« Peugeot to Launch New 308 Models at Geneva; Up to 10% Reduction in Fuel Consumption | Main | Axion Providing Lead-Acid Ultracapacitor Hybrid Batteries for Demonstration Projects With the US Army and Penn State University »
UK Transport Secretary Announces Review of Indirect Impacts of Biofuel Production
21 February 2008
UK Transport Secretary Ruth Kelly has asked the UK’s Renewable Fuels Agency (RFA) to lead a study of the wider economic and environmental impacts—particularly the indirect impacts—of different forms of biofuel production. The UK created the Renewable Fuels Agency in November 2007 to administer the Government’s Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation (RTFO) and to report to Ministers and to Parliament on its impacts. The RTFO directs that 5% of all the fuels sold in the UK should come from biofuels by 2010.
The results of the study will help inform the development of both the UK and EU’s policies in this area, and will underpin the consideration of EU biofuel targets after 2010.
Biofuels have the potential to help reduce the impact of transport on the environment, provided they are sustainable. That is why we are introducing the new Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation in April. The RTFO will allow us to gather a wealth of data on the impacts of biofuels, which we will take into account in determining future levels of support for biofuels.
However, future biofuel targets must also take into account the latest scientific evidence about the environmental effects of biofuel production. There has been much recent debate around the risks associated with overly rapid expansion of biofuel production, with evidence now emerging on the indirect, or “displacement” impacts, of growing demand for agricultural production around the world.
The UK Government takes this issue very seriously. We are not prepared to go beyond current UK target levels for biofuels until we are satisfied it can be done sustainably. The Review I am announcing today will ensure that the full economic and environmental impacts of biofuel production are taken into account in the formation of UK policy beyond 2010.
—Ruth Kelly
The RTFO includes a detailed reporting mechanism to encourage the use of sustainable biofuels. Transport fuel suppliers are required to submit a report on the environmental impacts of the biofuels in order to receive any credit for them under the RTFO. This mechanism has been developed over the last 18 months with experts and other stakeholders from the oil and biofuels industries as well as from environmental NGOs, and it was the subject of a detailed public consultation in the summer of 2007. (Earlier post.)
The government intends that the RFA study will take account of recent international research which suggest that the indirect impacts of biofuel production have not always been taken into account in earlier carbon saving calculations. (Earlier post.)
The review will also build on the survey of the scientific evidence on the environmental impacts of biofuels commissioned by the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), which is due to be published shortly. It will be peer-reviewed by the government’s chief scientific advisers.
Initial analysis will be provided to Transport Secretary Ruth Kelly and Secretary of State for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra) Hilary Benn by early summer.
February 21, 2008 in Biodiesel, Biomass, Cellulosic ethanol, Ethanol, Europe, Policy, Sustainability | Permalink | Comments (7) | TrackBack (0)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/26364766
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference UK Transport Secretary Announces Review of Indirect Impacts of Biofuel Production:
Comments
As long as this research takes into account new land use techniques and the potential for biochar soil sequestration and biofuels coupled to CCS, then everything is ok.
If it doesn't, the exercise is a bit futile.
Posted by: Jonas | Feb 21, 2008 9:21:01 AM
I think it is concentrating on the actual effect of the current policy: better late than never. Thinking about what could happen, what you want to happen, and how to achieve it would be the next step, but it does not make finding out the current state of play futile.
Posted by: DavidJ | Feb 21, 2008 11:31:29 AM
I have heard people say that government should just set broad goals and let the private sector figure out how to do it.
The example of MTBE comes to mind. The government just said "oxygenate" and the industry picked the low cost MTBE. We know how that turned out.
Maybe setting broad goals at first is a good idea, but monitoring the progress and making sure that it has not gone off track could be good as well.
Posted by: sjc | Feb 21, 2008 11:38:00 AM
The Orang Utan is fighting back, long live the forests.
It was a really bad idea while it lasted.
Posted by: john Baldwin | Feb 21, 2008 12:18:48 PM
Yeah, if we could only get Hemp legalized so we could actually do industrial studies on its potential in regard to producing Biofuels and its environmental impacts.
Posted by: christopher | Feb 21, 2008 2:16:34 PM
@DavidJ: the point is: there are no indirect effects. The EU has just released data showing that palm oil imports have not increased since 2005; and Brazil has just re-stated (at the Climate Change Forum in Brasilia) that sugarcane doesn't grow in the Amazon - something everybody knows.
So a discussion about nothing is a waste of time, unless this discussion delves into future land use practises that result in negative emissions (that is: systems that remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere; contrary to solar or wind or other renewables, who merely reduce emissions).
Posted by: Jonas | Feb 22, 2008 3:10:08 PM
Looking at all aspects up front is a great idea, it can reduce the chances of creating more problems. This includes cellulose biofuels from corn stover.
Biofuels are a bridge to use less oil. They are not the solution and we should not do more harm than good using them.
I kind of like the solar PV vision. House roofs are covered with cheap solar panels and you charge battery packs to power your house and cars. Maybe some day this might be cost effective.
Posted by: sjc | Feb 25, 2008 10:37:55 AM
