Fuelling the biofuel debate

Oct 16 2007 Jill Evans MEP, Western Mail

IN last month’s full Parliament session in Strasbourg, a report on the future of renewable energy in the EU was passed. This is a response to the European Commission’s road map on renewable energy that will now be followed by a proposal for new legislation at the end of the year.

The commission set a target for 20% of energy to come from renewable sources by 2020. This is lower than the Parliament’s previous position calling for 25% by 2020 and a plan to achieve 50% by 2040. We emphasised this but ultimately supported the Commission’s target as a starting point. And rejected the idea nuclear energy was a renewable source.

The Parliament also called for specific targets for areas such as electricity, heating and cooling and transport. This means sectors that are ahead of the game will continue to be encouraged rather than sticking at a 20% rate and those that are not doing so well are set regular targets rather than hiding behind the success of others.

One controversial area is biofuels, often portrayed as the green option, to move cars away from dependency on petrol. But it can be a highly energy-intensive way of getting fuel and valuable areas of wetlands, pasture land and even rainforests have been cleared for cultivating crops for fuel.

The rapid expansion of fuel crops in the US, helped by subsidies, has caused a shortage of corn and a rise in its price, causing particular problems to South American countries which are dependant on US imported corn in their daily diet.

I voted against the 10% target for biofuels by 2020 proposed by the European Commission because I believe there should be an environmental, social and food security impact assessment before setting or implementing any compulsory target for plant fuels or biofuels in the EU. Our group’s amendment asking for an impact assessment was defeated. Priority should be given to reducing the amount of fossil fuel we use rather than finding an alternative that is still polluting and not changing the way we live and think.

I think our focus should be firstly on energy efficiency and secondly on a mix of renewable energy sources that cause the least environmental damage and are most suitable for our local communities, including onshore and offshore wind, wave, tidal, solar and geothermal power.

In June I took part in a seminar in the Navarra province of the Basque country and heard how they generate 65% of electricity consumed from renewables, a figure that will rise to 75% by 2010. In 2004 they won the European Union award for the best regional renewable energy partnership and the renewable energy industry has created 61 companies and more than 4,000 jobs.

When they began the work in the early 1980s, energy technology was much less developed and they mainly relied on wind energy to reach their targets. They have by now diversified much more and are updating the technology and making it more efficient rather than building more wind farms.

This autumn the European Parliament has achieved a target of getting 100% of its electricity from green sources for the first time. This follows an investigation in the spring into how to cut our emissions and reduce our carbon footprint as an institution. The most obvious way seems to be not moving everyone and everything from Brussels to Strasbourg for one week every month.

The journey produces 20,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide a year. But the Parliament is not allowed to make that decision, so in spite of our protests and a public petition of more than one million names we’ll have to continue until European government leaders accept it is a big waste of energy and resources.