As the burning of fossil fuels for transport is a significant contributor to global greenhouse emissions, the use of biofuels has been promoted as an effective way of reducing global emissions.
However, any analysis of the benefits of biofuels needs to include not just its actual use in a vehicle, but also the emissions created during the complete production cycle of that biofuel. It also needs to look at the wider economic and social picture surrounding a particular biofuel and its feedstock.
An analysis of the use of palm oil as feedstock for Australian biodiesel has demonstrated clearly that the social and environmental damage caused by its production and use far outweigh any economic benefit it may provide.
This is due to the following:
- The palm oil industry is causing environmental devastation, social breakdown, health problems, and massive habitat and species loss in Malaysia, Indonesia PNG and other parts of the world.
The impacts of the palm oil industry on Southeast Asian and other communities and forests is well documented. It is illogical and immoral that an environmentally friendly fuel be manufactured in Australia using a feedstock that is causing so much damage elsewhere in the world.
- The use of palm oil-based biodiesel actually increases greenhouse emissions.
It is estimated that the use of Southeast Asian palm oil as a feedstock for biodiesel will actually increasegreenhouse gas emissions by at least 2 to 8 times more than those saved by using it as a fuel, compared to petroleum-based diesel. (Source: Jim Rowland, Biofuelwatch, Feb 2007) www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/background.php
Draining peatlands (which conservatively comprise at least 27% of Southeast Asian oil palm plantations) causes massive greenhouse emissions due to rapid peat decomposition (approx. 70 to 100 tonnes of CO2 per hectare per year).
The drained peatlands are also susceptible to long burning fires that emit huge quantities of carbon dioxide.
Drying peatlands also release substantial quantities of methane, a gas with 23 times the global warming impact of CO2. The production of one tonne of palm oil results in approximately 33 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions. By comparison the amount of fossil fuel required to generate the same amount of energy results in 3 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions. Source: Wetlands International – www.wetlands.org/index.aspx
It is clear that if the very reason for using biofuels is to reduce global emissions, then any biofuel that increases them by any amount (let alone such a huge amount) should not be supported.
Biofuels in Australia
Whilst biofuels in general are being promoted as an effective way to reduce transport emissions, there are long term issues surrounding their production and use:
- feedstock production will put further pressure on dwindling water resources
- the need for more land for feedstock will put pressure on forests and uncleared land
- more crops means more fertilisers, which create greenhouse emissions
- feedstock production will compete with food production, leading to higher food prices, as has already happened overseas
- when the feedstock is a by-product of the food production process (such as corn stalks), the use of it to produce biofuel removes it from the natural organic cycle, (where it is used as nutrient for the new crop), and it still needs to be replaced with fertilisers
- the general misconception of biofuel as a clean, green fuel may actually discourage people from making the required changes to their driving habits, and could lead to an increase in fuel use
Furthermore, there are problems surrounding the use of particular feedstocks in Australia:
- the large scale use of tallow (an animal fat) as feedstock for biodiesel, if it leads to a higher number of livestock, needs to be discouraged. The livestock industry as a whole is responsible for a huge 11.1% of Australia’s greenhouse emissions. (This is mainly due to the production of methane by livestock during digestion, and the breakdown of manure).
- many feedstock growers are currently lobbying for the introduction of GM canola, as the moratorium on its production in Victoria ends on February 29, 2008. However, as has been clearly demonstrated in the UK and the US, GM produce can cause major environmental problems, including a contamination of organic produce due to cross pollenation and widespread pollution (due to the necessity for massive increases in the use of pesticides for some varieties). GM crops can also have dangerous and unpredictable effects on insects, animals and humans. Whilst the use of canola for biofuels would lead to reduced local emissions, the introduction of GM varieties is fraught with danger, and should not be supported.
It is clear that in the absence of low emissions or emissions free transport solutions (that do not have indirect negative impacts elsewhere), the simple solution to reducing transport emissions is to drive less, and develop the public transport system.
Oles Krolikowski
Earth Rescue
October 2007
|
