Unlikely bedfellows in biofuel debate

Industry and green groups are furious about the European Commission’s plan to scrap biofuel targets

Environmental campaigners and biofuel associations were at each others’ throats for most of last year, arguing over whether the European Union should restrict some types of biofuel based on their impact on land use. But last week the two sides were united when the European Commission proposed to scrap EU targets for biofuel after 2020.

The policy shift was indicated in one line in the communication adopted on 22 January proposing a new target of reducing emissions by 40% by 2030 from 1990 levels. The communication was expected to include a revision of EU laws on transport fuel that would extend the existing targets, but the document instead said: “The Commission does not think it appropriate to establish new targets for renewable energy or the greenhouse-gas intensity of fuels used in the transport sector or any other sub-sector after 2020.”

What this means is that the existing target of obtaining 10% of transport fuel from renewable sources by 2020 will not be extended into the following decade. Another target, obliging fuel providers to reduce the greenhouse-gas intensity of their fuels by 6% by 2020, will also not be extended to 2030.

The previous week, as rumours began circulating that the transport fuel targets would be scrapped, the environmentalists and biofuel associations took a break from arguing with each other to pen a joint letter, begging the Commission to reconsider. “The Commission is using the climate and energy package as an excuse to quietly scrap the FQD [fuel quality directive] – the best EU law aimed at lowering emissions from transport fuel,” said Nusa Urbancic of green transport group T&E.

Environmentalists such as Friends of the Earth who have been campaigning against first-generation biofuel welcomed the decision not to extend the 10% target in the renewable energy directive. But they say that scrapping the 6% fuel target will leave the EU with no real strategy to reduce emissions from transport fuel, which currently amount to 25% of total emissions. Transport is expected to be the largest cause of emissions by 2020.

The biofuel companies fear that the Commission’s move will hit investment in their sector, at a time when investors are already holding back because of the debate over indirect land use change.

“The Commission has failed in its first test to provide a clear signal to investors that there will be a clear policy framework for sustainable biofuel in Europe after 2020,” said Rob Vierhout, secretary-general of biofuel association ePure. “The proposals ignore the giant elephant in the room: the constantly increasing greenhouse-gas emissions of EU transport.”

The Commission says that, just because there are no targets, it does not mean that EU policy cannot encourage biofuel. “There are still discussions to be had on how to proceed on the tools,” said Connie Hedegaard, the European commissioner for climate action, last week. The Commission is expected to put forward a proposal to revise the fuel quality directive in the spring, although this will mostly focus on establishing a methodology for calculating emissions from different types of fuel.

Perhaps of most concern to environmentalists is the fear that scrapping the fuel quality directive target will result in an influx of carbon-intensive fossil fuels such as oil from Canadian tar sands. Canada has been lobbying furiously to make sure tar sands are not given a very high weighting for emissions in the forthcoming revision. There have been suggestions that the decision to scrap the 6% fuel target is connected to a free-trade deal that has been signed between the EU and Canada but has yet to be ratified.

On Friday (24 January), the US Natural Resources Defense Council released a report claiming that, even under current EU legislation, imports of tar sands to Europe will rise to more than 700,000 barrels per day by 2020, up from 4,000 barrels in 2012. Scrapping the target after 2020 would mean a much faster increase in the following decade, the report said.