The proposal to address the issue of indirect land use change (ILUC) in European biofuel policy has advanced in the European Parliament, as MEP Corinne Lepage of France released her draft report in the Environment Committee. ILUC refers to unintended consequences of making biofuels—for example, if a policy preference for corn ethanol creates incentives for farmers to replace carbon-absorbing forests with cornfields, or to raise food prices by diverting corn to fuel. Some biofuels—often called “second generation”—made from non-edible crops like jatropha and algae that can thrive on currently non-productive land, avoid many of these ILUC effects.
Lepage’s proposal will incorporate specific ILUC “factors” into the sustainable criteria of the EU’s Renewable Energy Directive and Fuel Quality Directive. This will account for differences in biofuels performance, while the Commission suggested to cap at 5 percent the share of conventional biofuels (biodiesel and bioethanol) in transport under the Renewable Energy Directive. Public subsidies for these biofuels will end by 2018.
To promote second-generation biofuels, the report calls for a carveout for woody biomass and agricultural residues. Lepage sought to protect prior investments, so she would delay until 2018 the ILUC factors on each member state’s share of biofuel consumption in the year 2010—provided that the grandfathered biofuels result in greenhouse gas reductions of at least 45 percent.
The grandfathering would benefit biodiesel, which accounted for 80 percent of European biofuel production in 2010. According to some news reports, however, bioethanol performs better on Lepage’s ILUC factors than biodiesel, evening out the advantage.
Lepage’s proposal will incorporate specific ILUC “factors” into the sustainable criteria of the EU’s Renewable Energy Directive and Fuel Quality Directive. This will account for differences in biofuels performance, while the Commission suggested to cap at 5 percent the share of conventional biofuels (biodiesel and bioethanol) in transport under the Renewable Energy Directive. Public subsidies for these biofuels will end by 2018.
To promote second-generation biofuels, the report calls for a carveout for woody biomass and agricultural residues. Lepage sought to protect prior investments, so she would delay until 2018 the ILUC factors on each member state’s share of biofuel consumption in the year 2010—provided that the grandfathered biofuels result in greenhouse gas reductions of at least 45 percent.
The grandfathering would benefit biodiesel, which accounted for 80 percent of European biofuel production in 2010. According to some news reports, however, bioethanol performs better on Lepage’s ILUC factors than biodiesel, evening out the advantage.
The Sustainable Aviation Fuel Users Group (or SAFUG, a consortium of airlines and aerospace firms of which Boeing is a part) has called for policymakers to consider mechanisms that reduce ILUC effects of biofuels. SAFUG has called for the EU to limit the share of food crop-based fuels; its members are committed to biofuels that do not displace food crops. SAFUG also calls for the European Parliament to establish incentives for biofuels that are certified as low-risk for ILUC effects, using a model like the Low Indirect Impact Biofuels (LIIB) standard. SAFUG members also support incentives for biofuels made from waste, algae, and ligno-cellulosics — but no further incentives for feedstocks.
The aviation industry is committed to developing high-efficiency, second-generation sustainable biofuels. These fuels can reduce the sector’s carbon footprint, provide a more diverse (and thus resilient) supply of energy, and develop a new, environmentally progressive industry. And as the industry develops these fuels, it is taking care to ensure they avoid ILUC effects.
For example, KLM Royal Dutch Airlines took a bold step for sustainable aviation last month by launching the first in a series of “Optimal Flights” using a 777 between New York and Amsterdam. Boeing is proud to be their partner in this effort that combines renewable fuels with advanced technology. This means not only using sustainable biofuels, but other smart technologies and concepts to improve the airplane’s operational efficiency while saving fuel and reducing carbon and noise emissions. Basically, we’re taking multiple flight efficiency projects and rolling them into one program to create the most environmentally progressive flight possible.
The Sustainable Aviation Fuel Users Group (or SAFUG, a consortium of airlines and aerospace firms of which Boeing is a part) is of the view that, because of the potential negative impact, ILUC must be addressed in government policies promoting the production of sustainable fuels. SAFUG has called for policymakers to consider mechanisms to lower the contribution of high ILUC risk biofuels and create incentives for sustainable biofuels that have been certified as low risk of ILUC. Any legislation addressing ILUC should consider the possibility of project-level mitigation approaches, including, but not limited to, the Low Indirect Impact Biofuels (LIIB) methodology currently under development by Ecofys, EPFL and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF).
François Hollande, the French president, is currently back from a state visit to China. Hollande hopes to expand trade in Asia, as France’s current account deficit has reached 75 billion euros, a third of which is with the Middle Kingdom.
His task has been made difficult by the recent history of French-Chinese relations. In 2008, former president Sarkozy met the Dalai Lama in Paris, angering the Beijing leadership. He had also threatened to boycott the 2008 Beijing olympic games, with catastrophic results at the time for French companies such as Carrefour operating in China. Commercial relations have suffered in the medium term as a result, as well. Thus, if Germany exported 2 million Volkswagen in China in 2011, during the same period Citroen exported only 44,000 cars, and Renault even less .
Although led by Christian Democrats, Germany has avoided mixing trade with religion and international relations, careful not to offend one of its main trading partners. This businesslike approach might even inspire president Obama in future . (for details, click on the link below )
Already Brussels is looking beyond 2020 for its climate and energy targets, with the European institutions in recent weeks endorsing 2030 goals and opening public consultation on the 2030 policy framework.
Leading questions include – what type, nature and level of climate and energy targets should be set for post-2020? How can coherence between different policy instruments be attained? How can the energy system best contribute to EU competitiveness?
Günther Oettinger, EU Commissioner for Energy said: “We need to define our climate and energy policy framework for 2030 as soon as possible to ensure proper investment that will give us sustainable growth, affordable competitive energy prices and greater energy security. The new framework must take into account the consequences of the economic crisis, but it must also be ambitious enough to meet the necessary long-term goal of cutting emissions 80-95% by 2050.”
Current EU policy is centered on the three headline targets (20-20-20) to be achieved by 2020:
Looking beyond 2020, the Energy Roadmap 2050 provides a basis for developing a long-term policy together with all stakeholders. First adopted by the European Commission in December 2011, the roadmap was developed in line with the objective of reducing GHG emissions by 80 to 95% by 2050 (compared to 1990 levels), as part of necessary efforts by developed countries as a group. How to achieve the EU’s decarbonisation agenda while at the same time ensuring security of energy supply and competitiveness is a challenging issue, to say the least.
As a staging post on the Energy Roadmap 2050, the Green Paper on the 2030 policy framework is open for public consultation until 2 July 2013. On the basis of the views expressed, the Commission intends to table the EU’s 2030 framework for climate and energy policies by the end of this year.
Connie Hedegaard, EU Commissioner for Climate Action, said: ”Europe’s dependence on foreign fossil fuels is growing every year. That means more expensive and unaffordable energy bills for Europeans. This is not very wise. It’s obviously not wise for the climate, but it’s also not wise for our economy and our competiveness. That is why we have decided that in Europe we want a low-carbon society for 2050. We have targets for 2020, but for most investors 2020 is around the corner. It’s time to define the targets for 2030. The sooner we do that, the more certainty we get to our companies and our investors. And the more ambitious these targets are, the better for the climate.”
Fighting words – but the devil’s in the details. Should the targets be at EU, national or sectoral level and be legally binding? Some argue that the existing targets – and policies to reach them – are not necessarily coherent or cost efficient, or that competitiveness, economic viability and maturity of technologies are not taken sufficiently into account. Also, concerns have been expressed that the EU’s commitment to tackling climate change is not fully reciprocated elsewhere, impacting on the bloc’s economic competitiveness.
ManagEnergy opines that there are at least two aspects of behavioral economics that could impact on setting – and reaching – real climate and energy goals. Optimistically, there may be a positive effect from hyperbolic discounting – meaning that people will be farsighted when planning if both costs and benefits occur in the future. What kind of world do you want in 2030? In 2050? However, in the absence of international binding targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions – and the associated perception of free-loading – will the tendency towards pro-social behavior and fairness be diminished?
Have your say –
try coming up with answers to the questions listed here
For more, see
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/consultations/20130702_green_paper_2030_en.htm
The European Parliament yesterday chastised the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development for its explicit interest in financing a new lignite-fired power plant in Kosovo. NGOs hope the bank will pay more attention to the Parliament than it did to civil society and energy experts so far.
posted on the Bankwatch blog by Ionut Apostol, Bankwatch EBRD campaign coordinator
At the end of last year, Kosovo became the newest member of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD). One of the first words we heard from the bank on their financing plans for the country indicated an interest to invest in a new 600 MW lignite plant, Kosovo C, planned to be built close to capital Pristina.
EBRD enters Kosovo: Past IFI failures must be heeded (Bankwatch Mail article)
In March this year, the EBRD concretely spelled out what it considers to be investment priorities in its draft strategy for Kosovo (pdf). In the document, the EBRD confirms its interest in giving a loan for the new coal plant, which has been for years pushed by the World Bank and the United States:
“The Bank will consider engagement in the implementation of the greenfield thermal power plant Kosovo C that is planned to start construction in the second half of the strategy period, provided the project complies with EBRD environmental and social standards, its policy on financing energy projects and delivers high transition impacts.”
Following comments to the draft strategy from Bankwatch and Kosovo coalition KOSID and a letter complaining about the hurried nature of the strategy’s public consultation process, the European Parliament now adopted a resolution that strongly criticises the EBRD’s plans. It reads:
“regrets that the EBRD is planning to support new lignite capacity (Kosova e Re) in its draft country strategy, and calls on the Commission to take action to contest plans such as this that run counter to EU climate commitments.”
(See more details in our press release from today)
Coal is misguided progress for Kosovo
The EBRD’s enthusiasm for this project is misguided. Burning coal to produce electricity at the country’s two existing coal plants (Kosovo A and Kosovo B) is already costing the country over 100 million euros annually only in health related issues, with people dying prematurely and children suffering respiratory diseases, and building a new plant will perpetuate these health problems.
Importantly, Kosovo already produces more energy than it consumes domestically, but much of it is wasted due to inefficiencies in the distribution network, lack of insulation in buildings, irrational usage such as using electricity for heating, commercial losses (ie. electricity used but not paid for, eg. through illegal connections to the network or unpaid bills).
These are the areas where the EBRD should be focusing on, particularly on remedying technical inefficiencies. In addition, providing support for energy efficiency measures for residential buildings would come a long way in avoiding energy waste and reducing bills for households. Kosovo does not need new coal generating capacity; it needs to stop wasting energy and to explore sustainable energy sources.
An alternatives analysis carried out by the Renewable & Appropriate Energy Laboratory Energy & Resources Group University of California, Berkeley, shows that in the period until 2025, Kosovo can meet its energy needs through energy efficiency improvements, wind and hydro energy, as well as biomass and geo-thermal. This scenario would also result in three times more jobs created for the country, and address environmental problems.
Is the EBRD listening?
And these are the messages that Bankwatch sent to the bank in our contribution (pdf) to the public consultation of the strategy draft. The problem is, it seems that the bank could not care less about what NGOs like ours or our colleagues from Kosovar coalition KOSID, who submitted similar points (pdf) to the attention of the bank, have to say.
Why? Because the deadline for submitting the inputs was yesterday, April 18. But the final country strategy document will be approved by the EBRD on May 1, less than 10 working days later. It is highly unlikely that the bank has time and capacity in this interval to seriously assess the fundamental objections we raised.
Despite the bank bragging (pdf) about its openness to civil society in Kosovo, NGOs there are already frustrated with the hurried nature of the development of a document that will send strong but wrong political signals in Kosovo. KOSID and Bankwatch have this week sent a letter to the President of the EBRD (pdf) to criticise the rush of the adoption of such a momentous strategy and the superficiality of the civil society engagement.
The EBRD claims it has come a long way over the past years when it comes to cleaning up its energy portfolio and improving communication with stakeholders and certainly it has increased its renewables and energy efficiency investments.
With regards to the energy lending, however, Bankwatch maintains that the continued support for fossil fuels and above all, coal, undermines this progress and locks in an unsustainable energy infrastructure in many countries. And the start of operations in Kosovo does not set an example for an improved communication with civil society.
Read alsoThe objective of the consultation was to seek the view of relevant stakeholders given IEE’s aim to support market deployment of sustainable energy measures to achieve the 20-20-20 targets.
The public consultation was open from 20 June to 12 September 2012 and received a total of 643 responses. Support for the continuance of the program was clear – almost 90% participants wished to have a follow-up to IEE II.
In response to the question, ‘Which target group should IEE III focus on?’ participants named public authorities as the leading target group.
Within the general target group of ‘public authority’,regional and local authorities were identified as having a higher priority, both with ca. 72 % or the answers, while national authorities were ticked by 56 % of participants.
In response to the question ‘Which sector should IEE III focus on?’ The public sector received 47% of the answers, then transport just over 46% and households 45%.
The inputs from this stakeholder consultation will be taken into consideration in shaping the IEE II successor programme – the ‘Market Uptake of Energy Innovation’ priority area of Horizon 2020′s Energy Challenge on Secure, clean and efficient energy.
Read the full report here
