Hveiti

refining life

Biofuels to contribute to a better use of global agricultural land

The leaked proposal for directive does not take into account the complex global challenges that we are facing.

Biofuels should be produced according to sound sustainability criteria and neither technologies nor raw materials should form the legislative foundation.

There is a general agreement that one of the most acute global problems is climate change, and that it is the world’s poorest that are hit the hardest. A reduction in CO2 emissions is necessary, if we are to curb the consequences of climate change. In the recently leaked proposal for directive, the EU Commission has chosen to prioritise the production of biofuels produced from waste and algae. This is done despite that fact that the technologies are not yet commercial and that the quadruple counting that these are allowed will cause a limited reduction in CO2 emissions. 

In the transport sector, (sustainable) biofuels are in the short term the only real possibility for a reduction in CO2 emissions. With a quadruple counting, an admixture of 10 % will in practice only mean an admixture of 2.5 %, and thereby, the potential for a CO2 reduction is reduced. Therefore, focus should be on sound sustainability criteria and not on a political preferential treatment for certain raw materials or technologies. The solution is to assess the biofuels in a broader perspective – not only focusing on the fuel, but just as much on an optimal utilisation of the global agricultural land when it comes to food, feed and energy.

An optimised use of resources

If we are to produce food, feed and energy for not just the current world population, but also for a population of about 9 billion people in 2050, we have to change our approach to resources, so that utilisation and reuse are prioritised. Biofuels are at the moment being accused of threatening food security, as was the case in 2008. In 2010, the World Bank issued a report, which primarily blamed speculations and rising energy prices for the food crisis, and biofuels were giving but a minor part of the responsibility for the 2008 food crisis. 

The crisis in 2008 is a fine example of the oversimplified calculations for the effect of biofuels, which makes them easy scapegoats.

"Let me be very clear, there are no doubts that there are biofuels that have such a bad climate profile that their production – from both an environmental and a food perspective - cannot be defended. But to classify all biofuels produced from so-called food crops as unsustainable is not consistent with reality,"

states Svend Brandstrup, CEO hveiti. 

The fact is that the picture of biofuel productions stealing food from the poor is stuck so deeply that it has become irresistible for facts such as e.g. by biorefining EU surplus productions, you not only produce biofuel, but you also produce vegetable proteins, which can phase-out the severely criticised soya proteins, thereby freeing up agricultural land in the parts of the world that are most severely affected by climate change and food shortages. Surprisingly, this is not incorporated in the calculations on biofuels, which conclude that they do not contribute to reduced CO2 emissions, despite the fact that they help phase-out fossil fuels. 

Valuable proteins from the biofuel production

Biofuels and especially biodiesel are these days being criticised for their bad climate profile and not least their use of land, which could have been used for the cultivation of food. It is true that it is far from every existing biofuel production that is environmentally sustainable in the long run. This is due both to the raw material – like for example palm oil which is grown in rain forest areas – but also the large energy and water consumption used in the process. But it is not fair that the calculation models do not incorporate the feed value of the co-products from the same biofuel production.

“Every time we receive 1000 kilo of rapeseed, we produce 400 kilo oil and 600 kilo proteins used for animal feed. These proteins actually replace imported proteins from South America,”

states Bjarne Simonsen, CEO Emmelev A/S.

The grotesque thing is that it is actually the small percentage of biodiesel from the production that causes the bad climate account. Had it been possible for the company to turn their entire production into biodiesel and not produce any co-products, their CO2 profile would look much better. This is hardly consistent with the goal of having certain raw materials reserved for the production of food and feed. Proteins from South America have a bad climate profile because they are cultivated in rain forest areas. If you look at the background for both LUC and ILUC, Emmelev ought to be honoured for their production of proteins that phase-out proteins from South America. But this is not part of the current models and therefore it is concluded that these fuels emit just as much CO2 as conventional fuels. 

Follow the developments within biorefining. hveiti regularly informs about our efforts to improve the environment.



Follow hveiti on facebook