(Re)committing to the Paris Agreement? Europe needs to lead by example

Géraldine Kutas — posted 14/07/2017

As the US president visited Paris for Bastille Day celebrations, his host his rolled out all of the paraphernalia of state, the pomp and ceremony so reportedly beloved by his American counterpart, in a charm offensive many have suggested was also an effort to get the latter to reconsider his stance on the Paris Agreement. And it seems to be working – Trump’s statement during the joint press conference that “something could happen with respect to the Paris accord: we’ll see what happens; we will talk about that in the coming period of time”, was not insignificant.

Is this a coming in from the cold? Did the president keenly feel the chill wind of isolation at the G20 which in many respects became the G19, especially on climate change? No-one expects Trump to abandon wholesale his fossil-focused energy policy, but there was a clear softening of rhetoric during the Paris visit – quite the coup for neophyte Macron.

Macron famously parodied Trump’s “make America great again” rhetoric with his quip of making the planet great again. With recent announcements of France’s ambition to ban the sale of all petrol and diesel cars by 2040, Macron is clearly positioning himself as a European leader in environmental stewardship and clean transport.

One of the EU’s signature initiatives in demonstrating its leadership on climate change is the Clean Energy Package that proposes measures towards clean energy transition. But the Commission’s proposal for a 27% target for renewable energy is too low. Proposals by European Parliament committees to increase that target to 35% or 45% are a step in the right direction.

Transport is responsible for fully one quarter of the EU’s greenhouse gas emissions. Which is why it makes no sense for the Commission to lump all conventional biofuels in together and propose cutting their maximum share in the transport mix from 7% to 3.8%. We have repeatedly stated that biofuels need to be considered on their performance, not their source.

Brazilian sugarcane ethanol is one of the best-performing biofuels, cutting GHG emission when placed in the EU market by more than 70% compared to petrol, and still by more than half (55%), even when the GLOBOIM study’s ILUC factors are taken into account. Stated concerns about land use change are therefore no grounds on which to justify the reduction of sustainable biofuels such as Brazilian sugarcane ethanol.

Integrating sustainable biofuels now into European transport in significant numbers will really help EU leaders achieve 2030 targets, paving the way for more ambitious 2050 targets. Just look at Brazil, where the deployment of sugarcane ethanol in flex-fuel cars has directly cut transport CO₂–equivalent emissions by 370m tonnes in just 13 years.

It’s clear that it is perfectly feasible to significantly cut transport emissions if we use the clean technologies available today. If the EU is serious about meeting its own Paris Agreement commitments, it must therefore adopt serious and bold transport emissions reduction targets. As MEP Bas Eickhout’s stated, European policymakers are only credible in criticising Trump if they can themselves deliver at home. It would be an irony indeed if the Americans came back into the Paris Agreement fold, only for the EU to spectacularly wimp out on its own targets.

But the very real fear is that Member States will reject more ambitious targets. Macron will need to brandish his environmental credentials by not letting that happen. And EU policymakers should take advantage of their summer holidays to ponder on Eickhout’s comment. Let’s hope they return to Brussels in September with emboldened ambitions when it comes to transport emissions.

Wishing you all a great summer!

What’s your first-generation biofuels literacy?

Géraldine Kutas — posted 22/04/2017

Today we celebrate International Mother Earth Day. A day when we  should all stop  and think of how the Earth’s ecosystems provide us with life and sustenance and try to also understand how our actions  impact the environment, and ultimately our survival. This year’s theme set by the UN – “Environmental & Climate Literacy” – couldn’t be timelier.

Many people want to take action on Earth Day by planting a tree or informing themselves on climate change solutions and environmental conservation. However, in today’s era of post-truth politics and information overload, we often struggle to make sound judgements about what is best for the environment  and what is agenda-driven rhetoric. Same goes for lawmakers who are in charge of setting the policies that will lead us to a more environmentally friendly economy and lifestyle.

A perfect example is the issue of conventional biofuels. First generation biofuels have become the victim of misinformation and emotional headlines stating that all food-based biofuels are responsible for hunger and deforestation. The fact is that not all conventional biofuels are created equal, and that climate change itself threatens food security and ecosystems far more than biofuels.

While countries around the world have made enormous strides towards fighting climate change, some of the proposed policies in Europe lack the supporting evidence to justify their adoption. For example, the new Renewables Energy Directive aims to cut the use of food-based biofuels from the current 7% to 3.8% by 2030. MEPs and EU Member States have already started examining the proposal. In the spirit of today’s theme, I urge them to consider the evidence that will help to better understand and inform the options that Europe has to reduce GHG emissions in transports, and reach its Paris Agreement targets. My hope is that the following undisputable facts serve to add sound science to the debate regarding first-generation biofuels, and in particular, one of the most sustainable and available alternatives to conventional gasoline – Brazilian sugarcane ethanol.

– Brazilian sugar cane sold in Europe achieves among the highest GHG emission savings of all biofuels produced at scale: over 70% relative to fossil fuel alternatives and more than 55% when estimated ILUC emissions are accounted for.

– It is sustainable throughout its full life-cycle. In sugarcane fields, carbon stocks amount to 60 tonnes of carbon per hectare (including above and below ground carbon stocks). Sugarcane only needs to be replanted about every six years which reduces tilling of land that releases carbon dioxide.

– It has no role in the fuel vs food or deforestation debate. Brazilian sugarcane ethanol is produced in biorefineries that generate sugar, clean fuel and bioelectricity. It occupies only 1.5% of all arable land in Brazil and is grown 2500 km away from the Amazon rainforest.

There is an urgent need to set the record straight, to listen to facts and not rhetoric, and to make logical choices for alternative fuels and the decarbonization of the transportation sector. Instead, the new Renewables Energy Directive has largely disregarded the evidence and intends to phase out first-generation biofuels completely. This effectively shuts the door to one of the cleanest and most sustainable energy sources to ensure low-emission mobility.

Europe’s leaders often tout that the EU is a leader in the fight against climate change and environmental protection. However, the proposed biofuels legislation is in stark contrast to EU emission goals.  We should perhaps look outside our bubble and learn from other regions. Brazil has replaced more than 40% of its gasoline consumption with sugarcane ethanol, saving 370m tonnes of GHG emissions since 2003, and has done so in parallel with setting strict environmental laws to protect the tropical rainforest. The Agro-ecological Zoning for Sugarcane initiative limits the amount of land to be used for sugarcane to approximately 7.5% of Brazil’s territory, seven times more than what is currently used, and prohibits the clearance of native vegetation to expand sugarcane cultivation anywhere in the country.

Taking time to think about #EarthDay17 and all the benefits a clean environment provides, we should ask the critical questions regarding the choices Europe is making. In the name of “Environmental & Climate Literacy,” these choices should be backed by evidence and not by false, emotional statements. As the UN puts it, “education is the foundation for progress,” and policy lacking scientific justification is the foundation for regression.

Not all biofuels are created equal…Thoughts on the proposed RED II

Géraldine Kutas — posted 24/03/2017

The revision of the Renewable Energy Directive represents a tremendous opportunity to foster the further development of clean energy in the European Union (EU) for decades to come. The 2009 Directive has had a critical impact on increasing the share of renewables in the EU through binding targets, and a predictable overall framework for renewable energy implementation.

But the current proposal lacks ambition and is missing a key opportunity in helping to reach the Paris Agreement targets, especially with regards to the transportation sector, which accounts for almost a quarter of Europe’s GHG emissions.

In my opinion, the critical flaws of the proposed Renewables Energy Directive as it stands are as follows:

– The proposed target for renewables in transportation increases only 0.6% – from 10% currently to, in the best case scenario, 10.6% in 2030.
– No distinction is made among conventional biofuels. Renewable fuels, which are sustainable and have superior environmental benefits, such as Brazilian sugarcane ethanol, are inappropriately lumped in with worse-performing biofuels.
– Capping ALL conventional biofuels irrespective of their individual merits is not cost-effective or results-focused.
– The technology needed to produce significant amounts of lignocellulosic biofuels at a commercial scale is not yet mature and the cost is very high – making the 3.6% target quite ambitious.

Brazilian sugarcane ethanol is classified as an advanced biofuel by the US EPA, and by California’s Air Resources Board, even when ILUC is considered. These are transparent, scientific and credible benchmarks. It achieves the highest GHG emission savings of all biofuels produced at scale (over 70% relative to fossil fuels, and more than 55% when accounting for ILUC emissions). We therefore call to distinguish biofuels based on GHG emissions savings, rather than on the feedstock used. More specifically, a strict sustainability criteria based on GHG emissions savings should be applied to all biofuels that are currently capped at 7%, and only those biofuels that fail to meet these criteria thresholds should be capped at 3.8% in 2030.

A complete overhaul of climate and energy policy is needed if we are to reach the ambitious EU emission reduction targets, and sustainable conventional biofuels need to play a key role. A comprehensive EU energy policy which incentivises and promotes sustainable conventional biofuels will help the EU to meet its key climate abatement and energy security objectives in 2030 and beyond.

Second-generation ethanol will not happen without a robust and healthy first-generation ethanol market to provide business certainty for the development of more advanced renewable fuels. We should and must think long-term and continue to invest in R&D, but we must also act now and consider and implement all of the available solutions in transitioning towards low-emission mobility. Brazilian sugarcane ethanol can provide the EU with environmentally-friendly transport fuel to help decarbonise road transport.

If Europe is to achieve its ambitious targets and reduce its reliance on fossil fuels in transportation, the Commission should not pick winners. All sustainable alternatives should be promoted.

Unintended Consequences from EPA Proposal Could Limit U.S. Access to Advanced Biofuels

Leticia Phillips — posted 17/02/2017

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has accepted comments on a proposal that would allow, among other things, biofuel producers to partially process renewable feedstocks at one facility and further process them into renewable fuels at another facility. EPA intends this broad rule to increase the economics and efficiency of producing biofuels, particularly advanced and cellulosic biofuels, a goal Brazil’s sugarcane biofuel producers broadly support.

However, we are seriously concerned the proposal as currently written would upend nearly a decade of established practice and effectively prevent Americans from importing and using Brazilian sugarcane ethanol, one of the cleanest and most available advanced biofuels on the market, by changing how “biointermediates” are treated.

Since the beginning of the Renewable Fuel Standards (RFS) program, sugarcane ethanol has played a modest but important role supplying Americans with nearly 2 billion gallons of advanced biofuel. This important designation under the RFS indicates that a fuel reduces greenhouse gas emissions by at least 50 percent compared to fossil fuels.

The troubling concern with EPA’s proposal is characterizing undenatured imported ethanol, like sugarcane ethanol from Brazil, as a biointermediate product. Denaturing is the addition of chemicals to ethanol to ensure the alcohol is both not suitable for human consumption and clearly “marked” for use in automobile fuel tanks in the United States. For many technical and regulatory reasons, nearly all sugarcane ethanol leaves Brazil in an undenatured state and the denaturing chemicals are then added in the United States to comply with regulations set by the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau of the U.S. Treasury Department. To underscore, this approach has worked well for the past decade without any reported cases of fraud that have hampered other parts of the RFS program.

Categorizing undenatured imported ethanol as a biointermediate will impose significant and costly new obligations that may be infeasible and unfair for Brazilian sugarcane producers to meet. The unintended consequence may be blocking American access to this important source of advanced biofuel, and would treat foreign products differently from domestic biofuel supplies.

We also believe EPA’s definition of biointermediate does not fit undenatured sugarcane ethanol. The Brazilian ethanol producing process does not involve “sequential” production of pre-processing feedstock at one facility and transportation to another nearby facility for the ultimate conversion to renewable fuel. Rather, the product exported to the United States is a finished product, not a feedstock. It is a liquid fuel that can be used, without further processing, for transportation.

Formal comments from Brazil’s sugarcane ethanol producers urge EPA to clarify that the biointermediate definition does not include undenatured sugarcane ethanol fuel that is subsequently imported into the United States and denatured.  This exception will not alter the status quo for foreign ethanol producers, but would allow EPA to provide the biointermediate provisions to the few US-based producers to which they should logically apply.

Decarbonizing transport in a post-fact world

Géraldine Kutas — posted 02/02/2017

2016 was the warmest year on record since the industrial revolution. At Politico’s recent debate on decarbonizing Europe’s transport, that was held in Brussels, DuPont’s Jan Koninckx recognised that the most immediate way to decarbonise transport is through cleaner fuels.  He correctly said that if implemented, the European Commission’s proposed reduction of first-generation biofuels from 7% to a cap of 3.8% would result in increased European dependency on oil.

Maroš Šefčovič said, last week, that there is an international consensus that first-generation biofuels should be phased out. This is simply not true. Countries such as Australia, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, India, Thailand and the US are all producers of first-generation biofuels and have no intention of phasing out these important CO₂-reducing petrol alternatives. It is also important to note that none of these countries regard first- and second-generation biofuels as being in opposition with one another, as the European Commission seems to, but see them as complementary. This is exactly the spirit of the Biofuture Platform led by Brazil that was launched at COP22. The Biofuture Platform reflects the international consensus, and underscores the fact that the EU is, absurdly, the only major economy that is focused on phasing out first-generation biofuels.

This is precisely what Brazil’s Agriculture Minister emphasised during a recent roundtable discussion in Brussels. Brazil, Minister Maggi said, is committed to fighting climate change, and sugarcane ethanol is an important tool in its energy sustainability strategy. More than 40% of Brazil’s energy production comes from bioenergy and hydropower, and sugarcane is the number one source of renewable energy in the country. Minister Maggi advocated for the sustainability of first-generation biofuels, while welcoming the development of second-generation ethanol. He mentioned the Sugarcane Agro-Ecological Zoning, adopted in 2009, a law that prohibits the clearing of any type of native vegetation to plant sugarcane.

Vested interests in Europe are also pushing the falsehood that using first-generation biofuels means taking food from people’s mouths to run your car. This is a highly emotive accusation that has some European policymakers running scared. But while it makes a great headline, again, it is simply untrue. Swedish Minister for the Environment Karolina Skog said that she considered that differentiating conventional from advanced biofuels based on whether the feedstocks can be used to produce food is not an appropriate criterion, and does not make biofuels less or more sustainable. As Minister Maggi stated, there is absolutely no food-versus-fuel issue in Brazil in terms of the production of first-generation biofuels. Indeed, ethanol production accounts for only 1% of land use and Brazil is the world’s third largest agricultural product exporter.

Šefčovič has said that first-generation biofuels should be phased out, and has asked for innovation in the agriculture and chemical industries to deliver advanced biofuels. But the European Commission will not see the investments in second-generation biofuels it wants if policymakers do not also support traditional biofuels. You cannot kill the biofuels sector by eliminating first-generation biofuels and then expect it to rise miraculously phoenix-like from the ashes to deliver second-generation fuels.

If Europe is to achieve its ambitious targets and reduce its reliance on fossil fuels in transportation, the Commission should not pick winners. All the sustainable alternatives should be promoted and the proposed indiscriminate 3.8% cap on first-generation biofuels must be abandoned.