http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/biofuels/10520736/The-great-biofuels-scandal.html
The great biofuels scandal
Biofuels are inefficient, cause hunger and air pollution, and cost
taxpayers billions
By Bjørn Lomborg
7:23PM GMT 16 Dec 2013
Last week, the EU missed an opportunity to end the most wasteful green
programme of our time – one which costs billions of pounds annually and
causes at least 30 million people to go hungry every year. By failing to
agree a cap on the use of biofuels, the Council of Ministers has given
tacit support for a technology that is bad for both taxpayer and
environment. Legislation will now be delayed until 2015.
The biofuel story is a perfect example of good intentions leading to
terrible outcomes. Moreover, it is a lesson on how powerful,
pseudo-green vested interests can sustain a bad policy. Hopefully, it
will also be a story of how reason can prevail in the divisive climate
debate.
Greens initially championed biofuels as a weapon against global warming,
claiming they would emit much less CO2 than fossil alternatives. As
plants soak up CO2 while growing, the subsequent combustion simply
releases the CO2 back into the air, resulting in zero net emissions.
But the dream has become a nightmare, as environmentalists turn against
it. Even Al Gore claims biofuels are a “mistake”.
Studies show that as land is dedicated to energy crops, land for food is
simply taken from other areas – often forests – leading to substantial
CO2 emissions. And processing biofuels emits CO2, drastically reducing
benefits.
In the EU, crop-based biofuels have replaced 5 per cent of fuel used in
transport. If the biofuels were emission-free, that would reduce
emissions by 5 per cent – totalling about 59 million tons (Mt) of CO2
each year by 2020.
But a 2013 study by the International Institute for Sustainable
Development shows that deforestation, fertilisers and fossil fuels used
in the production of biofuels would emit about 54Mt of CO2. A full 92
per cent of the carbon dioxide “saved” is just emitted elsewhere. For
biodiesel alone, the net effect would likely be an increase in emissions.
Thus the total EU savings would be a minuscule 5Mt, or about one-tenth
of one per cent of total European emissions. Even over a century, the
effect of these savings would be trivial. When run in a standard climate
model, EU biofuel use will postpone global temperature rises by 2100 by
just 58 hours.
And the cost to taxpayers is some £6 billion a year; each ton of CO2
avoided costs about £1,200. The EU’s “cap and trade” system is estimated
to cost less than £4 for each ton avoided – so we pay almost 300 times
too much.
Moreover, the best economic estimates suggest that cutting a ton of CO2
emissions saves the world about £4 in environmental damage. So for each
pound spent on biofuels, we avoid about a quarter of one penny of
climate damage –an extremely inefficient way to help the world.
Sadly, this will get even worse. Originally, the EU wanted almost the
full 10 per cent renewable-energy target for transport to come from
biofuels by 2020, a doubling of today’s figure. Now that everyone is
having second thoughts, the proposal is to reduce this to 7 per cent.
But the Council of Ministers’ failure to implement even this modest
reduction leaves us back at 10 per cent, which could double the cost for
EU taxpayers to about €13.8 billion per year. Getting 10 per cent of
transport fuel from plants would reduce the EU emissions by a tiny 9Mt,
and increase the cost of each ton of CO2 cut to more than £1,260. The
net effect to temperatures by the end of the century will be just 0.00025C.
Crucially, the huge expense and tiny benefit is only a small part of
what is wrong with biofuels. In almost all aspects, they are a disaster.
Current EU biofuels take up an area of European farmland larger than the
size of Belgium, and a similar area is used internationally for European
imports. The biofuel farmland in Europe uses as much water as the rivers
Seine and Elbe combined.
Moreover, farmers use fast-growing trees like poplar, willow and
eucalyptus for biofuels. Unfortunately, these trees emit a chemical
called isoprene, an air pollutant which can affect human health. A study
by Lancaster University shows that increasing the crop fields to meet
the EU’s 10 per cent target will increase air pollution, cause an extra
1,400 deaths, and cost £5.2 billion annually.
But most importantly, in moral terms, is the fact that using land to
grow fuel rather than food is an abomination in a world where almost a
billion people still go hungry. It is estimated that European biofuels
now take up enough land to feed 100 million people, and the United
States’s programme takes up even more.
Although biofuels are not the only reason for the price increases in
food over the past years, they certainly play a large part. It is hard
for poor people to buy food when well-meaning Westerners drive up the
prices with heavily subsidised biofuels. It is estimated that 30 million
people are starving as a direct result of biofuels. And if we don’t
reign in the biofuels juggernaut, models show that another 40-135
million people could be starving by 2020.
Why do biofuels persist? The simple answer is Big Green. Tens of
billions of pounds in subsidies and tax breaks buy an awful lot in
vested interests. As Al Gore said, “It’s hard once such a programme is
put in place to deal with the lobbies that keep it going.” He admits
pushing for increases in biofuel programmes because they helped farmers
in his home state, Tennessee, and were popular with farmers in Iowa,
crucial for any presidential hopeful.
The costs of global climate policies is running at about $1billion every
day. Wind turbines cost 10 times the estimated benefits in terms of
emissions cuts, and solar panels cost close to 100 times the benefits.
Yet, with spending on these technologies of about £136 billion annually,
there are a lot of interests in keeping the tap open.
But opposition to the rampant proliferation of biofuels also shows the
way to a more rational climate policy. If we can stop the increase in
biofuels we can save lives, save money, and start finding better ways to
help. This is about investing in more productive agriculture that can
feed more people more cheaply while freeing up space for wildlife.
And for now, it is just about saying stop to the immoral biofuels
madness. Not just by timidly capping targets, but by stopping its use
altogether.
--
Darryl McMahon
Failure is not an option;
it comes standard.
---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection
is active.
http://www.avast.com
_______________________________________________
Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list
Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org
http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel