European biofuels win last-minute reprieve
The European Commission has amended its values for the amount of greenhouse gas emissions biofuels release so that certain fuels produced in Europe that previously would not have met new "green" thresholds approved by MEPs now meet them.
The change, based on new data from the commission's researchers, car manufacturers and oil companies, is a convenient move for the European biofuels industry. Diplomats from EU member states are meeting today (29 October) to decide on a working document - seen by EUobserver - on the renewable energy directive that features the new figures and that the EU presidency will use as the basis for compromise negotiations on the legislation with the European Parliament.
Join EUobserver today
Get the EU news that really matters
Instant access to all articles — and 20 years of archives. 14-day free trial.
Choose your plan
... or subscribe as a group
Already a member?
When proposing the bill, the commission had initially suggested that in order to be included as part of a target that 10 percent of road fuels come from renewable sources, biofuels had to achieve a 35 percent savings in greenhouse gas emissions on what traditional fossil fuels would have emitted.
This standard was low enough that a range of biofuels produced in Europe could meet it. However, the industry committee of the parliament in September more strictly demanded that biofuels achieve a 45 percent savings on fossil fuels immediately, and a 60 percent savings by 2015.
At 45 percent, while fuels such as ethanol from Brazilian sugar cane would easily meet such sustainability critieria, a number of European biofuels, such as sugar beet ethanol, would not have met the cut-off.
But in the new document, the commission has adjusted its original rules for calculating what exactly is the greenhouse gas impact of different biofuels, and sugar beet ethanol is in the clear once again.
The commission has now submitted to diplomats updated figures from the Joint Research Centre, the automotive manufacturers' association for research and development in Europe (EUCAR) and the oil companies' European association of environment, health and safety in refining (CONCAWE).
Sugar beet ethanol, which under the commission's previous assessment using data also from these sources was found to have a greenhouse gas saving of 35 percent, is now found to have a savings of 52 percent.
Some biofuels, such as ethanol produced from sugar cane and biogas from municipal organic waste, according to the new data have seen small reductions in their assumed greenhouse gas savings, but they already easily meet both the 45 and 60 percent targets.
All other biofuels have seen increases in what the commission assumes are their greenhouse gas savings, or have remained the same.
Environmentalists say that the figures may well be correct, as the industry may indeed have been able to squeeze out more efficiencies in their production methods, but they have no way of assessing the data, because the report from the JRC that compiles them is not open to scrutiny as it has not yet been published.
This is unfair to the parliament, they say, because while MEPs cannot check the figures, they are already forming the basis of a presidency compromise.
Additionally, argues Nusa Urbancic, of Transport and Environment - a Brussels-based NGO - it is unfair that the commission include fresh, unpublished data that favours the European biofuels industry "at the drop of a hat while they continue to refuse to incorporate scientific paper after scientific paper on the far more profound impact of indirect land-use change."
Research, including the UK government's review of biofuels policies, increasingly shows that when land that would have been used to grow food or animal feed is now used to produce fuel, the additional emissions - a process known as "indirect land-use change" - far outweigh any greenhouse gas savings.
"It is right that the EU takes on board the latest science regarding greenhouse gas emissions from biofuel production," she added, "but the fact that the commission and council are still ignoring the absolutely critical issue of indirect land-use change shows that they are being selective about the science they take on board.
"The timing and lack of transparency surrounding these new figures raises serious questions about how the biofuel lobby has been able to influence the debate."