Tag Archives: alternative
Cleaner Energy, Warmer Climate?
Tue, 05/07/2013 – 12:00am Massachusetts Institute of Technology The growing global demand for energy, combined with a need to reduce emissions and lessen the effects of climate change, has increased focus on cleaner energy sources. But what unintended consequences could these cleaner sources have on the changing climate? Researchers at MIT now have some answers to that question, using biofuels as a test case. Their study, recently released in Geophysical Research Letters , found that land-use changes caused by a major ramp-up in biofuel crops — enough to meet about 10 percent of the world’s energy needs — could make some regions even warmer. “Because all actions have consequences, it’s important to consider that even well-intentioned actions can have unintended negative consequences,” says Willow Hallgren, the lead author of the study and a research associate at MIT’s Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change. “It’s easy to look at a new, cleaner energy source, see how it will directly improve the climate, and stop there without ever considering all the ramifications. But when attempting to mitigate climate change, there’s more to consider than simply substituting out fossil fuels for a cleaner source of energy.” Hallgren and her colleagues explored some of those consequences in considering two scenarios: one where more forests are cleared to grow biofuel crops, and one where forests are maintained and cropland productivity is intensified through the use of fertilizers and irrigation. In both cases, the researchers found that at a global scale, greenhouse-gas emissions increase — in the form of more carbon dioxide when CO2-absorbing forests are cut, and in the form of more nitrous oxide from fertilizers when land use is intensified. But this global warming is counterbalanced when the additional cropland reflects more sunlight, causing some cooling. Additionally, an increase in biofuels would replace some fossil fuel-based energy sources, further countering the warming. While the effects of large-scale expansion of biofuels seem to cancel each other out globally, the study does point to significant regional impacts — in some cases, far from where the biofuel crops are grown. In the tropics, for example, clearing of rainforests would likely dry the climate and cause warming, with the Amazon Basin and central Africa potentially warming by 1.5 degrees Celsius. This tropical warming is made worse with more deforestation, which also causes a release of carbon dioxide, further contributing to the warming of the planet. Meanwhile, Arctic regions might generally experience cooling caused by an increase in reflectivity from deforestation. “Emphasizing changes not only globally, but also regionally, is vitally important when considering the impacts of future energy sources,” Hallgren says. “We’ve found the greatest impacts occur at a regional level.” From these results, the researchers found that land-use policies that permit more extensive deforestation would have a larger impact on regional emissions and temperatures. Policies that protect forests would likely provide more tolerable future environmental conditions, especially in the tropics. David McGuire, a professor of ecology at the University of Alaska at Fairbanks, says these findings are important for those trying to implement mitigation policies. “Hallgren et al. caution that society needs to further consider how biofuels policies influence ecosystem services to society, as understanding the full dimension of these effects should be taken into consideration before deciding on policies that lead to the implementation of biofuels programs,” McGuire says. He adds that he finds Hallgren’s incorporation of reflectivity and energy feedbacks unique among studies on the climate impacts of biofuels. Beyond the climate While Hallgren focuses specifically on the climate implications of expanded use of biofuels, she admits there are many other possible consequences — such as impacts on food supplies and prices. A group of her colleagues explored the economic side of biofuel expansion as part of a study released last year in Environmental Science & Technology — a paper that was recognized as that journal’s Best Policy Analysis Paper of 2012. The team, led by Joint Program on Global Change co-director John Reilly, modeled feedbacks among the atmosphere, ecosystems and the global economy. They found that the combination of a carbon tax, incentives for reforestation and the addition of biofuels could nearly stabilize the climate by the end of the century; increased biofuels production alone could cut fossil-fuel use in half by 2100. But just as Hallgren found trade-offs when she dug deeper, so did Reilly and his team of researchers. “The environmental change avoided by reducing greenhouse-gas emissions is substantial and actually means less land used for crops,” Reilly says. This leads to substantial rises in food and forestry prices, he says, with food prices possibly rising by more than 80 percent. Hallgren says, “There is clearly no one simple cause and effect when it comes to our climate. The impacts we see — both to the environment and the economy — from adding a large supply of biofuels to our energy system illustrate why it is so important to consider all factors so that we’ll know what we’re heading into before making a change.” Continue reading
G8 Under Pressure To Rethink Biofuel Mandates
Published 08 May 2013 EXCLUSIVE / Leaders of the EU and their partners in the G8 nations are under mounting pressure to reconsider their support for biofuel targets amid concern that plant oil production competes with food output in poor countries. Britain, which chairs the G8 this year, is holding a global meeting on nutrition and food on 8 June, a week before the regular G8 summit in Northern Ireland. Prime Minister David Cameron has pledged to make trade, tax enforcement and transparency priorities for the summit. These points are expected to be noted on Wednesday (8 May) in the Queen’s Speech, which outlines the government’s parliamentary agenda for the year. But concerns are already emerging about whether the G8 – which includes two major biofuel champions, the United States and the EU – should agree to reconsider fuel policies as part of their commitments to fight world hunger. Among those questioning the policies are a British parliamentary select committee and the Enough Food for Everyone, or IF campaign, which includes some 200 British and international groups lobbying to reduce world hunger. Barry Johnston, the UK political advisor for Christian Aid, which is part of the IF campaign, said he was hopeful the G8 would acknowledge biofuel production “as a significant issue” and agree to shed more light on large land transactions in developing countries that are increasingly the leading source of plant oils. “One of the structural issues that underlies the fact that one in eight people go to be bed hungry every night is that land is being bought up, whole strips of it, in ways that aren’t very transparent, deals that don’t show a benefit for local populations and in some cases, they are directly taking food out of the mouths of people and putting into cars in the EU,” he said in a telephone interview on Tuesday (7 May). “So there’s a moral imperative to act there. Consumption that happens in the West in richer countries has a direct impact on the ability of individuals to feed themselves in poorer countries, and that can’t continue at current rates.” IF campaigners are also urging G8 leaders to build on recent momentum in Europe and the United States to combat tax evasion, which the campaigners estimate costs developing nations some €122 billion per year – more than total development aid. Besides Britain, the G8 members are Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia and the United States. The EU is represented at the summits by the presidents of the EU Council and Commission, Herman Van Rompuy and José Manuel Barroso. Only Japan and Russia have not set biofuel targets for transport. Concerns about food security A British Parliament select committee is preparing to wrap up its enquiry into world hunger and food security ahead the summit. At recent hearings, Westminster lawmakers questioned the impact of EU-driven policies on biofuel, especially on developing nations. Malcolm Bruce, chairman of the House of Commons’ International Development Committee, grilled the undersecretary of state of transport, Norman Baker, about the EU policies. “What we have heard in the evidence so far is a pretty overwhelming view that the existing [biofuel] mandate should be scrapped,” Bruce said at hearing on 18 April. “The people who have given evidence to us say it is distorting, dysfunctional and it should be scrapped,” Bruce said, according to a Commons transcript. “That seems to be all the evidence. Everybody we have had has said it should be scrapped, so why is it not being scrapped, or at least radically changed?” Baker and other government representatives were asked whether Cameron would be addressing the potential impact of biofuel demand on food output, and foreign purchases of land in sub-Saharan Africa for agri-oil production. The undersecretary for international development, Lynne Featherstone, said the British government supported development of biofuel that did not compete with food crops or production. In testimony before the committee, she also said the government would seek greater transparency in land deals in developing nations. “Our aim is to secure agreement from major G8 investors to commit to publish data on land acquisitions, and make that accessible to local communities, whether it is biofuels, commercial investments or China buying some land with an eye to in future feeding the Chinese rather than the Africans, which is always the fear that has arisen,” Featherstone said. Defending biofuel mandates Farm groups and the biofuel industry have hit back at their critics, saying plant-based fuels give farmers new markets while helping to reduce carbon emissions. They also deny any direct links to food price volatility, noting that the two main transport fuels produced from plant oil – ethanol and biodiesel – did not exist during the wild food price fluctuations of the 1970s. The industry is pressured the EU not to back away from its longtime support for alternative fuels after the European Commission last year called for halving its target of 10% biofuel use in transport by 2020 in response to a spike in food costs and concern about the environmental impact of plant-oil cultivation in developing nations. One of Europe’s leading biofuel industry groups, ePure, points out that ethanol uses post-food residues for fuel production. The industry also says it is moving ahead with development of advanced biofuels that do not compete with food crops. European farm groups, including the influential Copa-Cogeca, have denounced moves to reverse the EU’s biofuel commitments, saying they hurt farmers and jeopardise investments in oil production. But acknowledging potential impacts on developing nations, Copa-Cogeca has urged the EU to “encourage the introduction of effective environmental legislation in third countries in order to prevent the phenomenon of land use change.” POSITIONS: The United Nations’ special rapporteur on food rights, Olivier De Schutter, wants the EU to scrap its binding targets for fuel, saying the policies drive up food prices and push production to developing nations because of insufficient land within the EU. “The impacts on these countries are overwhelmingly negative and are alleged to infringe on the realisation of the human right to adequate food,” the Belgian lawyer said in a statement on 23 April. He has also linked biofuel demand to food price spikes and urged the EU to rethink its Common Agricultural Policy, saying its subsidies and support for European growers undermine farmers in less-developed regions. Citing the estimated €122 billion believed to be lost every year through tax avoidance and tax evasion in developing nations, Barry Johnston, the UK political advisor for Christian Aid, a charity group, said: “That is more than the global flow of aid into the developing world. Just through tax dodging alone, we see poor countries are net contributors to the rich world. The G8 has taken action on this before, it’s looked at the issue and made recommendations but this year we want to see concrete outcomes. So we’re pushing for measures there that will benefit developing countries and what that does it releases significant amounts of resources for investment in agriculture and nutrition.” NEXT STEPS: 28 May: World Hunger Day 8 June: British government hosting meeting on growth and nutrition ahead of the G8 summit 17-18 June: G8 Summit at Fermanagh, Northern Ireland Continue reading
Ed Davey Hits Out Against Coalition Climate Change Sceptics
Energy and climate change secretary will use a major speech at Clarence House to promise stronger action on global warming Fiona Harvey , environment correspondent guardian.co.uk , Wednesday 8 May 2013 13.15 BST Ed Davey , the energy and climate change secretary, is to use a major speech at Clarence House on Wednesday afternoon to fight back against the increasingly vocal climate change scepticism among other parts of the coalition. His uncompromising speech, seen by the Guardian, promises stronger action on global warming and follows the admission by his party leader, Nick Clegg, that green issues are now some of the most serious flashpoints between the coalition partners . The Liberal Democrats have long sought to be seen as strong on the environment, a core issue for the party’s voters. But they have suffered setbacks in government as the Treasury has cut renewable energy support and an increasingly vocal number of Tories oppose windfarms , money for low-carbon projects and tougher targets for UK emissions cuts, all of which the Lib Dems support. The extent of some of the divisions was on display in the European parliament recently, when rebel Tory MEPs played a pivotal role in scuppering plans to rescue the EU’s carbon trading system (ETS) . Davey struck a firm stance: “As a politician, you quickly realise that compromise is a part of the game. But there are some issues where you have to draw the line – where you have to stand up and be counted, and you have to do the right thing. I think climate change is firmly in that category.” He quoted David Cameron as saying “we can’t afford not to” act on the problem. Davey was speaking to a conference on preserving tropical forests, an area where progress has been disappointing despite deforestation being one of the leading sources of carbon emissions . The conference was convened by the Prince of Wales, who has set up a working group to find ways of funding forest protection. Davey pinned his hopes on a global deal to cut greenhouse gas emissions, through United Nations negotiations that are proceeding at a glacial pace , although governments have agreed to write a new agreement by 2015 that would come into force from 2020. “The bottom line is climate change can only be addressed through an international response to reduce emissions.” He also addressed the tricky issue of the future of carbon trading. Davey and allies including France and Germany suffered a serious setback a few weeks ago when the European parliament – aided by most of the UK’s Tory MEPS, who defied the official party line – voted against reforms that would have rescued the EU’s emissions trading system. Although the CBI supported the reforms, there was heavy lobbying from other EU business groups to reject the reforms, that would have helped to prop up the price of carbon dioxide permits to businesses. Davey vowed to fight on for reforms to strengthen the troubled system, in which the price of carbon dioxide permits has fallen to record lows, giving companies almost no incentive to reduce their emissions. “The UK was one of nine member states to announce in a joint statement this week that we want the EU ETS to be reformed so it sends the right price signals to properly stimulate low-carbon investment,” he said. In a side swipe at the business interests that helped to scupper EU ETS reform and that have opposed spending on the low-carbon economy in the UK, Davey pledged: “Across multiple fronts, the UK is mounting a strong, concerted effort to unite and find common ground. Because we cannot gamble our future on vested interest and short-term gain. The stakes are too high.” Continue reading
