Work
27.February 2008 - 00:00
Biofuels
The EU has set the Member States the binding target of increasing the proportion of biofuels in transport to 10 % of total fuel consumption by 2020. By 2010 the proportion of biofuels should be 5.75 %. A recently published OECD report entitled ‘Biofuels: is the cure worse than the disease?’ states that the transport biofuels currently on the market are even more harmful to the climate than the fuels they are intended to replace, taking into account the entire life cycle of the fuels. The same conclusion is reached by an article which appeared last summer in Science magazine, entitled ‘Carbon Mitigation by Biofuels or by Saving and Restoring Forests? ’, which compares the benefits to the climate of biofuels compared with afforestation, considered over a period of 30 years. The results of the comparison vary depending on the raw material and the production technology, but in all cases the afforestation of the corresponding cultivation area would bind between 2 and 9 times more carbon than the use of biofuels could reduce in terms of emissions. The negative effect of biofuels on the quantity and quality of water also needs to be taken into account.
Attention has now turned to ‘second generation’ biofuels, and it is reported that the Commission is working out ‘sustainable development criteria’ taking account of the overall effects of biofuels. Biofuels meeting at least these criteria are to account for 10 % of the target. However, those working in the field say that there is no cause for great optimism: second-generation biofuels are exceptionally expensive to produce, while at the same time it is not yet particularly economical to produce large quantities of them, they are not yet at the stage of technological development required to guarantee their cost- and energy-effectiveness, and entirely new types of infrastructure are needed for such things as harvesting, transport, storage and processing. Those working in the field are also said to consider that the classification of biofuels as first or second generation fuels will be confusing and artificial from an environmental point of view.
Does the Commission/ the Council consider, in the light of the most recent research results and information from those working in this area:
1. That the EU's biofuel target is still realistically achievable?
2. That it can be realised cost-effectively?
3. That it is sensible from the point of view of the climate balance and the environment?
4. That it meets the general criteria for sustainable development?
Does the Commission have any alternative plan for effectively reducing emissions from transport if it later proves necessary to abandon the biofuels targets as being unsustainable?
Reply given on behalf of the Council – 12.02.2008
The Council would refer to the conclusions of the 2007 Spring European Council which endorsed a 10 % binding minimum target, for the share of biofuels in overall EU transport petrol and diesel consumption, to be achieved by all Member States by 2020 and to be introduced in a cost-efficient way. In accordance with the conditions set by the European Council, the Council is of the view that the binding character of this target is appropriate subject to production being sustainable, second-generation biofuels becoming commercially available and the Fuel Quality Directive being amended accordingly to allow for adequate levels of blending. In addition, the Council is looking into the best way of establishing sustainability criteria for biofuels in Community legislation.
Moreover, the Council is now awaiting the Commission proposal on renewable energies which will, among other things, also address the issue of biofuels. According to the European Council, such a proposal could contain provisions as regards, inter alia, criteria for ensuring sustainable production and use of bioenergy and for avoiding conflicts between different uses of biomass. The Council will devote appropriate attention to examination of that proposal as soon as it is forwarded.
Answer given by Mr Piebalgs on behalf of the Commission – 27.02.2008
The Commission's position on biofuels has not changed. The report the Honourable Member refers to is a discussion paper from two researchers working for the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Round Table on Sustainable Development, a forum for informal discussion which is largely independent of the OECD. It is therefore not an OECD report. Further, the Commission cannot compare its biofuel policy, which has more than one objective, with the carbon dioxide (CO2) savings from the planting of forests. There is no reason to believe that if land were not used for biofuels, the likely alternative land use would be afforestation.
The Commission considers that the 10 % biofuels target can be met sustainably. The Commission included measures in the recent legislative proposal on renewable energy to ensure that biofuels used to fulfil the EU targets meet minimum environmental sustainability standards. These standards include a minimum level of 35 % greenhouse gas emission saving for biofuels compared to fossil fuels.
On 19 December 2007, the Commission adopted a proposal for a regulation on CO2 emissions from new cars(1). The proposed regulation will set CO2 emission performance requirements for new cars from 2012, leading to a fleet average emission of 130 gr/km CO2 for new passenger cars.
The Commission considers that both are essential. The estimates of the potentials and associated costs are given in the review of economic and environmental data(2) accompanying the biofuels progress report(3).
The EU has set the Member States the binding target of increasing the proportion of biofuels in transport to 10 % of total fuel consumption by 2020. By 2010 the proportion of biofuels should be 5.75 %. A recently published OECD report entitled ‘Biofuels: is the cure worse than the disease?’ states that the transport biofuels currently on the market are even more harmful to the climate than the fuels they are intended to replace, taking into account the entire life cycle of the fuels. The same conclusion is reached by an article which appeared last summer in Science magazine, entitled ‘Carbon Mitigation by Biofuels or by Saving and Restoring Forests? ’, which compares the benefits to the climate of biofuels compared with afforestation, considered over a period of 30 years. The results of the comparison vary depending on the raw material and the production technology, but in all cases the afforestation of the corresponding cultivation area would bind between 2 and 9 times more carbon than the use of biofuels could reduce in terms of emissions. The negative effect of biofuels on the quantity and quality of water also needs to be taken into account.
Attention has now turned to ‘second generation’ biofuels, and it is reported that the Commission is working out ‘sustainable development criteria’ taking account of the overall effects of biofuels. Biofuels meeting at least these criteria are to account for 10 % of the target. However, those working in the field say that there is no cause for great optimism: second-generation biofuels are exceptionally expensive to produce, while at the same time it is not yet particularly economical to produce large quantities of them, they are not yet at the stage of technological development required to guarantee their cost- and energy-effectiveness, and entirely new types of infrastructure are needed for such things as harvesting, transport, storage and processing. Those working in the field are also said to consider that the classification of biofuels as first or second generation fuels will be confusing and artificial from an environmental point of view.
Does the Commission/ the Council consider, in the light of the most recent research results and information from those working in this area:
1. That the EU's biofuel target is still realistically achievable?
2. That it can be realised cost-effectively?
3. That it is sensible from the point of view of the climate balance and the environment?
4. That it meets the general criteria for sustainable development?
Does the Commission have any alternative plan for effectively reducing emissions from transport if it later proves necessary to abandon the biofuels targets as being unsustainable?
Reply given on behalf of the Council – 12.02.2008
The Council would refer to the conclusions of the 2007 Spring European Council which endorsed a 10 % binding minimum target, for the share of biofuels in overall EU transport petrol and diesel consumption, to be achieved by all Member States by 2020 and to be introduced in a cost-efficient way. In accordance with the conditions set by the European Council, the Council is of the view that the binding character of this target is appropriate subject to production being sustainable, second-generation biofuels becoming commercially available and the Fuel Quality Directive being amended accordingly to allow for adequate levels of blending. In addition, the Council is looking into the best way of establishing sustainability criteria for biofuels in Community legislation.
Moreover, the Council is now awaiting the Commission proposal on renewable energies which will, among other things, also address the issue of biofuels. According to the European Council, such a proposal could contain provisions as regards, inter alia, criteria for ensuring sustainable production and use of bioenergy and for avoiding conflicts between different uses of biomass. The Council will devote appropriate attention to examination of that proposal as soon as it is forwarded.
Answer given by Mr Piebalgs on behalf of the Commission – 27.02.2008
The Commission's position on biofuels has not changed. The report the Honourable Member refers to is a discussion paper from two researchers working for the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Round Table on Sustainable Development, a forum for informal discussion which is largely independent of the OECD. It is therefore not an OECD report. Further, the Commission cannot compare its biofuel policy, which has more than one objective, with the carbon dioxide (CO2) savings from the planting of forests. There is no reason to believe that if land were not used for biofuels, the likely alternative land use would be afforestation.
The Commission considers that the 10 % biofuels target can be met sustainably. The Commission included measures in the recent legislative proposal on renewable energy to ensure that biofuels used to fulfil the EU targets meet minimum environmental sustainability standards. These standards include a minimum level of 35 % greenhouse gas emission saving for biofuels compared to fossil fuels.
On 19 December 2007, the Commission adopted a proposal for a regulation on CO2 emissions from new cars(1). The proposed regulation will set CO2 emission performance requirements for new cars from 2012, leading to a fleet average emission of 130 gr/km CO2 for new passenger cars.
The Commission considers that both are essential. The estimates of the potentials and associated costs are given in the review of economic and environmental data(2) accompanying the biofuels progress report(3).