Talk:Version Zero
From BioenergyWiki
This page is for comments on the RSB's "Version Zero" of draft "Global principles and criteria for sustainable biofuels production". (Click here for more background.)
- This page is for general comments on the principles and criteria. To comment on a specific topic, please use the topic-specific discussion pages by clicking on the relevant topic header on the Version Zero page
- To add a comment, click the "+" symbol at the top of the page after you have logged in.
Contents |
Analysis of Price and Indirect Land Use Effects
I believe that the statements at the top of page 3 about our lack of knowledge regarding biofuel price and indirect land use effects is obsolete and potentially misleading. Many, very credible studies by top economist have recently provided insights regarding price effects of biofuels. While they differ regarding the period analyzed and the magnitude of the price impacts, all of the published studies indicate that biofuel production has substantially raised food prices. Their estimates range from 10 to 70 percent.
Part of the difficulty resulted from the way that the question was posed. Sorting out all of the causes of recent price increases makes the problem unnecessarily complex. A much more useful way to pose the problem is to isolate key variables that are most relevant in determining how food prices are affected by biofuel demands. For example, one recent study estimates that returning the one-fourth of corn production that is currently used as a biofuel to the feed grain market would reduce the world price of corn by 50 percent.
For much of the past century, the U.S. Department of Agriculture supported the world's crop prices by reducing the supply of corn (idling cropland), so we have a long history in this country of using models (such as the FAPRI model) to analyze crop price effects of reducing the supply of corn or other crops. In order to estimate the price effects, these same models had to estimate the effects on production and land use, all over the world. USDA administered farm price support programs using such models.
Your website cites the Searchinger, et. al. study. This study used the FAPRI model. Once again, the study topic was complex because it included a life cycle analysis. The topic was controversial because so many groups had vested interests in biofuel production. However, the model identified land use change effects and showed in a very credible way that these effects can be large. A study that examined the combined effects of biofuel production in the U.S., E.U., Brazil, and Argentina obviously would have found much larger indirect land use effects. Once again, this model has been used routinely for decades to analyze land use and price effects of programs that reduce the supply of agricultural commodities. Those who conduct these analyses have very good credentials.
On page 3, your preamble suggests that our analysis of this issues is in its infancy. In reality, economists have a very long history of using models to analyze in an authoritative way land use and price effects of programs that reduce the supply of agricultural commodities.
- (This section was added by BioenergyWiki User:Clay)
Voluntary bandaid measures
I have read the Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels (RSB) Version Zero, Principles and Criteria and while the I can find no argument with its intentions, I fear it will ultimately fail miserably.
The main issue surrounding the clearing of land for biofuels is the distinction between those companies who are bound by western consumer accountability and those who are not. The companies who require "green credentials" for business will work within this framework set out by the RSB, albeit cutting corners at every opportunity. Those companies who currently deforest with little or no regard for the best interests of local communities or biodiversity will continue to do so, unphased.
These Principles and Criteria may encourage an improvement in environmental degradation with regard to plantation inputs and outputs, but they will have little real effect on the forest conversions in any developing country.
“The roundtable has no plans to establish a rigorous certification system at this time due to implementation costs and the difficulty of proving the source of blended biofuels. Instead, suppliers can voluntarily strive to follow the standards until a more stringent system is in place.”
Therefore, anything anyone does is voluntary, there is no requirement to follow any of the Principles and Criteria, there is no way to determine whether blended biofuels have satisfied any Principles and Criteria and no one is particularly interested or concerned about these facts, least of all the RSB.
Is it any wonder then that the companies who are doing the wrong thing - deforesting HCV rainforests, ignoring social justice issues, decimating wildlife and polluting the environment with no regard for rainforest eco-services, have probably not even raised an eyelid at this report?
You are preaching to the western, consumer-whipped converted whilst not laying one manicured finger on the worst environmental destroyers.
- (This section was added by BioenergyWiki User:AmandaE)
Indirect Land Use Changes and Impacts on Food Prices
I was very pleased to see Version Zero of Sustainability Criteria for Biofuels released as I have been working to advance the sustainability of biofuel production in Canada since biofuels re-emerged on the radar of Canadian governments. Unfortunately, this has not been a very easy task as the impacts of large scale production of biofuels from dedicated cropland have become more evident over the past few years.
While it was previously much easier to look past any impact on food prices and suggest that the next generation of biofuel technologies will be better, the rapid expansion of conventional biofuel production and the recent spikes in food prices make it impossible to ignore the linkage between the two. I’m not saying that biofuels are solely responsible for people going hungry, but it is clear that using agriculturally productive land for biofuels as opposed to food does have an impact on the overall amount of food available.
In addition, the impact on carbon emissions from indirect land use changes cannot be understated. Depending on the extent of induced land conversions, biofuels could actually be accelerating climate change as opposed to slowing it.
Given the critical importance of these two issues, it was discouraging to see that Version Zero acknowledged that they could not be fully dealt with at this time. As the document states, “the potential for negative indirect impacts is high,” but it does not provide a solution for avoiding such impacts.
As an organization dedicated to advancing sustainable energy solutions, this makes it extremely difficult for us to support the continued growth of conventional biofuel production and the government policies that are driving it. When it comes to environmental, social and economic sustainability, there are many more attractive options, such as a host of lower impact renewable energy sources, energy efficiency, public transit, better urban land use planning, etc. These can offer both significant energy savings in the short-term and structural changes to allow a significant shift away from petroleum. Unfortunately, these areas are not given nearly enough attention in Canada, and we could potentially see greater net benefits from focusing resources in these areas as opposed to conventional biofuel production.
Without greater certainty on how biofuel production from dedicated cropland will lead to a significant reduction in greenhouse gases (including indirect land use change of course) and how it will not negatively impact food availability, it is difficult to support any sustainability criteria that allows the use of crops that could otherwise be used to meet other market demands, and thus creating a drop in supply of traditional agriculture products, and a potential increase in food prices or conversion of land for agricultural purposes.
We do recognize the potential for significant benefits from the expansion of biofuel production, such as a potential shift away from petroleum dependency and the many negative impacts it brings, the potential benefits to the agriculture industry, and a potential decrease in the overall environmental impact of vehicle use; however, there appear to be areas where we can achieve a greater return on the investment of our public and private resources. This includes, of course, the continued advancement of biofuels that do not require cropland to be dedicated for the purpose of its production.
Jesse Row, Pembina Institute, Canada
The principles should also be applicable to seawater farming.
It would appear from reading Version Zero of the RSB principles that it has been drafted with only freshwater agriculture in mind as opposed to salt / seawater agriculture. This is not surprising, given that significant development of seawater agriculture is only just beginning. Given the huge potential of seawater agriculture however, it is important that the principles do not unwittingly hinder the development of the very sort of sustainable biofuel development that they are seeking to support.
It is suggested that in all future editing and development of these principles, the existence of both seawater agriculture and freshwater agriculture is born in mind. In most cases, identical principles are relevant for both. In some cases however there is the need to amend the wording to ensure that a basic principle is reflected appropriately for both types of farming.
An example of where the current wording needs to be amended is the issue of water – Principle 9. In some cases in this Principle and guidelines, the word water can cover both freshwater and seawater. In other cases however it refers implicitly to freshwater. This needs to be made explicit. For example the second sentence of the guidelines in 9c need slight editing. In the context of seawater farming, this sentence says precisely the opposite to what it should say. The current text says
“Water-intensive biofuel crops and biofuel production systems must not be established in water-stressed areas.”
What is intended presumably is that freshwater-intensive biofuel crops and biofuel production systems must not be established in freshwater-stressed areas.
It is precisely in such areas that are close to the coast that seawater farming can be the most appropriate solution. With seawater farming close to the sea, the seawater-intensiveness of the biofuel crop is of little importance. There is no shortage of seawater.
