SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
biofuels
Growing Food for Fuel Is Starving People
Modern biofuels are touted as a boon for the climate. But, used on a large scale, they are no more sustainable than whale oil.
Jul 03, 2022
What can you say about governments that, in the midst of a global food crisis, choose instead to feed machines? You might say they were crazy, uncaring or cruel. But these words scarcely suffice when you seek to describe the burning of food while millions starve.
"If biofuel production ceased worldwide, according to one estimate, the saved crops could feed 1.9 billion human beings."
There's nothing complicated about the effects of turning crops into biofuel. If food is used to power cars or generate electricity or heat homes, either it must be snatched from human mouths, or ecosystems must be snatched from the planet's surface, as arable lands expand to accommodate the extra demand. But governments and the industries that they favor obscure this obvious truth. They distract and confuse us about an evidently false solution to climate breakdown.
From inception, the incentives and rules promoting biofuels on both sides of the Atlantic had little to do with saving the planet and everything to do with political expediency. Angela Merkel pushed for an EU biofuels mandate as a means of avoiding stronger fuel economy standards for German motor manufacturers. In the US, they have long been used to prop up the price of grain and provide farmers with a guaranteed market. That's why the Biden administration, as the midterm elections loom, remains committed to this cruelty.
As the investigative group Transport & Environment shows, the land used to grow the biofuels consumed in Europe covers 14m hectares (35m acres): an area larger than Greece. Of the soy oil consumed in the European Union, 32% is eaten by cars and trucks. They devour 50% of all the palm oil used in the EU and 58% of the rapeseed oil. Altogether, 18% of the world's vegetable oil is turned into biodiesel, and 10% of the world's grains are transformed into ethanol, to mix with petrol.
A new report by Green Alliance,an independent think tank, shows that the food used by the UK alone for biofuels could feed 3.5 million people. If biofuel production ceased worldwide, according to one estimate, the saved crops could feed 1.9 billion human beings. The only consistent and reliable outcome of this technology is hunger.
It's not just a matter of the upward pressure on food prices, great as this is. Biofuel markets also provide a major incentive for land grabbing from small farmers and indigenous people. Since 2000, 10m hectares of Africa's land, often the best land, has been bought or seized by sovereign wealth funds, corporations, and private investors. They replace food production for local people with "flex crops": commodities such as soya and maize that can be switched between markets for food, animal feed, or biofuel, depending on which prices are strongest. Land grabbing is a major cause of destitution and hunger.
As biofuels raise demand for land, rainforests, marshes, and savannahs in Indonesia, Malaysia, Brazil, and Africa are cleared. There's a limit to how much we can eat. There's no limit to how much we can burn.
All the major crop sources of biodiesel have a higher climate impact than the fossil fuels they replace. Rapeseed oil causes 1.2 times as much global heating, soy oil twice as much, palm oil three times. The same goes for ethanol made from wheat. Yet this consideration hasn't stopped the reopening of a bioethanol plant in Hull, in response to government incentives, which will use the wheat grown on 130,000 hectares of land.
Whenever a new biofuel market is launched, we are told it will run on waste. A recent example is BP's claim that planes will be fueled by "sustainable feedstocks such as used cooking oil and household waste." Invariably, as soon as the market develops, dedicated crops are grown to supply it. Already, all the waste that can realistically be extracted is being used, yet it accounts for just 17% of the EU's biodiesel and scarcely any bioethanol. Even these figures, according to an industry whistleblower who contacted me, are stretched: as waste palm oil, thanks to the demand for "green" biodiesel, can be more valuable than new oil, fresh supplies are allegedly slipped into the waste stream.
Far from heeding the concerns, however, last year the UK government, "responding to industry feedback", increased its target for the amount of biofuel used in surface transport. Worse, it justifies continued airport expansion with the claim that planes will soon be able to use "sustainable" fuels. In practice this means biofuel, as no other "sustainable" source is likely to power mass air travel in the medium term. But there is no means of flying more than a tiny number of planes on this fuel that does not involve both global starvation and ecological catastrophe.
Now the energy company Ecotricity has relaunched a plan to turn 6.4m hectares of the UK - over one-quarter of our land area - into feedstock for biogas plants. Ecotricity's founder, Dale Vince, has made the astonishing claim that "it's a plan with no downsides." But, as critics have been trying to point out to him, this scheme would incur enormous ecological, carbon, and food opportunity costs. In other words, the land could either be used for growing food; or, if it ceased to be used for food production, would draw down more carbon and harbor more wildlife if it were rewilded. Biogas production has also triggered severe pollution events, caused by spreading the residue back onto the land, which is a crucial part of Ecotricity's plan, or by leaks and ruptures. It's the worst land-use proposal I've ever seen in the UK.
When I challenged Vince about these issues, he told me: "We're not the big bad corporate. We're environmentalists that get things done, and often enough when we start something new we upset the settled view of things."
But we can't use such fixes to solve our climate crisis. To leave fossil fuels in the ground, we should change our energy system: our need to travel, our modes of transport, the fuel economy of our homes, and the means by which we heat them. Modern biofuels, used at scale, are no more sustainable than an older variety: whale oil. And burning food is the definition of decadence.
Keep ReadingShow Less
New Study Warns Biofuels May Be Worse for Climate Than Gas
When taking farmland and crop growth into account, the plant-based energy may not be all that carbon-neutral, study says
Aug 26, 2016
A new study finds that biofuels--which are derived from plants like corn or soybeans and sometimes considered to be carbon-neutral--may actually be worse for the climate than gas.
University of Michigan (UM) Energy Institute research professor John DeCicco analyzed all the greenhouse gas emissions created in the supply chains of various fuel types. For gas, that meant starting with extraction and transportation, among other parts of the process; for biofuels, it was farming and fertilizer use, but not tailpipe pollution, due to the presumed carbon dioxide offset, the Detroit Free Press explains.
The Free Press reports:
Using U.S. Department of Agriculture cropland production data, determining the chemical composition of crops and accounting for all of the carbon from the plants, DeCicco created a "harvest carbon" factor. Over the past decade, as the consumption of corn ethanol and biodiesel more than tripled in the U.S., the increased carbon uptake by the crops only offset 37 percent of carbon dioxide emissions from biofuel combustion, DeCicco said.
Mathematically speaking, "When it comes to the emissions that cause global warming, it turns out that biofuels are worse than gasoline," he said.
By casting doubts on the efficacy of biofuels, the study has brought on some harsh critiques from those who believe they will help transition to a low-carbon world. Some critics pointed out that the study was funded by the American Petroleum Institute (API), which has a "vested interest" in the failure of the biofuel industry, the Free Press notes.
But the plant-based energy source has come under fire before. A study published last year by the World Resources Institute found that dedicating crops and farmland to the creation of bioenergy "will undercut efforts to combat climate change and to achieve a sustainable food future."
Andrew Steer, president of the World Resources Institute, told the New York Times at the study's publication that "many of the claims for biofuels have been dramatically exaggerated. There are other, more effective routes to get to a low-carbon world."
Timothy Searchinger, a Princeton researcher and biofuel critic, told Climate Central on Thursday that the UM study provides "additional calculation" for the argument that the energy is not, in fact, carbon-neutral.
"The U.S. is not coming close to offsetting the carbon released by burning biofuels through additional crop growth," Searchinger said.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Biofuels Bubble Turns to Bust
Today, the European Parliament agreed new EU laws to limit the use of crop-based biofuels.
EU law makers ruled that biofuels can compete with food production, contribute to climate change, and put pressure on land use - and so have set a limit on the quantity of biofuels that can be used to meet EU energy targets (at no more than 7% of transport energy).[1]
Apr 28, 2015
Today, the European Parliament agreed new EU laws to limit the use of crop-based biofuels.
EU law makers ruled that biofuels can compete with food production, contribute to climate change, and put pressure on land use - and so have set a limit on the quantity of biofuels that can be used to meet EU energy targets (at no more than 7% of transport energy).[1]
With Europe the world's biggest user and importer of biodiesel - from crops such as palm oil, soy and rapeseed - the vote will have a major impact around the world, notably in the EU's main international supplier countries Indonesia, Malaysia and Argentina. It is likely to signal the end to the expanding use of food crops for transport fuel.
Robbie Blake, Friends of the Earth Europe's biofuels campaigner, said:
"Let no-one be in doubt, the biofuels bubble has burst. These fuels do more harm than good for people, the environment and the climate. The EU's long-awaited move to put the brakes on biofuels is a clear signal to the rest of the world that this is a false solution to the climate crisis. This must spark the end of burning food for fuel."
This decision brings to an end ten years of debate in the EU [2] over the unintended detrimental effects of biofuels demand on food prices, hunger, forest destruction, land consumption, and climate change.
Kirtana Chandrasekaran, Friends of the Earth International's food sovereignty coordinator, said:
"While the EU has not gone far enough to stop the irresponsible use of food crops for car fuel, this new law acknowledges a reality that small scale food producers worldwide know - that biofuel crops cripple their ability to feed the world, compete for the land that provides their livelihood, and for the water that sustains us. The EU has had to backtrack on its harmful biofuels policy and this should be a lesson to other countries considering similar toxic targets for biofuels."
Around the world, 64 countries have or are considering increasing the amount of biofuels used in transport fuel [3], including most recently Indonesia [4].
Kurniawan Sabar, campaign manager for WALHI/Friends of the Earth Indonesia, said:
"The people of Indonesia will be relieved to hear that the EU has taken some action to limit Europe's demand for palm oil for biofuels, which has escalated deforestation, land grabbing, and conflicts in Indonesia. The Indonesian government should take note and abandon its own plans for new subsidies to expand biofuels plantations in Indonesian forests."
Friends of the Earth now calls on EU countries to phase out the use of food for biofuels completely.
***
NOTES
[1] What the EU has agreed:
* A limit on biofuels from agricultural crops at 7% of EU transport energy - with an option for Member states to go lower. By comparison, the expected business as usual scenario was for biofuels of 8.6% of EU transport energy by 2020; current usage is at 4.7%, having declined in 2013 https://www.energies-renouvelables.org/observ-er/stat_baro/observ/baro222_en.pdf.
* Indirect greenhouse emissions released by expanding biofuels production will be reported on every year by the European Commission and by fuel suppliers. This will increase the transparency of the impacts of this policy.
* Member states should set a 0.5% non-binding target on so-called 'advanced' biofuels (most often derived from straw, household waste, forest and agricultural residues), while giving "due regard" to certain safeguards (such as waste hierarchy).
[2] Background:
The production and consumption of biofuels grew dramatically from 2008-2009 when two EU directives - on Renewable Energy (RED) and Fuel Quality (FQD) - were adopted that included binding targets for 10% of transport energy to be derived from renewable energy by 2020, almost all biofuels. Friends of the Earth opposed targets for biofuels at the time, and has since been campaigning to limit the use of food for fuel.
In October 2012, the European Commission proposed to amend this legislation in reaction to evidence showing the climate impact of some biofuels could be worse for the climate than using fossil fuels, by introducing a 5% limit for food based biofuels (set at current consumption levels). This was subsequently amended by the European Parliament (setting a 6% limit) and EU member states (setting a 7% limit). The vote in the European Parliament in Strasbourg on 29 April 2015, combined with one final approval by European energy ministers, sets this reform into European law.
The EU Commission has additionally stated it intends to scrap all future targets and support for "food based" biofuels after 2020, and future renewable energy targets for transport.
For more information on the problems with biofuels and the background to the EU decision see [briefing].
[3] https://ase.tufts.edu/gdae/Pubs/wp/15-01WiseMandates.pdf
[4] The Indonesian government is planning to boost domestic use of biofuel including from palm oil, with extra subsidies and a mandatory target of 15% biofuel blended into diesel fuel https://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2015/04/06/govt-levies-palm-oil-exports-fund-biodiesel-push.html.
Environmentalists have criticised this decision as "a mistake"
https://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2015/02/16/transfer-subsidy-biofuel-accelerates-deforestation-says-walhi.html
Most Popular