European Parliament demands sustainability certification for biofuels
The European Parliament passed a resolution last Tuesday supporting a mandatory blend of biofuels at European pumps. At the same time, it declared its intent to investigate to make sure those biofuels are environmentally sustainable. Thirdly, the Parliament passed a non-mandatory resolution stating that the best way to reduce CO2 emissions is to reduce fuel consumption. This resolution includes an amendment that states nuclear energy should not be considered to reduce CO2 emissions.
With this resolution, the Parliament supports the European Commission plan of a mandatory 10 percent blend of biofuels in fuel by 2020 but adds the condition to make them using sustainable methods. The resolution includes a proposal for a compulsory certification system declaring the source of biofuels, both local and imported. Although they wouldn't be banned, "bad" biofuels could never benefit from tax exemptions or European funds.
The accompaining resolution about fuel consumption states that "the automotive industry should stop focusing so much in biofuels and focusing more in low-consumption vehicles, as well as electric vehicles and hydrogen".
[Source: EFE via Agroinformacion]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
rgseidl 1:10PM (9/27/2007)
Note that in many European countries, lawmakers are forcing refineries to blend low biofuel fractions into all on-road fuel. In Austria, regular Euro95 will contain 4.4% ethanol by weight as of Oct 1. For now, the biofuel fraction of the fuel is exempted from fuel taxes to keep prices at the pump the same.
Low mandatory blends mean there is no need for a separate distribution infrastructure as there is for E85 in the US. The energy security impact is virtually immediate, as with last year's switch from MTBE to ethanol in the US - though that was made for legal liability reasons.
The snag is that we're all still stuck with first-gen technology, so most of the feedstock and/or finished ethanol has to be imported, some of it from (politically friendly) tropical countries like Brazil. Meanwhile, there is a glut of domestically produced biodiesel because tax incentives were removed after they created rather more of a hole in the budget than the finance ministry was willing to accept. Variations on this theme are playing out in Germany and several other Western European countries.
There is a growing body of evidence that the enthousiasm for biofuels was perhaps a little premature. First-gen technologies have serious consequences, e.g. rising food prices in developing countries and, clear-cutting of virgin rain forest.
In that context, "bad" biofuels could easily become de facto synonymous with "imports", protecting domestic producers by way of red tape. Second-gen production methods, including biocrude from farm wastes and intensive algaculture using scrubbed flue gases from coal-fired power plants, would allow Europe to produce more of its transportation fuels domestically at competitive prices. Even then, vehicles will indeed have to become more efficient for the EU's self-imposed biofuel target of 10% of total fuel volume to be met in 2020.
Reply
GreyFlcn 7:57PM (9/27/2007)
Heh, well who are we kidding ourselves.
Of course biofuels were concepted as are pork for domestic markets.
Near-slave workers in Indonesia don't vote in your district.
Reply