According to Philippe Tillous-Borde, France's biofuels giant Sofiproteol, “These studies have paved the way for the decline of the European biodiesel industry.â€
The EU’s current policy requires that the use of biofuels be increased from 3% to 10% by 2020. However, in the past two years, there has been controversy within the EU on the extent of this target's indirect negative impact on the environment. Analysis shows that this target may indirectly cause about 1,000 megatons of CO2 emissions.
Reuters said that if the analysis is correct, it means that the EU's policy formulation has made major mistakes. The report pointed out: "(The results of this study) are of great significance to the European biodiesel industry. Due to the drastic reduction of traditional biodiesel raw materials, long-term industry investment will be affected."
In addition, the report's results will significantly affect the future direction of investment by large oil companies, such as BP and Shell, and the next generation of non-food sources of biofuels will thus develop rapidly.
Global biofuel experts warn that the impact of the EU's green energy targets has led to a significant increase in the production of biofuels, which will reduce food supply and bring about greater hunger worldwide.
According to previous theories, when biofuels are burned, they only emit the carbon they absorb during the growth of crops. Therefore, people once considered it a good way to control the carbon emissions from transportation. The concept of "indirect changes in land use" poses a challenge to the status of biofuels. “Indirectly changing land use†means that if people remove the original crops from the land and turn to the crops needed for biofuels, some people will always lack food, unless people grow the same amount of food elsewhere.
Recent studies have shown that, in order to make up for the food gap brought about by biofuels, about 80% of the newly reclaimed land is obtained through deforestation. People often burn the felled forest to remove the plants on the land, but this process will emit greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Due to the huge amount of emissions, almost all the benefits of biofuels can be offset.
According to the European Commission’s documents, “The experts almost unanimously believe that although there is still a lot of uncertainty in the theory of 'indirect changes in land use', there is already strong evidence that the impact it has has is enormous.†The impact of biodiesel from Asian palm oil, South American soybeans, and European rapeseed oil exceeds that of conventional diesel.
European Transport and Environment Union Noosa? Nusa Urbancic pointed out: "Scientists already have enough reason to believe that the current EU biofuels policy will indirectly cause environmental damage, so the mistake must be terminated immediately."
However, about 80% of the biofuel companies believe that these scientific evidences are not conclusive enough to reach the point where they affect legal decisions. While arguing over biodiesel, scientists recommend bioethanol as a better alternative to clean energy. According to the report of the International Food Policy Research Center, “The change in land use of ethanol raw materials is relatively small compared to biodiesel, among which land used for ethanol production from sugar beets has the lowest emissions.â€
The European Commission expects that if the law takes into account the "indirect changes in land use" factor, it will seriously undermine the demand for biodiesel. However, people's demand for bioethanol and other advanced biodiesel products will have a blowout trend.
Business News Agency July 14 The European biodiesel industry has been developing rapidly since 2003 and currently has a total output value of US$13 billion, ranking it among the top in the world. However, recent studies have shown that the indirect damage to the environment caused by the biodiesel industry is almost equivalent to its benefits, and the EU may restrict its development from the legal perspective.