Biofuels are a bad idea, say Barcelona researchers

A new study claims that the EU's biofuels target would require 97 million hectares of biofuel crops to be planted each year, spurring a huge increase in food imports – and contributing to deforestation in less developed countries.

In 2003 the European Union introduced a directive to increase the share of biofuels in the energy used for transport to 2 per cent by 2005 and 5.75 per cent by 2010. Although the 2005 the target was not reached, the new European energy strategy, presented on 10 January 2007, stated that biofuels should grow to represent at least 10 per cent of the transport market.

The problem is that biofuels are not price competitive, leading the EU to introduce three incentives to boost their use: agricultural subsidies, tax breaks and an obligation to mix a certain percentage of biofuel with fossil fuels sold at the pump.

Now researchers at Universat Autonoma de Barcelona, Spain, have carried out an integrated analysis to find out if the three measures are likely to increase the use of biofuels and solve the problems associated with fossil fuels.

They note the main argument in favour of biofuels is that they do not add to greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The amount of carbon dioxide emitted by biodiesel in the combustion phase is the same as that absorbed by the plant during its growth through photosynthesis, resulting in a neutral carbon budget. Moreover, substituting biofuels would reduce Europe’s energy dependency and increase energy security.

Savings ‘might be negative’

However, a more careful analysis of the life cycle of biodiesel reveals that the energy and CO2 savings are not so high as it might seem at first sight, and in some cases might even be negative.

For a start, the plant raw materials for biofuels are grown in intensive agriculture, implying a high use of fertilisers, pesticides and machinery. In addition, fossil fuels are used in the processing, transporting oil seeds to the processing plant and from there to the end users.

It is calculated that achieving the 5.75 per cent target would require 97 million hectares of biofuel crops to be planted each year. The consequence would be the substitution of food crops and a huge increase in food imports. For this reason the EU said it would encourage the production of raw materials for biofuels outside the EU.

The researchers say this could contribute to deforestation in less developed countries.

The drive to increase biofuel production will also provide incentives to plant palm trees, whose oil is cheaper than any other source. But palm plantations are responsible for most deforestation in South Eastern Asia, and represent a real threat to the remaining native forests.

Taking into account the CO2 emissions due to inter-continental transport and the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere due to deforestation, the final result might be an overall increase of the greenhouse emissions.

Biofuel generation is also in conflict with food production. In early 2007 the price of corn increased by 30 per cent in Mexico, driven by the growing demand for corn-derived bioethanol in the US.

In conclusion, using public money to support large scale biofuel production is not an advisable strategy, say the researchers. “The idea that biodiesel could be a solution for the energy crisis is not only false, but also dangerous. It might favour an attitude of technological optimism and faith in a technological fix of the energy problem.”