Tag Archives: european
Biofuel Crops: Food Security Must Come First
Even so-called ‘good’ biofuels need safeguards to ensure that they don’t damage biodiversity or displace other crops Ben Phalan theguardian.com , Thursday 29 August 2013 18.06 BST Biofuel crops increase emissions through land clearance, fertiliser use, and by displacing other crops. Photograph: Sipa Press/Rex Features Since 2003, the UK and other EU countries have effectively poured billions of euros into biofuels , on the premise that they reduce emissions from transport. But it has been an expensive case of the Emperor’s new clothes: we now know that many biofuel crops actually increase overall emissions . At the same time, they damage biodiversity, hurt some of the world’s poorest people by pushing up food prices , and cost us an estimated £460m each year. Early in September, the European Parliament will have its first opportunity to put the brakes on. MEPs will vote on whether to amend biofuels policy to take account of the critical issue of indirect land use change (iLUC) and at what level to cap biofuels made from food crops. Biofuel crops increase emissions through land clearance, fertiliser use, and by displacing other crops. When millions of hectares of land are switched from food to biofuel crops, food prices rise and food production is displaced , triggering a domino-like chain of events ending in cropland expansion elsewhere, including into the tropical forests of Southeast Asia and the savannas of South America and Africa. This is iLUC. We can’t point to the precise hectare of rainforest that’s felled because a particular farmer now grows fuel rather than food. But the evidence is clear that burning millions of tonnes of food as biofuel on top of what we eat leads to more land clearance and more fertiliser use (even accounting for useful biofuel co-products fed to animals). UK biofuel use in the first year of monitoring required around 1.4 million hectares of farmland, most of it overseas. That’s an area the size of Northern Ireland, just to provide 3% of our transport fuel. By ignoring iLUC, the EU overlooks a large share of the emissions triggered by its biofuel targets. ILUC is not just about carbon. Agricultural expansion and intensification are among the greatest of all threats to wild nature. Each year, millions of hectares of new cropland threaten tropical forests, wetlands and other biodiversity-rich habitats. Fertiliser run-off from the US corn belt, which supplies us with bioethanol, helps create an oxygen-depleted ‘dead zone’ in the Gulf of Mexico. The EU’s Renewable Energy Directive has laudable ‘sustainability criteria’, but unsustainable biofuels can still be imported; they just don’t count towards the targets. Furthermore, the criteria don’t address iLUC, so biofuel demand continues to cause deforestation and biodiversity loss . If a domino falls in the forest, apparently no-one can hear it. Some in the biofuels industry don’t want iLUC factors introduced next month, because some crops would no longer be counted as ‘green fuels’. But fuels that trigger deforestation, increase emissions and destroy biodiversity are not ‘green’. Supporters of the industry argue that iLUC factors are too uncertain for policy. But they seem happy for policy to support an industry whose promise to deliver lower emissions is even more doubtful. The irony is that any carbon benefit of biofuels is based on their indirect effect in replacing and reducing fossil fuel use. It’s nonsensical to argue that food-based biofuels should be supported for this indirect carbon benefit without also counting their indirect carbon cost. MEPs will also vote on whether to cap use of food as biofuel at 5.5% or 6.5% of transport fuel . The lower cap would protect existing jobs while sending a clear message to investors that food-based biofuels are a poor prospect. In the longer term, we should ask whether it is rational to burn any food at all in our cars. The right biofuels have a role to play in our energy mix, in the right quantities. Governments should continue to support the development of advanced biofuels, such as those made from waste and those grown in places unsuitable for food crops. But even these ‘good biofuels’ need safeguards to ensure that they don’t damage biodiversity or displace other crops. In the meantime, it’s clear that the Emperor has no clothes. Will the European Parliament listen to the science, and curb the unseemly rush for food-based biofuels? I’ll be writing to ask my MEPs to vote for a more modest approach, and I urge you to do the same . • Dr. Ben Phalan is a research associate in conservation science at the Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, and is the Zukerman junior research fellow in global food security at King’s College.[/font][/color] Continue reading
EU Vote Bursts Bubble On Biofuel Future
DARAGH MCCULLOUGH – 29 AUGUST 2013 A recent vote by EU politicians makes the future of the nascent biofuel sector here even more precarious than it already was. A decade ago we were told that the world had entered a new post-peak oil era. With dwindling supplies, countries needed to take action to secure new sustainable sources of energy. Ireland was as good a case for bioenergy as anywhere, spending €6bn annually on imported energy. Everybody wanted a slice of that action. So ambitious targets obliging us to have 20pc of our total energy requirements coming from renewable sources by 2020 were signed into law. The Government pumped millions into schemes to incentivise farmers to grow new biomass crops such as elephant grass and put up oil-pressing plants. To the delight of the sceptics, much of this endeavour appears to be unravelling at the seams. Yes, wind-farms continue to be constructed and solar-panels adorn more and more roof-tops. But hundreds of acres of elephant grass, or ‘miscanthus’ to give it its proper name, have already been ploughed in by disillusioned farmers. The more enterprising individuals that invested millions in briquetting and oil-pressing plants have lost their shirts on the enterprises as market reality kicked in. Fossil fuels are becoming more expensive, but we are becoming more efficient at using them and extracting them. The actual end-game in terms of supplies is still so far off that the market still doesn’t price it into the equation. Irish farmers discovered to their cost that the rest of the planet is also able to generate masses of biomass – and ship it in here at a fraction of the cost that the Irish farmer needs to make a profit. Waste by-products such as palm kernals and cocoa shells are available for virtually nothing. The countries that produce these often can’t produce beef or milk at the same cost that we can in Ireland. Farmers and policymakers momentarily lost sight of what they had – a real competitive advantage in producing. At the same time, policymakers are still confused as to whether growing crops to fuel our cars actually makes sense. As a result, after their initial wave of enthusiasm, European politicians are slowing coming around to the idea that promoting the production of biomass and biofuels may not be the best use of our taxes. “Biofuels increase the demand for crops, which can encourage, at a global level, putting land into production, land that might not otherwise be used. And greater demand can lead to higher prices for food, hitting the poor hardest,” said Ireland East MEP Mairead McGuinness . As a result the EU recently voted to cap the amount of biofuel that can come from food sources at 5.5pc. But experts in Teagasc still believe that there is a future in the sector for those willing to take the risk. “We had to start somewhere in our search for alternatives to fossil fuels,” said renewable energy specialist Barry Caslin. “Growing miscanthus and oilseed rape crops to simply burn for heat is first generation stuff. Algae, waste digesters and enzymes are part of the second generation, and at some point we will be growing fuel in sustainable ways that is competitive with fossil fuels,” he said. In the meantime, Mr Caslin believes that Ireland is losing out on investment, jobs and economic growth if the Government doesn’t continue to support the advancement of the sector. It’s a classic case of the chicken and egg. Should we continue subsidising the development of renewable energy sources or should we wait until the market can support the development of the sector itself? Time will tell. Irish Independent Continue reading
European Residential Property Investment Attracts Global Rich
25 August 2013, 07:16 PM Greek, Nigerian and French buyers are joining wealthy Chinese, Russian and Middle Easterners targeting European residential property, in particular new luxury developments in central London. In southern Europe meanwhile, the offer of residency permits is attracting new capital, particularly from Asia, to support suffering housing markets and economies. Foreign investors have snapped up 65-70% of new homes in prime London locations over the last two years, according to property consultancy Chesterton Humberts. That appetite, primarily from China, Russia and Mid East – drawn by the capital’s shopping and rich lifestyle – has helped push new-build home prices up by 56.3% since the start of 2009. The buyers are however increasingly targeting the homes for investment, and are now being joined by buyers from Greece, Nigeria and France looking to protect their wealth from taxes and political uncertainty in their home countries. International buyers spent £2.2bn on new luxury London residential last year, a figure that Samuel Warren, Chesterton Humberts’ head of international residential developments, expects will be exceeded this year. Large new projects, such as the redevelopment of Battersea power station, are helping drive the market. “With demand for prime new build properties set to remain robust and new supply struggling to keep up, we expect investment volumes will be higher this year than last. The relative weakness of sterling means that many overseas buyers can achieve discounts on purchase price whilst acquiring an asset that will almost certainly appreciate considerably .. and which they will have little difficulty in selling.” However, political opposition to London ‘buy-to-leave’ properties is growing, amid fears that workers on lower wages will be pushed out of central districts, and local economies will suffer. Barbara Grahame, Labour’s planning spokesperson for Westminster borough council, said parts of Westminster are turning in to a ghost town. “More ‘buy-to-leave’ luxury apartments are being built and sold as investments for overseas buyers who rarely live there, sucking the life out the West End and contributing nothing to the local community or local economy.” Around Europe, the focus on London as a safe haven comes as some troubled nations ease residency requirements to attract wealthy foreigners to buy property and re-stimulate their housing markets and economies. Spain changed legislation in July to grant residency visas to non-EU nationals spending more than €500,000 on property, a move that grants them free access across the European Union. It follows Portugal, which has also set the same threshold, and Greece and Cyprus at a minimum €250,000 and €300,000 respectively. International investment in Spanish property grew to almost €5.5bn in 2012, according to the Bank of Spain, driven by buyers from Scandinavia and Russia. The change in legislation is expected to drive more interest from Asia and push investment levels past 2012. But some commentators offer stark predictions for the country’s housing market. Angel Serrano, the head of Madrid-based property consultancy Aguirre Newman, said recently residential property prices need to fall by another 20%-25% for housing to become affordable for Spanish workers. pie Continue reading
