Biofuels Will Not Solve Global Warming: IPCC’s Report Sparks Protest
Last week's release of the IPCC's Summary for Policymakers on climate change mitigation sparked backlash from several environmental groups. In a joint press release, Biofuelwatch, Global Forest Coalition, Global Justice Ecology Project, and several others stated they are "deeply concerned" about the inclusion of "large-scale expansion of biofuels from monoculture", including Genetically Modified (GM) crops, as a specific recommendation for mitigating catastrophic climate change.
According to the statement, the indisputable need for drastic greenhouse gas emissions reductions should not hinge upon wider implementation of biofuels that contribute to deforestation and compete so readily with the world's food supply:
[M]onoculture expansion is a driving force behind the destruction of rainforests and other carbon sinks and reservoirs, thus accelerating climate change. . .[It] is a major threat to the livelihoods and food sovereignty of communities many of which are already bearing the brunt of climate change disasters caused largely by the fossil fuel emissions of industrialised countries."
The IPCC summary states that "Biofuels might play an important role in addressing GHG emissions in the transport sector, depending on their production pathway." It also suggests the implementation of second-generation GM biofuels, e.g. cellulosic ethanol from switchgrass, made from crops genetically engineered to facilitate ethanol production. Presently there is no consensus on how or when newer biofuels will be economically feasible and widely available, but some estimate the technology is at least 10-15 years from commercialization.
Vast tracts of fuel-producing GM monocultures do not sound appealing, nor does growth of currently destructive agricultural practices. Indonesia is already planning to increase biofuel crop production 43 fold to meet projected world biodiesel demand, consequently opening up 20 million more hectares to crop production. According to the press release, this expansion would release 50 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere - or 6 years worth of global CO2 emissions. I've also already discussed Brazil's potentially damaging soy cropping industry and the impact of domestic ethanol production on world food prices. As Jeff noted in his post on the subject, Almuth Ernsting of Biofuelwatch highlighted that biofuels now supply only 1% of global transport needs and have already affected grain and food prices for the world's poor.
Mayer Hillman, senior fellow emeritus at Policy Studies Institute said: "There is an inherent and acutely serious problem within the report. On the one hand, it leaves us in no doubt to how vital conservation of the planet's ecosystems and carbon sinks are to averting the worst predictions made in the previous sections of the report. On the other, it proposes the large scale use of the biosphere to satisfy demand in the transport and energy sectors."
But it doesn't seem clear the IPCC is arguing for full-scale implementation of biofuels at all–rather, the argument seems to be for the development of common-sense biofuel policy that avoids the worst aspects of biofuel production. Many fail to understand that biofuels are only a piece in a greater renewable energy portfolio. No sane and logical enthusiast will claim to have the panacea for intense and growing resource consumption.
Here are some of the IPCC's actual recommendations under 'mitigation for the tansport sector':
- More fuel efficient vehicles; hybrid vehicles; cleaner diesel vehicles;biofuels; modal shifts from road transport to rail and public transportsystems; non-motorised transport (cycling, walking); land-use and transport planning.
- Second generation biofuels; higher efficiency aircraft; advanced electric and hybrid vehicles with more powerful and reliable batteries.
- Transport Demand Management, which includes urban planning (that can reduce thedemand for travel) and provision of information and educational techniques (that can reduce car usage and lead to an efficient driving style) can support GHG mitigation.
- Investment in attractive public transport facilities and non-motorised forms of transport.
- Mandatory fuel economy, biofuel blending and CO2 standards for road transport.
This all sounds pretty reasonable to me. But technology will only get us so far, and the summary nails this on the head:
Changes in lifestyle and behaviour patterns can contribute to climate change mitigation across all sectors. Management practices can also have a positive role. (high agreement, medium evidence)
There are multiple mitigation options in the transport sector, but their effect may be counteracted by growth in the sector. Mitigation options are faced with many barriers, such as consumer preferences and lack of policy frameworks (medium
agreement, medium evidence)."
If the IPCC were to suggest that the global climate could be stabilized without a significant reduction in growth and concomitant lifestyle changes by First World (and growing Third World) nations, this would be problematic, and doesn't seem to be the case. Without overemphasizing their importance, I think we can say that biofuels have a niche (and perhaps only that) in the transition to greener fuel sources and global reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.
Read the Summary for yourself: Working Group III Report "Mitigation of Climate Change" Summary for policymakers.
Tags: agriculture, Alternative Fuels, Automobiles, Biodiesel, biofuels, Climate Change, climate+change, Environment, Ethanol, Food Production, global+warming, Green News, greenhouse+gases, IPCC, Political News, Politics
- Uncategorized
May 7th, 2007 at 5:57 pm
Great information. I don’t pretend to know very much about biofuels though they greatly iterest me. Thanks for the insight.
May 7th, 2007 at 6:28 pm
That's what I'm here for :). Thanks for the comment.
May 8th, 2007 at 11:35 am
If the world’s leading scientists think biofuels can play an important role, then they probably know what they are saying.
The IPCC mentions bioenergy, biofuels and bioproducts as important, not only in the transport sector, but in virtually all other economic sectors:
-energy supply (bioenergy with carbon storage, which is a carbon negative energy system that cleans up emissions from the past, not just from the present)
(about this radical energy system, now recognized by the IPCC, see:
Bioenergy and Carbon Storage, the only carbon negative energy system.
-transport: first and second generation biofuels
-agriculture: soil carbon storage, dedicated energy crops to reduce fossil fuel use, improved energy crops
-forestry: tree species improvement to increase biomass productivity and carbon storage capacity; use forestry products to replace climate destructive fossil fuels
-waste: biogas and landfill methane recovery; biocovers and biofilters to optimize CH4 oxidation
In short, the bioeconomy is really needed to help save the planet from destruction.
Contrary to what some environmentalists think, biofuels offer a major opportunity for poverty alleviation in the South, it helps diversify the portfolio of farmers who are else left with one cash crop and face low prices; the massive opportunity for increased incomes boosts the food security of the rural populations (70% of all Africans are farmers, so for them it’s the chance of a lifetime to lift their continent out of misery).
Moreover, because of this development, the ecosystems in the South will be preserved. Poverty is the key driver in deforestation and environmental destruction. Biofuels offer a chance to combat poverty, resulting in less environmntal destruction.
Finally, there is a very strict correlation between poverty, development and energy prices. High oil prices fuel poverty, drain poor countries’ treasuries. In the South, this means: more deforestation, no investments in intensive and efficient agriculture that uses less land, more food scarcity. A deadly and destructive cycle, very bad for the environment.
Biofuels offer a way out: an alternative to costly fossil fuels and a boost in incomes that can turn this situation around. The massive funds they generate can be invested in more efficient agriculture, which uses less land. Most African farmers still slash and burn their way through, because they are poor. With incomes from biofuels and from replacing costly fossil fuels (their only opportunity for an alternative source of income), these practises can gradually be abandoned and Africans can finally invest in modern agriculture (which again boosts their income and food security and reduces envirnomental destruction). A positive, win-win-win cycle.
Tropical and subtropical biofuels have a very strong CO2 an energy balance (up to 8 times better than ethanol made from crops in the US/EU). This means you need much less land to grow fuel for a same amount of energy.
Of course, these biofuels mitigate climate change like no other technology (see carbon negative bioenergy; solar, wind and nuclear are merely carbon neutral; BECS is carbon negative).
Finally, in Africa there are hundreds of millions of hectares of non-forest land suitable for energy crops, that can be grown explicitly in a very sustainable manner. All major science organisations have recognized this fact: the IEA, the UN, the EU’s research organisations.
The problem is: a lack of income and funds makes these lands off-limits (lack of infrastructure), which is why farmers in the South are forced to use forested land. The biofuels opportunity will now change this, and, because of a massive influx of funds, will allow farmers to use these hundreds of millions of hectares that were previously inaccessible.
In short, biofuels boost food security of the poor, boost income security, and save the planet from total species extinction and dangerous climate change.
Some of the NGO’s who fight so vehemently against biofuels should reconsider their stance. They are important critical actors, but on this one, they got it all wrong. It’s because of a lack of basic scientific insight. Moreover, we are an NGO and we vehemently support biofuels. We have seen no ‘protests’ in Bangkok or on the web.
We do see the same small group of organisations always repeating the same uninformed, and at times plain wrong, message. They should study the matter better, because they are playing with the lives and opportunities of millions of smallholders in the South.
We frequently write about the potential of biofuels to boost food and income security amongst the poor in the Global South, at our website:
Biopact.com.
Kind regards,
Jonas
May 8th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
Current incompetent stories regarding CO2 Causing Climate Change are a fraud.
Junk science is infesting the media, the Internet and public schools, affecting public health, squandering your tax dollars, poisoning sick people and miseducating our children.
Pseudoscientific claptrap abounds. Quackery is now found everywhere.
Consensus is NOT science. Educate, inform yourself, take a 9th grade science class.
Additional information http://www.InteliOrg.com/co2_climate_change.html
Stop listening to folks that have a financial interest in the subject. Unfortunately, many have learned to spin information, thusly have become intellectually and academically dishonest.
Information Vetting: I have no financial interest in this subject.
May 1st, 2008 at 8:34 pm
Previous poster (Dr Coles)should look to recent articles in Nature and Science magazines about the net GHG increase caused by plantation-grown, energy intensive biofuel crops. Deforestation and land conversion are found to create a “carbon debt.” Surely Coles will find these reports scientific, and they present the data on which biofuel crits like Cornell’s depend. Cornell’s article gets it right.