Biofuels: bad for the environment?
There's a warning from one of Britain's experts on cars and climate change that legally binding European Union targets aimed at increasing the use of biofuels could actually make the problem of global warming worse.
But she says the law cutting carbon dioxide from cars should bite sooner, rather than give car makers the time they want to adapt.
Professor Julia King, the woman tasked by Gordon Brown with producing a report on the action needed to cut carbon dioxide emissions from cars, has been in Brussels giving a seminar for "West Midlands in Europe".
Prof. King isn't, of course, against, biofuels, but is urging a much closer look at the different types. Particularly whether some can end up putting as much CO2 into the environment as fossil fuels (because of clearing land of trees to plant them and so on).
She says: "I am not anti biofuels but they're not a silver bullet: there are more problems than we realised." She remarks that what has been found out about the impact of biofuels recently has been "rather a shock" and that there needs to be "a bit more caution".
At the moment, the European Union has a couple of targets in mind. The main plan is to grow 10% of Europe's transport fuel by 2020 (it's two percent at the moment).
But there's also the Fuel Quality Directive which aims to cut the carbon footprint of fuels by 10% which could imply 20 to 30% biofuels.
Professor King says that the danger of European Union laws setting precise targets for biofuels is that they would suck "good" biofuels into the EU but obviously not prevent "bad" ones elsewhere such as the USA. That would mean, in the long run, the EU taking action could increase the pollution in the world.
She wants car manufacturers to come up with new technology, and quickly. She argues there is a lot of technology available that is just sitting on the shelf and the EU should not give car-makers the extra few years they want to adapt: "we need action fast."
Huge opportunities
She argues, as does the commission, that there are huge opportunities for car manufacturers who develop the new tech that she believes the whole world needs and will want.
She points out that, at the moment, one Chinese in 100 owns a car and that is clearly going to change.
Predictions indicate by 2050 there will be 600m cars in Asia: for a comparison at the moment there are 150m in the States.
She asks whether Europe wants to be in a position where "India is selling us low emission cars" or instead to exploit a "critical, vital, phenomenal market opportunity".
The man from the European Automobile Manufactures Association (I don't catch his name) makes familiar arguments.
They can't meet the targets by 2012 because 95% of cars which will be sold then are already designed: it takes that much lead-time to produce a car.
That means the fines should not be punitive because there is no way the manufacturers can meet the targets. He says that car-makers should not be expected to shoulder all the burden themselves and consumers, policy makers, and others should take some of the pain.
Welcome to my 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~50~RS~)
CommentsSign in
You need to sign in to contribute to this page. If you're new to BBC Blogs, creating your membership is quick and easy.
Here's an example of how the EU is already trying to weasel its way out of the committments it has demanded the US submit to and it promised to adopt itself. Do biofuels reduce or increase carbon emissions. It's not a simple matter to find out. You are still burning carbon based fuel, the difference is in the energy needed to plant, reap, and process biofuels compared to drilling and processing petroleum and any differences in gas mileage. There are probably too many variables to generalize. The purpose of biofuel is not to reduce carbon emissions but to reduce dependency on imported oil.
One thing is sure, the diversion of grain production from food to fuel is bad news for the world's starving millions who must buy food. Only a small percentage of production has been shifted so far and the price of food has shot up already. Of course this also in part reflects the increased cost of the imported oil products used to produce biofuels and food. The situation will get worse as the carbon credit scheme will make it more desirable for some farmers to sell their carbon credits rather than work their land. The shortsightedness of environmentalists in not demanding rational solutions to CO2 output by diverting scientific resources to new large scale technologies and insisting on an international program of population control and reduction has proababy doomed us already. At the very least many tens or even hundreds of millions will starve to death. By 2050 the earth's population is expected to reach 9 billion, up from 6 billion today while CO2 output must drop 60 to 80 percent. Unless there is a major technological breakthrough on how we get our energy, we will all live far more uncomfortable poorer lives. The science fair like projects like wind farms, solar panels, and solar boilers will be seen in retrospect as a pathetic effort compared to what was called for by the seriousness of the crisis.
Complain about this comment
It will take a huge coordinated effort by both government(s) and manufacturers to turn around the way we fuel our cars.
It seems that the choice is between three main types, electric, fuel cell, and hydrogen powered vehicles.
There are problems with each type. Electric cars don't give the range and require a very long charge period. Fuel cars rely on rare metals which would quickly run out if every car made in the world used them. Hydrogen used in a similar fashion to petrol has a smaller range but the technology is there, is familiar and could be available (see here http://www.autobloggreen.com/2006/09/12/bmw-officially-announces-the-bmw-hydrogen-7/)
If the governments of Europe and the USA, or even California decided to work with both the car manufacturers and the petrol distributing companies, understanding that it takes time money and will to get this thing done, then it could be done.
I think one should never underestimate the fact that car manufacturers and oil processors live in the same world as we do, have the same concerns that we do but cannot change everything by themselves.
Think back to when every car produced used leaded petrol. I know this was not such a big problem but over a period of years it was changed and now it is almost impossible, I say almost because I am not quite sure, to buy a new vehicle which requires leaded petrol.
But it need vision, determination and the ability to get all parties on board.
But we could do it.
We could change the world.
Complain about this comment
Biofuels are at the very best a bit-player and stop gap in the process to halt climate change and at worst a significant contributor to food shortages.
Global over population and Asian economic growth will overwhelm any attempts to tinker at the edges of the problem.
Unless there is a technological change on a par with the industrial revoltion or the introduction of the internal combustion engine then the only real progess can come from developments like the proposed trec solar power scheme ( www.desertec.org ). The trec model would work well in SW USA to supply North America or in Australia to supply SE Asia and I'm sure parts of India and China would be suitable too.
Shouldn't the EU be looking at proposals like this instead of finding yet another way to subsidise farmers.
Complain about this comment
I'm a strong supporter of bio-fuel. The big question for me is why the drive immediately meant going abroad for palm oil etc. Several scandanavian countries are making big strides on this - from their own agricultural resources and many times using waste products such as saw dust or offal. The national farmers union in the UK is very clear: put all the farmers back to work, pay sensible prices for product and aim the subsidies at encouraging production. We could produce substantial amounts of biofuel just from the land now left unused at taxpayer expense. New biofuels from grass - which can be grown on marginal land - allow a 94% saving on CO2 if done with care (eg. run the tractor and the lorries on bio-fuel not fossil fuel). I'm very suspicious about why the 'environmentalists' are so keen to block this.
Complain about this comment
According to a recent study approximately 80% of the rise in food prices is attributable to the rise in oil prices. Lets not forget that OPEC that great democratic market led organisation has actually been reducing its output over recent months. The Oil producing countries know that their black gold is running out and will extract as high a price as possible from stupid western governments who are too short sighted to invest in alternative sources of energy be they biofules, solar wind etc. The fact that food prices are soaring in some countries is down to governements not investing in alternatives years ago. Only an idiot fails to prepare for difficult times. I guess we've been governed by idiots ?
The last thing we should do is stop the biofules program. If we think we have pain now in the form of high food prices this will be nothing in comparison to the pain we will see if we don't invest in a wide and varied energy mix.
Complain about this comment
Not all biofuels are created equal - for example there is a huge difference between the carbon footprint of bioethanol (a petrol substitute) and biodiesel (diesel substitute), biodiesel consistently scoring much better.
Biofuel will only be a viable option when technologies now only in development, like economically extracting fuel from cellulose (the much-anticipated grass- and agricultural waste-conversion) will mature - the only positive thing I'm hoping from the EU biofuel programme is to give a serious financial incentive for this research to be pushed forward and be commercially available in a few years.
This technology has, at the moment, a better chance of commercially succeeding soon than either long-range batteries or hydrogen-powered vehicles (where we shouldn't forget that the power to create the hydrogen or charge the battery still needs to be produced somewhere - and we haven't found a solution for large scale green power-generation either).
Complain about this comment
I love the Law of Unintended Consequences.
It was obvious to anyone not blinded by environmentalist tosh that the current generation of biofuels were not a solution to anything, but would lead to rises in the cost of food worldwide - and do very little to alleviate
the sum of human suffering.
If you think this back-peddling is amusing, just wait a few years until our EU masters start reversing their convictions about the whole subject of Man-Made Global Warming (Oh yes, I forgot that this week it's called 'Climate Change').
Complain about this comment
I'm sorry but this is old news, Private Eye mentioned how the EU bio-fuel targets would actually damage some of the worlds most sensitive eco-systems through mass-forestation in order to grow more crops for the bio-fuels when the bill was first passed. But no-one in the EU or this government listened to the environmental lobbies then, nor the media it seems. It just shows how short sited the EU and British Government are in tackling global warming.
And yes alternative fuels at the moment are not mass production with each having some down-sides. And I am sure that whatever alternative source we use will not be a perfect fuel but that does not mean that we shouldn't stop putting money into their development. All the problems with the alternatives can be solved with money and time. But the EU does not want to spend money on something that will take time. They want quick-solutions for votes.
However maybe the answer lies in using a similar scheme to the X-award. A large monetary prize that could be won by a developer who develops a reasonable alternative to hydrocarbons. It worked with space tourism why not alternative energy?
Complain about this comment
Should the car industry adopt new technology that alleviates the use of oil entirely, which is feasible, then where would the tax take come from? The electric car is not that far away that is able to compete with oil fuelled cars and whether it self charges or via the mains, the oil requirements are very little.
Climate change is happening but is it due to me popping to the shops or is it to do with man at all? This debate could carry on for years.
Yet again the big decisions meant to be taken by government and europe are being messed up. They should be investing in making alternatives to bio fuels as the land is needed for food production. Where is there energy fairly easily available that is not going to produce carbon? Wind and solar electric powered cars need to be fully investigated and developed and until that is done it is all posturing in the name of climate change
Complain about this comment
In respons to jon112uk, the reason why 'environmentalists' are keen to block this is because biofuels (at current production levels) are an environmental nightmare!
Do you really think that waste and offal can produce enough biofuel for a country? Even combined with their own agricultural resources this is far from enough.
The world consumes vast amounts of oil, and changing this over to biofuels requires far more land than we have on the earth, let alone only using waste products. I doubt the UK has enough marginal land to run even 5% of the UK on biofuels. Locally produced 'biofuels' require just as much, if not more, energy put into them in the form of fertilisers and pesticides than we get back from burning them in our cars.
The issue is not biofuels itself, it's that we need such vast amounts of it, that it HAS to be produced on an industrial, energy intensive scale (and, saving energy was the idea wasn't it?) - much like current wheat production, etc. That's what makes it a problem.
Aside from rainforests being cut down, etc - any monoculture intensively produced crop (be it sugar cane, corn or oil palm) requires herbicides, pesticides and fertilisers to keep it viable. Without intensivity the amount demanded by our oil hungry countries just won't be produced - and by making it intensive we destroy the very nature of the 'benefits' of it.
As far as I can see the only way to make burning fuel more "green" is to reduce the amount we burn, and no politician is going to suggest that and stay in power. Instead they get hold of well meaning ideas like biofuels and corrupt the very meaning and purpose of it in an attempt to find a quick fix which allows us to carry on with business as usual.
Complain about this comment
Governments should firmly address demand for greener cars and let the market decide which technology is most efficient. Consumers are at the moment mainly paying lip service to a greener environment, sales figures show (SUV sales are steadily increasing, sales of large cars remain high). The very competitive car-industry is very sensitive to changes in demand (it manufactures exactly what people want, as any other very competitive industry). It would be wise for governments and the EU parliament to look at some economics textbooks - 'Lipsey' for example).
As far as I can conclude from statements by the car industry, they are not against reduction of CO2 from their products, but mainly asking for a postponement of three years to fulfill the requirements of the EU (130 gr/km by 2015 instead of 2012). The EU proposals have of course not yet been decided on, let alone agreed by the member states. Three years does not seem a very long time considering the very large amount of (private) money the car industry is investing (has to invest) in new technologies, and the important issues at stake, as mrs. King points out rightly. Many new technologies she talks about are implemented today, by BMW for example (start-stop systems, gear shift indicators, energy recouped from braking). Others will certainly follow or are doing it already. Instead of penalties, it would be wiser to include the car industry in some trading scheme, for faster and better Co2 reduction. Other measures might include a general speed reduction to 110 km/h in the EU, possibly enforced by mandatory speed limiters (there is a nation wide speed limit in the U.S.) and improvements in infrastructure (tailbacks are costing the economy millions and generate a lot of excess Co2 emmissions). This can be agreed upon with some good will.
Your unwillingness to name the 'man from the association' suggests some bias to the industry (I've seen mr. Mardell interview him a couple of times, so you 'denial' is not very sincere).
We're talking about a Czech citizen here, well known and respected in his own country (you are inadvertedly kicking the Czechs against the shins). Let's remain factual in this important debate. And as for mrs. King's report, I'm sure mr. Brown will back down soon from any measures against cars if it costs him the few voters he has left.
Complain about this comment
Crop derived bio fuels currently seems to be a bit of an Oops! Likewise hydrogen fuel cell technology, clean though it is is from what I read and hear is about as inefficient as is possible requiring huge amounts of energy to create the hydrogen in the first place, not the panacea it seems.
Could these two things not be combined? are there not some clever bugs that can digest waste and effluent and other things we don't want but can't avoid producing and use them to create hydrogen or certainly methane which has huge amounts of hydrogen in it?
Just a thought
Complain about this comment
I think it?s worth pointing out that most of the arguments against biofuels also apply to the growth of grapes for wine, grain for beer, tobacco, and any other cash crop. I don?t hear many people arguing that we should stop drinking and smoking in order to alleviate Third World hunger though.
Of course, most of these are grown due to demand, and not called for by legislation. But perhaps the diversion of subsidies to the tobacco still grown within Europe could be diverted to biofuels instead?
Complain about this comment
As long as the U.K. uses coal, gas and oild to generate electricity. Uses diesel to power trains and has such congested roads that all vehicles use twice as much fuel per 100 km as in other countries, berating car maufactures will have little affect on the overall production of CO2.
If there were now cars, indeed no human being, on the Earth, climate change woudl still take place, probably with little overall difference.No, the problem is polution which WE can do something about as has been shown by the steady cleanup of rivers and waterways.
Electricity is a clean and effective form of energy for many forms of transport, for idustry and domestic use which ar non-poluting. It can also be generated from may non-polution sources, including wind and water.
Complain about this comment
Governments are making too much money out of Fuel duties. It is not in the interest of any Finance Ministers to kill off the golden Chick. There are and there have been for some time alternatives to make cars more efficient and or run on non combustible fuels. Politician are now stuck between their duty to cut carbon emissions, without compromising their Finance budgets. There are solutions, we could most definitely stop being so reliant on the OPEC, but it will take concerted European action and it will take courageous politicians to take unpopular decisions in order to make the EU go green for good.
Complain about this comment
The man from the manufacturers' association had a point. It's quite true that the cars on sale in 2012 are already designed -- also that if we want green technology, we will have to pay for it.
But there are still things the industry could do now. They could stop charging a premium for diesel engines. They could stop providing (and charging for) equipment that not everyone wants, and which adds weight and uses power (such as central locking, electric windows and power steering -- especially on small cars). And they could devote more marketing effort to their greener vehicles.
If the motor industry had to account for its products' lifetime emissions under the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, it would do all this quickly enough. The carbon accounting might be complex, but it is for any industry.
Complain about this comment
It's an inconvenient truth that when Al Gore was Vice President of the United States, he did nothing to advance technological research into viable alternate energy sources. Maybe he was too dazzled basking in the glow of just having invented the internet. He had a lot of power then, he has none now except to join the bellicose crowd who tell us that while the Earth's population increases from 6 billion to 9 billion, the CO2 output must decrease by from 60 to 80 percent if the human race is going to survive. And his solution? Like the so called environmentalists we will all have to cut back. Tell that to the developing world where impovrished people who see on their television sets those in the developed world with cars, heated and air conditioned homes, plenty of food, electricity running water, gas and indoor plumbing in their homes, and a well built up infrastructure in their country that they can't have this too. So the developed world will have to cut back and in the minds of many this does not include China or India. So who will feed the starving hundreds of millions in the developing world when the most efficient farmers can't work their land because it has too great an impact on CO2 output and who will convince the people in the developed world that sacrifice means more than turning out lights or putting solar panels on their houses but maybe giving up their cars and setting their thermostats back to frigid in the winter? The environmentalists have been a disaster in their shortsightedness. Now we will begin to pay for their stupidity.
Complain about this comment
Professor King is correct that there are already many intermediate technologies/products 'on the shelf' that would help cut fuel costs, while the 'holy grail' alternative fuel is sought. The problem is that existing technologies are not seen as 'new. bright and sexy' and will not therefore attract any funding, grants or support.
Being a manufacturer of a proven fuel saving device for over 20 years, we have suffered from undue criticism from UK companies and organisations with vested interests. This has done a pretty good job in putting doubts in people's minds on the efficacy of these products. The result is that many will not even try these products even with money-back guarantees.
As a result we now export most of our production - while the UK motorists suffers from seriously high fuel costs, yet are not encouraged to try existing technology which would have an immediate benefit - it is a crazy situation.
Complain about this comment
To produce biofuels, either you convert farmland from food to fuel, in which case you have less food (anyone heard about riots in Bangladesh recently?), or you have to create new farmland by cutting down forest/draining marshland etc. and generally destroying the natural environment. Is it any coincidence that Brazil is not only the most famous producer of biofuels but also the most infamous destroyer of rainforest?
Given the wealth of low-carbon alternatives (wind, waves, tides, nuclear, hydroelectric, solar) there really is no need for biofuels at all. The only thing that makes them attractive is that only trivial changes are needed to the design of car engines, which is pretty short-sighted.
Complain about this comment
The film "Who Killed The Electric Car", http://www.whokilledtheelectriccar.com documents very persuasively how electric car technology is available including cars with good hp and a battery that will get you from London to Edinburgh (though CO2 savings will depend on expanding low-emission electricity). The problem carmakers faced was that they were almost maintenance free, killing their profits.
Hence the car industry has used all sorts of ruses and excuses to perpetuate the internal combustion engine, including via hydrogen and biofuels (both with mostly worse eco-footprint than fossil fuels), while oil companies sit on the battery inventions.
See also the damning conclusions of the EU's Joint Research Centre: [unsuitable link removed by moderator] that the costs of most biofuels exceed the benefits and greater emissions savings can be achieved by not having a biofuel target. Also, to insulate against oil shocks, oil storage is more cost-effective.
From this it can be deduced that biofuel targets are unnecessarily worsening recession as well as starvation.
All sorts of lame excuses have been given to have biofuel targets, Julia King herself bought into some only last year.
Re. the claim made above that grass-based biofuels save 94% CO2 emissions is all very well but there is very little 'marginal land' that is not actually pasture for livestock, or home to rare wildlife like the Great and Little Bustard in Europe and reptiles, or farmsteads in the developing world. The land requirement still means a worse eco- footprint than petroleum, and such biomass saves more emissions used to replace coal, than processed to replace petroleum. And both the JRC report above and a recent Iowa State Uni. study find that cellulosic ethanol will remain unfeasibly expensive by 2020/2022.
Complain about this comment
Bio fuels maybe a good source for the future but this should not be a EU level we can manage are own fuels.I bet the EU cant wait to get the hand firmly on North sea oil and gas ,well whats left of it.
Complain about this comment
Why is my comment 20. above still awaiting moderation?
Complain about this comment
To start with : What is wrong with India selling the Eu low emission cars? Do I sense here merely a fear of lost business opportunity - or is it something deeper - a mouthful of western pride going down the throat ?
Beside that, surprisingly, the debate on biofuels (and consequent cost impact on food worldwide), seems to ignore the subsidy angle.
What would happen if Eu and USA define a new/different subsidy scheme (with higher subsidy) for biofuel grains? Would such a measure try to propel these countries to biofuel self-sufficiency? Will this have a positive impact on food supplies in the rest of the world ? Would this bring back a descent balance in world trade in food ? Would this result in higher fuel prices for Eu/USA ?
Also, we hear about USA supermarkets rationing food. Should the WTO take this as an example - and ration (towards the rich west) the amount of grains they are allowed to buy from the open markets to feed their biofuel generators?
And finally, can we please stop that 2050 story when China and India will together have 6 times as many cars as the US and Europe ? This is clearly a red herring. In 2010, the cost of fuel will be high enough for large sections of gas guzzling westerners that this will topple governments there. In 2011, this can lead to political assassinations. In 2012, there can be wars. So, let's not wave the red herring of 2050. Fuel conflict is at the door - here and now.
The WTO and the subsidy bourgeois should wake up and act. Now.
Complain about this comment
It is clear that in the next twenty years the car market is going to literally explode particularly in the East. To meet this demand the eastern car manufacturers are going to be under a lot of pressure to produce highly economical and extremely low pollutant vehicles.
The way I see it the race is on and if the European car manufacturers want to be competitive in this race they are going to have to set the pace and the only way they are going to achieve this is if we the consumers say goodbye to our gas guzzlers and join in the race. An all out concerted effort cannot come from the manufacturers alone or from the respective authority's, but can only come from the consumers themselves. We control what car manufacturers produce and even to some degree our respective governments.
If we really want to make a difference to our environment and to our pockets in the coming years it is we who need to change our overall perspective to what we consider to be a car. We need to seriously ask ourselves again and again the age old question ,
What is a car ?
A simple question that invariably comes bogged down with an array of complex answers. Solution? Simplify the answers and in there lies the solution.
Complain about this comment
Well... not all bio-fuels are equal.
Current bio-fuels create problems - the same thing has been said earlier in these blogs.
Conclusion is obvious. We need to stick to bio-fuels that do not create these problems. What are they then? One idea is to use algae diesel. Certain strains of algae grow quickly and produce a very high oil content. The algae produce much more oil per unit area used by a large factor than any other crop currently used. They do not require agricultural land, as they can be even grown in ponds in the desert using salt water from the sea, or in bio-reactors soaking up carbon from coal fired power stations. The technology is viable, and some projects are starting up. Why then is this not used to produce a large fraction of bio-fuels? Why is research not growing to expand and improve this method? Why is this technology not even talked about on any large scale? Why is all the emphasis on ethanol?... my guess somebody thought to use the bio-fuels boom to prop-up existing interests, in this case sugar and farming. The result is we have created a food crisis for a dubious benefit when we could have had a self relaiance on oil instead.
PLUS the algae could even be processed into animal feed, the left over sugars and proteins, so we can keep on enjoying our steaks... and not go vegetarian as some are suggesting we should. The food crisis could be solved along the fuel crisis.
In a similar fashion the solution to cars already exists as well. Cars are already being made that can drive 50 to 100 kilometers on a single battery charge, and when the battery runs out, they start burning petrol or diesel. In practice the single battery charge would be sufficient for a LOT of people to commute to work and do the necessary driving in a day, without burning any of the petrol/diesel. For the longer trips the combustion engine would be the back up power, but overall very little petrol/diesel would be needed... possibly only as much as can be supplied by bio-fuels. The charging over night would be a hassle, but not a great one... or one could charge it or top up at work as well.
The electricity could be produced by nuclear with no or tiny carbon foot-print (we should be looking in the medium to long term into nuclear designs that do not produce long lived waste, such as thorium fueled reactors, while in the short term build as many newer technology nuclear power stations as we can). Even if the electricity is supplied by coal power stations, there are carbon savings as the power stations are more efficient. Or even use wind power to charge your car over night at least part of the time (the varibaility not being such a big factor when charging a car battery). Whichever way would free us from dependence on foreign oil.
The solutions exists, but there is no willingness to implement them.
Complain about this comment
Previous posters MarcusAureliusII and Young_Mr_Grace raise the issue of population growth.
The UN report World Population Prospects: The 2006 Revision (Executive Summary) notes ?the world population will likely increase by 2.5 billion over the next 43 years, passing from the current 6.7 billion to 9.2 billion in 2050.?
If we?re facing difficulty satisfying demand with our current population how are we going to cope with an extra 2.5 billion?
According to the UN report, the population of the more developed regions is expected to remain largely unchanged. However, the population of the less developed regions is projected to rise from 5.4 billion in 2007 to 7.9 billion in 2050.
The UN report argues that ?it is essential that access to family planning expands in the poorest countries of the world. The urgency of realizing the reductions of fertility projected is brought into focus by considering that, if fertility were to remain constant at the levels for 2000-2005, the population of the less developed regions would increase to 10.6 billion instead of the 7.9 billion projected by assuming that fertility declines. That is, without further reductions of fertility, the world population could increase by twice as many people as those who were alive in 1950.?
While there is plenty of focus on per capita emissions in developed countries, shouldn?t developing countries also address the issue of their increasing populations, especially if there is the possibility that the population in the less developed regions could increase to 10.6 billion if current fertility rates remain constant? Whilst the developed world must address its over-consumption, can it also help the developing world with more family planning assistance?
Complain about this comment
ElizHart, your last point about emissions per capita targets in a world where some populations are changing quickly is a very good one.
In my opinion the CO2 emissions per capita argument, that we should share the burden fairly, that some of us over-polute, that it is not fair to expect a Bangladeshi to use much less energy than a European, etc... is all flawed. You pointed out the inconsitency that creates the flaw. With growing world population in another generation or two, people in the developed world would end up with an even smaller share of CO2 that they can produce. By the way, the populations will not increase if there is no resources to support them, as is becoming apparent with the current food prices... people will simply starve and die. In my view it is every country's self-responsibility to look after their own population growth, and others should not interfere... the various leaders should be intelligent enough to know what will happen in the countries that grow too much.
Just like with bio-fuels, we are heading into fantasy land with these emission controls.
The other option is to base CO2 emission limits on the capacity of each country's land to absorb it. This would encourage the protection and creation of carbon sinks, instead of encouraging population growth. As a rough rule, the countries with the smallest population denisty per area would be advantaged. For example Australia is constantly criticised for high per capita emissions, but the criticism does not take into account Australia's very large land area and many carbon sinks, or for that matter increased transport needs over these large areas. A similar argument, to a smaller extent can be applied to the USA. On the other side the Europeans and the Japanese (or the Bangladeshis) oppose the per capacity to absorb emission targets because of their high population denisities and fewer carbon sinks.
A final piece of this puzzle is the increasing criticism China gets for its growing emissions. This criticism may not be fair either because a large part of China's emissions come from producing goods for consumption in other countries. In this case the consumer of a product should be responsible for the CO2 produced. Otherwise countries will just "export" their emission liabilities.
So, in this area as well, powerful interests have produced a far less than optimal system.
Complain about this comment
Hi Rob_Hob. Your post raises many interesting points? My interest in environmental issues is relatively recent and was sparked by concern about global deforestation, a problem which accounts for 20% of global emissions. And the problem of deforestation is not just about emissions, it also creates other serious environmental and sustainability problems.
It?s been interesting to learn about the Kyoto Protocol which generally seems to be extolled as the answer to a maiden?s prayer, but I?m not so sure? Have you read the paper by Gwyn Prins and Steve Rayner, Time to Ditch Kyoto (Nature 449, 973-975 25 October 2007)? It?s a very interesting paper and argues that Kyoto has stifled discussion of alternative policy approaches that could both combat climate change and adapt to its unavoidable consequences.
As an admitted newcomer and non-expert, I?m struck by the built-in dichotomy between developed and developing countries in the Kyoto Protocol, which seems to be creating a blame game and hindering achieving an effective agreement to reduce global emissions. Apparently developed countries are blamed for all the emissions over the past 150-200 years, but how does this compare to the recent explosive growth (and emissions) taking place in a very short space of time in highly populated countries such as China and India? (And I acknowledge your point about some of China?s emissions coming from producing goods for other countries).
And how are current emissions of all countries objectively assessed? For example, a recent article in The Guardian suggested Britain?s climate change emissions may be 12% higher than officially stated http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/mar/17/climatechange.carbonemissions
I would argue that the Kyoto Protocol has actually exacerbated the problem of global emissions. For example, the European Union is trying to meet its Kyoto obligations by decreasing its emissions by using ?green? biofuels including palm oil. Perversely, Indonesia?s emissions are increasing due to rampant destruction of rainforests to accommodate oil palm plantations. And of course, as a developing country, Indonesia doesn?t have an emissions target under Kyoto. (Indonesia is currently the world's third highest emitter due to deforestation, peatland degradation and forest fires.)
Not only that, Kyoto actually excluded protection for forests. Kyoto negotiations focused on establishing a model for limiting fossil fuel/industrial emissions. Due to the complex political agendas of international governments and NGOs during negotiations, protection for forests was deliberately left out of the Kyoto Protocol. (For a very interesting perspective on the exclusion of forests from the Kyoto Protocol refer to this paper by Philip Fearnside - Environmentalists split over Kyoto and Amazonian deforestation, Environmental Conservation 28 (4): 295-299 2001).
It is horrifying to think of the millions of hectares of rainforest and biodiversity that have been lost over the past years, with no mechanism in the Kyoto Protocol, ?the only game in town?, to protect them.
Complain about this comment
ElizHart, very good point there about Kyoto actually making the problems worse - that's something that's definitely worth thinking about and reading around about, especially with regard to the deforestation.
That's not to say that's it's worthless though, just that it's been gone about the wrong way. I'm always fearful of criticising what are percieved as environmental successes, in case the public turn round and start blaming the well meaning environmentalists in the first place.
Going back to the rainforests for a moment though, it may have been bad for them had Kyoto not gone ahead anyway. Take Malaysia for example. Their extensive palm oil plantations which have so decimated the rainforest could very well have been rubber plantations instead (in another, non-Kyoto world). Rubber production, once a mainstay of the Malaysia economy took a backseat in the Malaysia economy as palm oil because the thing to have, but due to high oil prices (being used for synthetic rubber) (and them staying high for the forseeable future), rubber plantations are now once again big money. Whenever it's a choice between money or forest, history shows what usually wins.
That's not to say I'm trying to take the blame off biofuels, it's just that biofuels are just another aspect of the worldwide economy which is inadvertently (or otherwise) helping to undermine efforts to reduce our impact.
Complain about this comment
Hi SamW87. I?m not saying a global climate change agreement is a bad idea, but I am arguing that Kyoto has caused a lot of problems because of the way it has been formulated. I guess we had to start somewhere, but there have been some very unfortunate results, courtesy of the law of unintended consequences.
In the ?Time to ditch Kyoto? article mentioned in my previous post, Prins and Rayner argue that ?the Kyoto Protocol is a symbolically important expression of government?s concern about climate change. But as an instrument for achieving emissions reductions, it has failed. It has produced no demonstrable reductions in emissions or even anticipated emissions growth?. They argue that Kyoto has ?simply failed to accommodate the complexity of the climate-change issue?. (Nature 449, 973-975 25 October 2007).
As I mentioned previously, I?m no expert on Kyoto. However, I?ve heard it described as ?Eurocentric? and I agree with that description. For example, for complex reasons related to Kyoto negotiations focusing on establishing a model for limiting fossil fuel / industrial emissions, protection for forests was deliberately left out of the Kyoto Protocol. Apparently European governments and European NGOs such as Greenpeace, WWF, Birdlife International and Friends of the Earth were opposed to inclusion of avoided deforestation in the Kyoto Protocol. (Ref: Fearnside, P.M. ?Environmentalists split over Kyoto and Amazonian deforestation?, Environmental Conservation 28 (4): 295-299 2001).
When you think of the millions of hectares of forest and associated biodiversity that have been lost in recent years, it seems the exclusion of forest protection was an unmitigated cock-up of the highest order.
Here?s a quote from a paper by forestry expert Philip Fearnside which illustrates why forest protection was deliberately left out of the Kyoto Protocol. ?Saving tropical forests as a global warming countermeasure has become one of the environmental movement?s most divisive issues. Divisions are just as sharp as the better-known ones between government positions. While the debate is often couched in scientific terms and with appeals to high universal principles, the positions of the different partisans to the debate are better understood in terms of hidden agendas, conscious or not. In the case of European governments, which oppose inclusion of forests in the Kyoto Protocol?s clean development mechanism, the exclusion of forests would lead to improvement of industrial competitiveness as compared to the US. In the case of Brazil, opposition to including avoided deforestation fits with conspiracy theories regarding internationalization of the Amazon. For European and European-dominated non-governmental organizations (NGOs), opposition to forests is best explained as an opportunistic blow at US consumption culture, which is reviled for reasons largely unrelated to climate change.? (Ref: ?Saving tropical forests as a global warming countermeasure: an issue that divides the environmental movement? (Ecological Economics 39 (2001) 167?184).
A more recent paper by William F. Laurance, ?A New Initiative to Use Carbon Trading for Tropical Forest Conservation?, Biotropica 39(1): 20?24 2007) also discusses this topic.
I found these papers most illuminating ? quite shocking actually! It was interesting to read about the complex agendas that lie behind formulating a global climate change agreement. Maybe it?s not always so clear who is actually the ?good guy? and the ?bad guy?.
I hope that all parties involved in formulating the new, and hopefully fair and effective, global climate change agreement will cooperate with the best of intentions, and with the aim of achieving the best outcomes for all.
Complain about this comment
ElizHart I am not an expert on these issues by any definition. However, I can see the contradictions created by the current bio-fuels and Kyoto. No, I was not aware about the whole forest protection issue in Kyoto... but it does fit with the other issues I know about... instead of formulating these rules in order to deliver reductions in CO2 emissions, they have been made up in order to support self interests by various groups. The Europeans want to paint themselves as the champions of Kyoto, but this simply arises because the rules are biased.
Kyoto may be a good symbol, but in terms of reducing CO2 emissions, it has not done a very good job... even to the eyes of a spectator like myself.
The worry is that if these agreements continue to be made on the same basis as Kyoto WE ARE IN TROUBLE with global warming.
Complain about this comment
1. How pathetic (and typical) that most ecoterrorists mention all alternatives to greenhose gases' emitting power sources except NUCLEAR POWER.
Could do it be that Woodstock/hippie generation is still so high than it cannot stoop so low as to understand some physicis rather than only METAphysicis?
2. Fuel cell (hydrogen)- based
cars will become feasible when oil price reaches $150.00 per barrel, which is soon.
Market forces alone will take care of the problem.
3. "Professor King says that the danger of European Union laws setting precise targets for biofuels is that they would suck "good" biofuels into the EU but obviously not prevent "bad" ones elsewhere such as the USA."
That at least I can understand. Nothing good can possibly come from the USA , the Evil Empire, which has created nothing of value except almost all critically important technologies of modern world, including telephone, nuclear reactor, transistor, particle accelerator, computer, integrated circuit, telecommunication satellite and, yes, Internet, whose foundations were created by Mother of all of Evils (PENTAGON) so that assorted pool-side pinkos/tree-huggers with an IQ of a scallop could promulgate their BS worldwide with an utmost of ease.
Complain about this comment
Well said, powermeerkat.
Complain about this comment
Rob_Hob, yes I was also surprised when I discovered forest protection was deliberately excluded from Kyoto ? and that European governments and European NGOs were instrumental in this exclusion! As Michael Caine might say, ?not a lot of people know that?.
As you note, ironically ?the Europeans want to paint themselves as the champions of Kyoto? (despite their enormous blunder on forests) and the US (and Australia prior to the last election) is constantly demonised because they won?t ratify Kyoto. However, I agree with the US stance ? there?s no point to a climate change agreement that doesn?t include all the major emitters, including developing countries with super fast-growing economies and enormous populations.
Developing countries are continuing to resist the imposition of emission targets. However Nicholas Stern?s latest climate change report states: ?The developing countries, which by 2050 will account for around eight billion out of a world population of nine billion, and the greater part of global emissions, will have to be fundamentally involved in achieving global emission reductions.?
(Refer to: Key Elements of a Global Deal on Climate Change (30 April 2008): http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/pressAndInformationOffice/newsAndEvents/archives/2008/globaldeal.htm )
Good to see population gets a mention in the new Stern report. This issue is usually a taboo subject, but it has to be acknowledged, particularly if there?s the risk that developing countries might account for up to 10.6 billion if fertility rates don?t decrease.
Stern also addresses the problematic developed/developing country dichotomy when he recognises ?there is much variation within these two groups. For example, while there are developed countries that are around five times richer than the global average, there are also developing countries that are significantly richer than the global average.?
Stern makes the point that ?fast growing middle income developing countries with higher incomes will need to take immediate action in order to stabilise and reverse emissions growth, including sectoral targets and, possibly, earlier national targets.?
Rob_Hob, you suggested that so far Kyoto ?has not done a very good job?. I agree. While it?s understandable every country is trying to defend and protect its own position, it?s unfortunate that some groups are keen to push their own subversive political agendas and that such an adversarial attitude has developed under Kyoto.
It would be helpful if more was done to encourage and foster a more cooperative and collaborative relationship between all countries to achieve a fair and effective new climate change agreement. After all, we?ve only got one world and we all have to look after it.
Complain about this comment
@34 (Elizhart)
didn't anyone ever tell you climate change is a natural phenomenon and there is no human influence on it? It has been a natural phenomenon for millions of years.
The politicians are using this as an issue hoping to pass more regulation of our lives and impose more taxes which they then can give away to other countries.
The Stern report was nothing but sensationalized scaremongering.
Complain about this comment
Freedom4NL @35 is, of course, correct.
Our increasing 'carbon footprint' was supposed to cause 'global warming', but now we're advised that the planet will actually be slightly cooler for the next decade confounding all the miserablists' deep-set prejudices.... hence 'moving the goal posts' to 'climate change'.
Al Gore will hopefully be in suspended animation for the next 10 years until things get warmer, then they can defrost him and once again show misleading films of poor little polar bears on melting icebergs and other sub-Goebbels propaganda.
Complain about this comment
Freedom4nl and Sceptic... do you also believe the world is flat? Or the Sun revolves around the Earth? etc. Human caused warming is now a proven science fact. The Luddites that oppose it use common "logic" to attack scientists... this is about as funny as some things about the EU ;)
Complain about this comment
Freedom4NL and ScepticMax. I take Freedom4NL's point that climate change has been "a natural phenomenon for millions of years", although I don't accept there is "no human influence on it". For example, I believe that destroying great swathes of rainforest has a detrimental effect on the climate and the environment.
There is no doubt the climate change debate is complicated and polarised and I admit I'm bewildered by all the arguments. However, I don't think it can be denied that we humans have a detrimental effect on the planet by the pollution we create and the environmental damage we cause. While evolution and progress is inevitable, surely we have a responsibility to do all we can to protect and sustain our environment for future generations and other species?
The Kyoto Protocol is a global-warming agreement focused primarily on reducing "emissions". However, we urgently need a more broad-ranging global agreement on environmental and sustainability issues. The constant arguments about the validity or otherwise of global warming are stalling action on obvious environmental problems such as forest and biodiversity destruction, over-population, water and food shortages and other environmental and sustainability issues.
As I have mentioned previously, the Kyoto Protocol deliberately excluded protection for forests. As a result, rainforest destruction is rampant in countries such as Indonesia and Brazil. For example, due to clearance for logging and oil palm plantations, Indonesia?s forests are being destroyed at a staggering rate, amounting to almost two million hectares per year. http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2002/timber_mafia/resources/resources_facts.htm
In 2005, the Coalition for Rainforest Nations tabled a proposal to include forests in the global climate change agreement. Three years later, this proposal is still being discussed...
At the UN climate change meeting in Bali last December, delegates agreed to include forest protection mechanisms in future discussions about a new post-2012 climate change agreement. In a recent article in Nature, Jeff Tollefson reports that "although the Bali declarations endorse the idea of including forest protection in the next climate agreement, they say nothing about which avenue to take ? an issue that is now being hotly debated." ("Save the trees" Nature 452, 6 March 2008).
While this "hot debate" continues, what will happen to forests in the critical intervening period between 2008 - 2012? This problem has been talked about for years. We need action NOW.
Complain about this comment
I'm all for saving trees, reducing pollution, protecting the landscape, etc. All these are quite possible and achievable at sensible cost - financial and lifestyle-wise - without scare-mongering and millennialist nonsense.
The enviro- fascists' keep crying 'wolf' and people have now woken up to the fact that their main interest is not, and never has been, the benefit of mankind.
Governments, of course, jump on the environmental bandwagon as it gives them ample excuses to raise taxes (never mind for what, and hardly ever taking into account the 'law of unintended consequences), and allows them to indulge in their chief passion - telling people what to do.
Cynical? You bet!
Complain about this comment
ScepticMax, I'm glad you're "all for saving trees, reducing pollution, protecting the landscape etc." I'm sure many people would agree. But we need political will and leadership at the highest level to actually make this happen. We also need a new global climate change/environment/sustainability agreement which can effectively tackle these problems.
We've had years of talking and symbolic gestures about these problems and little effective action. I'm concerned there'll be more talking over the next four years til 2012 and in the meantime forests will continue to be destroyed at an alarming rate. (And at the moment there's little reason to be optimistic the new climate change agreement will be any more effective than the current Kyoto Protocol).
The problem of deforestation needs to be addressed urgently. For example, according to the UNEP report, The Last Stand of the Orangutan, 98% of Indonesian rainforests may be destroyed by 2022. The report argues that "it is likely that many protected areas will already be severely degraded in three to five years, that is by 2012".
We need to take action outside the Kyoto Protocol NOW to address this problem. For example, in March last year the Australian government launched its ground-breaking Global Initiative on Forests and Climate to respond to the problem of global deforestation. http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/10052/20070615-0000/www.pm.gov.au/media/Release/2007/Media_Release24221.html
In October 2007, Britain's Prince Charles launched The Prince's Rainforest Project. Prince Charles stated: "The central issue in this whole debate is how we put a true value on standing rainforests to the world community - we simply have to find ways of putting a price on them which makes them more valuable alive than dead." http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/speechesandarticles/a_speech_by_hrh_the_prince_of_wales_for_the_wwf_dinner_to_la_363851406.html
During the UN climate change meeting in Bali, Norway's Prime Minister, Jens Stoltenberg, announced that his country was prepared to increase its support to prevent deforestation in developing countries to more than US$500 million a year. Mr Stoltenberg urged other countries to join his country in these efforts. http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/smk/Statsministerens-kontor/Statsminister_Jens_Stoltenberg/Taler-og-artikler/2007-4/Tale-til-FNs-klimakonferanse-pa-Bali.html?id=493899
Norway's Minister of the Environment and International Development, Erik Solheim, said that "an initiative in this area in the next few years can bring about substantial cuts in greenhouse gas emissions while the world is seeking to put in place a new, more comprehensive agreement on climate change." http://www.norway.org/policy/environment/avskoging_eng.htm
In late December 2007, Prince Charles offered to join with Norway to discuss ways to cooperate in projects to save forests around the world. Mr Stoltenberg said Norway was willing to work with all who want to put systems and regulations in place to halt deforestation. http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/46206/story.htm
The Norwegian government recognises there is a need to protect forests NOW, in the critical period 2008-2012. Countries such as Australia and Norway, and organisations such as the The Prince's Rainforest Project, have acknowledged the global deforestation problem. But we need a focused global approach, a focused alliance of world leaders to lead on finding practical solutions to the problem of deforestation NOW.
Details of the post-2012 climate change agreement are due to be finalised at Copenhagen in 2009. It would be an excellent demonstration of political will and leadership if an alliance of world leaders could table a progress report on their efforts to reduce global deforestation at the Copenhagen meeting.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS