by Michael Smith (Veshengro)
EU ministers for energy and the environment have revised their targets for renewable energy in the face of abundant new evidence that increased production of agrofuels is partly responsible for the worldwide increase of food prices.
The EU has had a declared objective of increasing the share of crop derived biofuels used in transport by 10 percent by 2010. This objective was announced during the spring of 2007, as part of the European Commission (EC) plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent by 2020. The European Commission is the executive arm of the EU.
Greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane are thought to be the main cause of global warming, and thus of climate change.
Please note that it says “are thought to be”, which means, as I keep saying, that this is not a proven fact, though we are, more often than not, presented with it as a fact. The story most of us hear again and again is that “greenhouse cases cause climate change”. Still no acceptance of the possibility, even of the possibility, that the climate change, which is a fact, is a cyclic phenomenon of the Earth and that we can do nothing to stop it. This “are thought to be” is not just my words; in fact the writers for the Eu seem to be using the same words.
German deputy minister for technology and energy Jochen Homann said after a EU ministers meeting earlier this month that the EU had "discovered" that the EC directives speak of "renewable sources", not just agrofuels.
Oh, the EU has “discovered”, much like the British government that “discovered” that one can use canals for freight transport – what the hell did they think they were designed and built for – and that one can burn wood (for energy) – something even the Neanderthals could have told them, that the directives of the European Commission, the governing body of the EU, speaks of “renewable sources” and not just (food) crop based biofuels.
Agrofuels are distilled from maize, sugarcane, soy and other crops, and were until recently considered a carbon-free combustible that could be used in automobiles without producing greenhouse gas emissions.
Recent studies and findings though seem to suggest that biofuels from such crops as mentioned above may cause more harmful emissions in fact than oil based fuels in the current ICE vehicles.
In a declaration to the press after the meeting in St. Cloud on the outskirts of Paris, French minister for the environment and energy Jean-Louis Borloo said agrofuels "are only one alternative, among others."
Numerous EU documents speak of increasing the share of agrofuels in transport.
Article 3 of an EC directive of 2003 (also known as the biofuels directive) asks member states to ensure "5.75 percent agrofuels" in fuel used for transport. The same year the French government – of which Borloo was deputy minister for urban development first, and minister for labour and social affairs later – approved a plan to increase the share of agrofuels to seven percent by 2010.
Another European directive, approved by the Council of the European Union in March 2007 establishes "a 10 percent binding minimum target to be achieved by all member states for the share of biofuels in overall EU transport petrol and diesel consumption by 2020, to be introduced in a cost-efficient way."
Now, after the correction in St. Cloud, the EU might change its official views on agrofuels, once considered the ideal solution to feed the growing demand for transport fuel while at the same time reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
The EU about-face on this comes, as I indicated above already, after new scientific suggests that the ecological footprint of biofuels from crops is not as green as once thought. New evidence has also underlined the responsibility of agrofuels for the food scarcity crisis.
As I have said in a previous article, it would have hardly needed a study of any kind to realize that the use of food crops for the production of biofuels would push up the demand and with it the prices, leading to a scarcity, especially as commodity brokers play with the grains.
A World Bank paper says production of agrofuels is responsible for 75 percent of the increase in the price of food. The confidential report leaked to the media says higher energy and fertiliser prices accounted for only 15 percent of the increase.
The figure contradicts claims by the U.S. government that agrofuels have contributed less than three percent to food price increases.
The Agricultural Outlook 2007-2016 produced jointly by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), a group of 30 wealthy nations, and the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) says "the pressure (on food prices) can be either direct, through growing demand and changes in consumption patterns as incomes rise, or indirect as alternative uses of food crops, such as inputs for fuels, have led to higher domestic prices."
For the EU, the OECD-FAO report says that "this growth in biofuel markets translates into strongly increased demand for feedstock products." The document says the "use of wheat (for agrofuel production) in particular is set to increase twelve-fold and to reach some 18 million tonnes by 2016.
"Growth in the use of oilseeds (largely rapeseed) and maize is less dramatic, but would still reach 21 million tonnes and 5.2 million tonnes by 2016 respectively," the paper adds.
Yet another study, by the Environmental Protection Encouragement Agency (EPEA, based in Hamburg, Germany), says agrofuels "create much more (ecological) problems than they will solve, including deforestation, increase in greenhouse gas emissions, requirements for land that does not exist to achieve positive environmental effects, enhanced food insecurity, creation of more poverty, increased soil degradation, decreased biodiversity, (and) accelerated depletion of natural resources."
Borloo says "over the years, agrofuels were the one and only (ecological) truth; now, we are about to change our minds at the highest speed. What we considered the solution a couple of months ago is now in disgrace."
With all this evidence before us why are the governments, whether the British, or the EU as a whole, still advocating the stupid notion of fuels from crops? If we are really serious about reducing emission – I will not call them “greenhouse gases” - then we must get away from the vehicles with internal combustion engines that burn fuels, whether oil-based or whatever-based.
© M Smith (Veshengro), August 2008
<>
EU ministers for energy and the environment have revised their targets for renewable energy in the face of abundant new evidence that increased production of agrofuels is partly responsible for the worldwide increase of food prices.
The EU has had a declared objective of increasing the share of crop derived biofuels used in transport by 10 percent by 2010. This objective was announced during the spring of 2007, as part of the European Commission (EC) plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent by 2020. The European Commission is the executive arm of the EU.
Greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane are thought to be the main cause of global warming, and thus of climate change.
Please note that it says “are thought to be”, which means, as I keep saying, that this is not a proven fact, though we are, more often than not, presented with it as a fact. The story most of us hear again and again is that “greenhouse cases cause climate change”. Still no acceptance of the possibility, even of the possibility, that the climate change, which is a fact, is a cyclic phenomenon of the Earth and that we can do nothing to stop it. This “are thought to be” is not just my words; in fact the writers for the Eu seem to be using the same words.
German deputy minister for technology and energy Jochen Homann said after a EU ministers meeting earlier this month that the EU had "discovered" that the EC directives speak of "renewable sources", not just agrofuels.
Oh, the EU has “discovered”, much like the British government that “discovered” that one can use canals for freight transport – what the hell did they think they were designed and built for – and that one can burn wood (for energy) – something even the Neanderthals could have told them, that the directives of the European Commission, the governing body of the EU, speaks of “renewable sources” and not just (food) crop based biofuels.
Agrofuels are distilled from maize, sugarcane, soy and other crops, and were until recently considered a carbon-free combustible that could be used in automobiles without producing greenhouse gas emissions.
Recent studies and findings though seem to suggest that biofuels from such crops as mentioned above may cause more harmful emissions in fact than oil based fuels in the current ICE vehicles.
In a declaration to the press after the meeting in St. Cloud on the outskirts of Paris, French minister for the environment and energy Jean-Louis Borloo said agrofuels "are only one alternative, among others."
Numerous EU documents speak of increasing the share of agrofuels in transport.
Article 3 of an EC directive of 2003 (also known as the biofuels directive) asks member states to ensure "5.75 percent agrofuels" in fuel used for transport. The same year the French government – of which Borloo was deputy minister for urban development first, and minister for labour and social affairs later – approved a plan to increase the share of agrofuels to seven percent by 2010.
Another European directive, approved by the Council of the European Union in March 2007 establishes "a 10 percent binding minimum target to be achieved by all member states for the share of biofuels in overall EU transport petrol and diesel consumption by 2020, to be introduced in a cost-efficient way."
Now, after the correction in St. Cloud, the EU might change its official views on agrofuels, once considered the ideal solution to feed the growing demand for transport fuel while at the same time reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
The EU about-face on this comes, as I indicated above already, after new scientific suggests that the ecological footprint of biofuels from crops is not as green as once thought. New evidence has also underlined the responsibility of agrofuels for the food scarcity crisis.
As I have said in a previous article, it would have hardly needed a study of any kind to realize that the use of food crops for the production of biofuels would push up the demand and with it the prices, leading to a scarcity, especially as commodity brokers play with the grains.
A World Bank paper says production of agrofuels is responsible for 75 percent of the increase in the price of food. The confidential report leaked to the media says higher energy and fertiliser prices accounted for only 15 percent of the increase.
The figure contradicts claims by the U.S. government that agrofuels have contributed less than three percent to food price increases.
The Agricultural Outlook 2007-2016 produced jointly by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), a group of 30 wealthy nations, and the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) says "the pressure (on food prices) can be either direct, through growing demand and changes in consumption patterns as incomes rise, or indirect as alternative uses of food crops, such as inputs for fuels, have led to higher domestic prices."
For the EU, the OECD-FAO report says that "this growth in biofuel markets translates into strongly increased demand for feedstock products." The document says the "use of wheat (for agrofuel production) in particular is set to increase twelve-fold and to reach some 18 million tonnes by 2016.
"Growth in the use of oilseeds (largely rapeseed) and maize is less dramatic, but would still reach 21 million tonnes and 5.2 million tonnes by 2016 respectively," the paper adds.
Yet another study, by the Environmental Protection Encouragement Agency (EPEA, based in Hamburg, Germany), says agrofuels "create much more (ecological) problems than they will solve, including deforestation, increase in greenhouse gas emissions, requirements for land that does not exist to achieve positive environmental effects, enhanced food insecurity, creation of more poverty, increased soil degradation, decreased biodiversity, (and) accelerated depletion of natural resources."
Borloo says "over the years, agrofuels were the one and only (ecological) truth; now, we are about to change our minds at the highest speed. What we considered the solution a couple of months ago is now in disgrace."
With all this evidence before us why are the governments, whether the British, or the EU as a whole, still advocating the stupid notion of fuels from crops? If we are really serious about reducing emission – I will not call them “greenhouse gases” - then we must get away from the vehicles with internal combustion engines that burn fuels, whether oil-based or whatever-based.
© M Smith (Veshengro), August 2008
<>
Post Title
→European Union backs slowly away from crop-based biofuels
Post URL
→https://national-grid-news.blogspot.com/2008/08/european-union-backs-slowly-away-from.html
Visit National-grid-news for Daily Updated Wedding Dresses Collection
