Is global biofuel policy palming off our responsibilities?

The majority of the world has united behind a common cause - climate change. We as a species have noticed the world is changing and have, quite rightly, looked back at our own actions to see what changes we could make to save the world, and the cutting of emissions is a vital job.

One of the ways to do this is to use biofuels - liquid fuels for use in internal combustion engines that are from a non-fossil source, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

But what exactly are these sources, I hear you say - the question often asked by people outside the “biofuels bubble.”

Corn, wheat, soybeans, rapeseed, canola, used cooking oil… to name but a few, all of them viable feedstocks for biofuels. Some others have drawn criticism in recent years, such as tallow (animal fat) – put simply, the fatty offcuts of animals, many of which were slaughtered for human consumption. But especially palm oil, which has become almost a scapegoat for deforestation across much of Southeast Asia, blamed for creating monocultures and killing orangutans.

So are these viable ways to manage our greenhouse gas emissions – or are we, as humans, doing more harm than good in trying to mitigate climate change with liquid biofuels?

Let's look some more at the thorny issue of palm oil. It is important at this stage to say that biodiesel from palm oil is the tail of the dog that is global palm oil usage, not the body, as it is used extensively in food and beauty products. Nonetheless, palm oil in biofuels takes a huge share of the market, the third largest feedstock for biodiesel globally, after rapeseed and soybean.

UK supermarket Iceland announced in April this year that its own-brand products will no longer contain any palm oil as it promotes deforestation.

"The ethical decision to remove palm oil has been made in order to demonstrate to the food industry that it is possible to reduce the demand for palm oil while seeking solutions that do not destroy the world’s rainforest," it said in a statement.

While it is commendable that a major supermarket will take these moves to protect our collective environment, does this move demonize one oilseed crop while leaving the others blame free?

June saw the conclusion of the trilogue negotiations between the European Commission, Parliament and Council for the post-2020 RED II (Renewable Energy Directive) framework.

A key outcome from these discussions was the EU-wide target of 32% for renewable energy by 2030 with an upwards revision clause by 2023. There will also be a 14% target for renewable energy in transport, but capping crop-based biofuels at member states' 2020 levels, with a maximum of 7%.

Another vital outcome from these discussions was the decision to freeze palm oil use at current levels, and to phase it out in transport by 2030. This drew praise from European biodiesel producers, as this should protect their production margins into the future, but condemnation from Southeast Asia, as a previously lucrative export market for palm oil slammed its doors.

And it prompted the question: What else? What could and indeed would substitute for palm oil use. If palm oil is banned, surely then these monocultures will be turned over to another similar plant to grow, cultivate and reap. Then we are led to the “where does it stop” argument. If we lead the witch-hunt against palm oil, will soybeans be next, or canola, or even wheat? Where will the line be drawn?

I'll give you this is somewhat hyperbolic, but there is a degree of loathing for palm oil across the globe – though also a distinct lack of solutions as to how to phase it out. At least the palm plantations act as carbon sinks during their lifetime, rather than fossil fuels - carbon reservoirs that are unearthed to sate our never-ending appetite for power.

The same way that there is always the argument that we cannot solve our global energy crisis on solar, or wind, or hydroelectric power alone, biofuels policy cannot work without palm oil.

While the idea may look attractive of phasing out or banning biofuels from “food- and feed-based” sources (ie, feedstocks that could be used to enter the human or animal food chain) and only using biofuels from waste sources such as used cooking oil, there simply isn't the capacity to keep the same biofuel use globally. A blanket ban on palm oil especially, given the size of the market, will reduce global biofuel usage by a significant amount, hindering countries’ capability to meet the Paris Agreement.

Banning palm oil may be an easy environmentalist win for politicians, but without a suitable framework on a global basis to replace this feedstock with another, it will simply be impossible to reach the climate goals across the world.