A more defensible conclusion from consideration of the EAC's
evidence under review might be to propose a moratorium on EU imports of
biofuels and certain feedstocks, whilst maintaining proportionate and
long-term binding targets for biofuels produced in Europe. Europe's
nascent biofuel industry might then provide a commercial environment
capable of supporting development and implementation of the necessary
technology and regulation for a truly sustainable European biofuel
industry.
The obstacle to such an approach is that it is open to challenge by
the World Trade Organization (WTO) and by potential biofuel-exporting
nations as 'green protectionism'. Any sustainability criteria must
therefore apply equally to European producers and to overseas producers
wishing to export feedstocks or biofuels to the EU market. This, as it
happens, is precisely what the EU intends to do. On 23 January 2008
shortly after the EAC's report, the European Commission published its
proposal for a directive on the promotion of the use of energy from
renewable sources [26]
that sides firmly with the conclusions of the Royal Society. This
proposal, if adopted, will supersede the 2003 Biofuels Directive and
introduce a 10% binding target for biofuels by energy content for all
member states by 2020. Only those biofuels that meet a range of
sustainability criteria and achieve a 35% minimum greenhouse gas saving
(including the impact of land use change) will count towards this
target. To encourage more efficient biofuel technology development,
cellulosic and waste-based biofuels will count towards a country's
overall target twice. The clarity, binding nature and long-term
framework for sustainable growth set out in this proposal have received
the backing of many of the leading players in the EU's biofuel
industry. The EU proposal has the merits of providing a policy
framework that will stimulate industrial innovation, whilst
differentially rewarding those technologies and producers that most
effectively address the valid sustainability concerns raised by many
observers of the global biofuels industry today.
The UK Government relies on good scientific advice to help formulate
policy that best meets the challenges anticipated in an uncertain
future. As we enter final few decades of oil, UK, EU and international
policy will influence the rate at which remaining reserves are
consumed, what alternatives will be used in their place and how costly
the transition will be: socially, economically and environmentally.
'Wait and see' is not good enough. What the EAC is proposing is neither
precautionary nor progressive, but is based on emotive and flawed
arguments that, whilst delivered with conviction, are supported neither
by the evidence considered nor by the broader scientific and economic
data available.
The UK Government should set the EAC's report aside and back the EU proposal.
Answers to all your Biology Questions
