BIOMASS INTEL

As the Obama Administration moves forward on an aggressive biofuels agenda, the government finds itself in a similar situation as the EU.  The EU, which has led the way on biodiesel and biofuels, albeit with a series of Indirect Land Use Change (ILUC) mishaps along the way, is batting around some serious sustainability standard considerations to more accurately measure the lifecycle emissions of various feedstocks.

The message emerging out of the EU is that a bad environmental scorecard for biofuels and environmental criteria could discredit the whole industry, which relies on its climate-friendly reputation.

Although the European Commission has largely avoided the issue about biomass sustainability to date, biofuel sustainability scorecards are already in place.  EU leaders reached agreement on a new Renewable Energy Directive in December 2008, which requires each member state to satisfy 10 percent of its transport fuel needs from renewable sources by 2020.  The Directive also established sustainability criteria for biofuels.  But a recent study by French environmental consultancy, BeCitizen, analyzing existing methodologies to calculate the impact of ILUC on GHG emissions highlights major discrepancies when they are applied to different biofuel production processes.

The U.S. is trailing slightly behind, stuck both on the issue of EPA’s authority to regulate GHGs under the Clean Air Act (see legislative challenges here and here) and how far to scale back ILUC measures so as not to freeze corn ethanol out of the biofuels marketplace.  The whole affair reeks of influence from moneyed interests, and at the expense of the biofuels industry as a whole.

But energy security hawks — both in the EU and U.S. — don’t seem to mind if increased biofuel production rips down forests halfway around the world.  To be fair, the connection can be tenuous enough to raise serious doubts about the need for ILUC analysis.

Although morally, the issue holds a lot of weight, many (including energy hawks) question whether national governments should be concerned with effects occurring outside their borders.  And to be fair, the myriad of externalities associated with the oil industry have yet to be quantified in any meaningful way.

In both the U.S. and EU, more studies need to be conducted to develop a more robust lifecycle methodology.  In its RFS 2.0, the EPA has called for the National Academy of Sciences and the scientific community to spearhead development of improved standards.

What is clear is that biofuel sustainability will become an increasingly difficult and contentious issue as energy security needs collide head-on with climate change realities.  As technologies and feedstocks multiply, and clean energy infrastructure expands, once-unified coalitions are likely to fracture on all sides of the issue.  Nevertheless, setting strong sustainability standards worldwide will ensure that the industry advances while simultaneously addressing climate and energy security concerns.

More information on emerging sustainability standards are available here.