crops and agricultural land formerly used for food production is being switched over to fuel crop production.
The combination of these two factors means that in many cases biofuels may be contributing to an increase in our carbon footprint when compared to using oil-based fuels – not a decrease.
For example, deforestation in countries such as Brazil and Indonesia is increasing to make way for lucrative biofuel crops. This is resulting in a devastating loss of natural habitat and an 17-420 times increase in carbon emissions compared to the savings from not using fossil fuels, according to a new study published in the leading US journal Science.
Biofuel production is also widely accepted to have played a role in pushing up food prices over the last year, especially as a result of US government policy favouring production of bioethanol-type fuels.
It all adds up to a big question mark? Can biofuels help reduce carbon emissions? Is the environmental cost of salving our oil-drenched consciences with biofuel too high to pay?
Does this article refer to biofuels or biodiesel as from my own research and interpretation there is a vast difference? Any clarification would be greatly appreciated as the whole debate seems to be somewhat muddled and very much so to laymen such as myself.
My understanding has always been that biodiesel is a specific type of biofuel, designed for diesel engines. A general debate about these types of fuel should probably use the term biofuels.
I agree that the terms sometimes seem to be freely interchanged.
The main issue is the environmental sacrifices and economic impact (on food production) required to produce biofuels in large and cost-effective quanties. I think it’s fair to say that these issues apply fairly equally to all biofuels – whether biodiesel, bioethanol or something else.
Hope this helps clarify things a litle.
Pingback: Biodiesel. Anyone use it? - Ceroc Scotland Forum
Sir,
There are many articles on biofuels, and many contradictions, when edible oils are used to produce biodiesel it has an effect of food prices, not when non-edible oils are used.
Ethanol uses agri crops that are edible hence it has effect on the food sector. the solution is to use non edible oils from developing countries so that it will be economical and subsidies will not be required.
When Biodiesel is produced using jatropha oil seeds the energy used is less that 5% the pollution reduced is very large, most comments are based on a particular situation that is causing the confusion.
As for clearing forests to plant palm which will give the people an income is that countries sovereign decision why are other commenting about it. If they in turn ask the developed countries to use public transport and avoid private cars are you willing to take that suggestion.
Thanks for your comment, you make some good points, but I’d like to comment on a couple of them:
1. Growing crops to produce oils for fuel use can and does affect food prices because some of the land used to grow the fuel crops was previously used to grow food crops. This means that less food is grown and food prices rise. It doesn’t matter whether the oils are edible or non-edible – the point is that lots of farmers (in the USA, for example) have switched their agricultural land from food crops to fuel crops, resulting in a reduced supply of certain food crops. This means that rich western countries will import the missing food from poorer countries. The result is that the price of food rises in the poorest countries. The west doesn’t suffer, even though it causes the problem.
2. Deforestation and change of land use to create palm oil plantations is an issue that should concern us because of the effect it has on the environment as a whole. I agree that many western countries don’t care about this and are happy to buy cheap palm oil – but I believe they should care. You are completely right that the same western countries would not welcome the suggestion that they should stop using private cars and travel by bus everywhere!
Pingback: EU Introduces Biofuel Sustainability Certification – But Will It Really Help? - UK Van & Van Hire News