Biosprit statt Brot, Hunger statt Mais – Die zynische Wende der Grünen | Der Honigmann sagt...
Zahlen zum Thema Biogas - Anlagen - biogasanlagen-versus-anwohner
Christine Karrer, Autor auf Agrar Cockpit
The press beyond Germany have been following the debate. For example:
Conservative or conservationist? Not in Germany!
14.03.2013
German weekly Der Spiegel, which has made a career out of denigrating renewables, now wonders whether the environment will survive the switch to green energy. In doing so, the weekly acts as though concern about the environment among proponents of renewables is something new – and as though conservation and political conservatism were something new in Germany.
"The decision to hastily shut down all German nuclear power plants by 2022 has shifted the political fronts," writes Der Spiegel in an article this week that is unfortunately not free of the usual distortions in the magazine's articles on renewables. But most of all, the main argument is overstated.
Granted, Spiegel does quote Robert Habeck, the Energiewende Minister of the German state of Schleswig-Holstein (the only state to have such a ministry), speaking of "friction between environment and climate protection advocates, even in my party," and Habeck even goes on to call the Greens "an infrastructure party" and speaks of "reversed roles," with the Christian Democrats now allegedly being the conservationists.
The situation is not, however, as black-and-white as Der Spiegel makes it out to be. Conservation and conservatism have long gone hand-in-hand in Germany, with Peter Ahmels being one prominent example. A Christian Democrat voter, he served as president of the German Wind Energy Association (BWE) before moving over to German environmental organization DUH in 2009. Another example is Wolf von Fabeck, a former military officer who joined forces with his local pastor to found a solar group back in the late 1980s; they got their town, Aachen, to adopt something for solar called "full-cost compensation," which the world now knows as feed-in tariffs. The list could be continued...
Der Spiegel distorts the picture when it speaks of "many environmentalists who want to see the expansion of renewable energies at any price. They set the tone in government agencies." The charge is not uncommon; only recently, a friend of mine asked, "why do these people want to put wind turbines everywhere." The problem is that neither my friend nor Der Spiegel is able to name a single person who wants renewables "at any price" and "everywhere" – because no such person exists.
Der Spiegel claims that the German state of Baden-Württemberg (where my friend and I live, incidentally) is a good example. Governed by Germany's first Green Minister-President, the state has raised its target "from 400 to roughly 2,500 to wind turbines by 2020. And in the party's reckoning, nature is standing in the way." Sounds like the Greens have gone berserk in the Black Forest.
Nevermind that, in 2012, the state was once again last in the country in terms of newly installed capacity (aside from Germany's three city-states) at a mere 19 megawatts from 9 turbines, equivalent to roughly 0.75 wind turbines per month. Wind turbines have service lives of 20 years, so at that rate the state would max out at 180 turbines.
If you can read German, take a look at the state's new law yourself (PDF). There are sections on heritage protection, environmental protection, "taboo zones" (such as nature reserves and national parks), and community involvement.
Over the past year, I have worked closely with the Heinrich Böll Foundation, the German Green Party's think tank, and I can confirm that the debate Der Spiegel mentions over the environment and energy goals is nothing new. On the organization's website that explains the energy transition to the world in English (disclaimer: I am the lead author), we have charts almost everywhere – but none for biomass because the chart proposed indicated a range of the potential of biomass, and there were concerns within the Greens that this potential might be overstated.
As Der Spiegel points out, biomass has been a bone of contention in Germany, but the concern has already slowed down the market, as Renewables International recently reported. Alexander Knebel, spokesperson for Germany's Renewable Energy Agency (AEE), told Renewables International that roughly 2.5 million hectares of the approximately 12 million hectares of farmland in Germany is devoted to corn alone, but most of that harvest is used as feedstock, with around 900,000 hectares devoted to biogas production. And he points out that the sector is also concerned about monocultures and is therefore looking into alternatives, such as sugar beets and broader crop rotation patterns.
Finally, Der Spiegel talks about forests giving way to renewables, but as Knebel explains, Germany's forest area is growing strongly: "Forests cover some 31 percent of Germany's land area, and from 1992 to 2008 this area expanded by 176 square kilometers per year."
Overall, the attempt to play environmentalists off against proponents of renewables is nothing new. I wrote about such a case in 2003, when an American opponents of wind power claimed that the Audubon Society was concerned about wind turbines killing birds. In fact, the Audubon Society had a position paper on wind power even at the time, and it thought wind was great overall (though, unsurprisingly, wind turbines should not be built everywhere).
The same thing happens in Germany. On a recent TV show, Hubert Weiger, head of the German chapter of Friends of the Earth (BUND), was asked why his organization opposed offshore wind, and he responded, "We have opposed a single proposal out of the roughly 50 made, and you're asking me why we oppose offshore wind?" (Craig Morris)
Conservative or conservationist? Not in Germany! - News - Renewables International
On the other hand, organisations such as Oxfam are very much against growing biofuels:
The Hunger Grains
The fight is on. Time to scrap EU biofuels mandates.
This paper shows how concerns about land and food rights around the world, both major campaigning priorities for Oxfam, are closely linked to EU biofuel mandates.
In 2009, EU governments committed to sourcing 10 per cent of transport energy from renewable sources by 2020: they are set to meet this target almost exclusively using biofuels made from food crops.
- Land grabs: Countries with poor protection of land rights are magnets for land deals – most of which are to grow crops that can be used for biofuels – which means that many land deals for biofuel production are ‘land grabs’, concluded without the consent of affected communities.
- Production: If the land used to produce biofuels for the EU in 2008 had been used to produce wheat and maize instead, it could have fed 127 million people for the entire year.
- Demand: On top of this, biofuel mandates are an incredible inelastic source of demand for food crops; by 2020, EU biofuel mandates alone could push up the price of some foods by as much as 36 per cent.
- Climate change: Biofuel mandates are not even a solution to climate change; modeling shows that plowing up carbon sinks to meet EU biofuel mandates could be as bad for the environment as putting an extra 26 million cars on Europe’s roads.
It is completely unacceptable that we are burning food in our petrol tanks while poor families go hungry and millions are being pushed off their land. EU governments have it within their power to make a difference to the lives of millions of hungry people. It’s time to scrap EU biofuel mandates.
EU Energy Ministers must stop pandering to an unsustainable biofuel industry that fuels hunger and climate change | Oxfam International
Oxfam GB :: leading UK charity fighting global poverty
The Global Land Grab: International Aid – A Smokescreen for Multinationals Looting Nations’ Wealth | Global Research - Centre for Research on Globalization
And this pressure has had some effect:
EU agrees to burst biofuels bubble after 2020
28 April 2015, source edie newsroom
After more than 10 years of debate, the European Parliament has today (28 April) agreed new laws to limit the use of crop-based biofuels across the continent.
The new rules effectively limit the use of biofuels in the transport sector at 7%, which count towards the 10% renewable energy target in transport by 2020.
The decision will prevent up to 320 million tonnes of CO2 - equal to Poland's total carbon emissions in 2012 - from entering the atmosphere. It has dually been welcomed by green groups and industry bodies alike.
Friends of the Earth Europe's biofuels campaigner Robbie Blake said: "Let no-one be in doubt, the biofuels bubble has burst. These fuels do more harm than good for people, the environment and the climate. The EU's long-awaited move to put the brakes on biofuels is a clear signal to the rest of the world that this is a false solution to the climate crisis. This must spark the end of burning food for fuel."
Friends of the Earth Europe's biofuels campaigner Robbie Blake said: "Let no-one be in doubt, the biofuels bubble has burst. These fuels do more harm than good for people, the environment and the climate. The EU's long-awaited move to put the brakes on biofuels is a clear signal to the rest of the world that this is a false solution to the climate crisis. This must spark the end of burning food for fuel."
Controversial
Under the reform agreed today, oil companies and the European Commission will also need to report the full environmental impact of biofuels, including indirect land use change (ILUC) emissions.
The ruling has proved controversial, with sustainable-transport lobby group Transport and Environment (T&E), Oxfam and the Green Party all agreeing that the 7% limit is still too high.
The ruling has proved controversial, with sustainable-transport lobby group Transport and Environment (T&E), Oxfam and the Green Party all agreeing that the 7% limit is still too high.
After years of discussion, however, the compromise that was endorsed by the European Parliament lacks concrete and harmonized measures.
“Our industry has been calling for regulatory certainty for years. What has been agreed now is a first step but uncertainty continues. An opportunity to kick start the roll out of advanced biofuels in the EU has been missed“, states Marko Janhunen, Chair of LSB.
Leaders of Sustainable Biofuels (LSB), said the compromise that was endorsed by the European Parliament lacks concrete and harmonized measures. LSB chair Marko Janhunen said: "Our industry has been calling for regulatory certainty for years. What has been agreed now is a first step but uncertainty continues. An opportunity to kick start the roll out of advanced biofuels in the EU has been missed."
“Our industry has been calling for regulatory certainty for years. What has been agreed now is a first step but uncertainty continues. An opportunity to kick start the roll out of advanced biofuels in the EU has been missed“, states Marko Janhunen, Chair of LSB.
Leaders of Sustainable Biofuels (LSB), said the compromise that was endorsed by the European Parliament lacks concrete and harmonized measures. LSB chair Marko Janhunen said: "Our industry has been calling for regulatory certainty for years. What has been agreed now is a first step but uncertainty continues. An opportunity to kick start the roll out of advanced biofuels in the EU has been missed."
Pietro Caloprisco, senior policy officer at Transport & Environment (T&E), agreed that the idea of a cap is in line with the Commission's 2030 climate and energy communication that states first-generation biofuels should not be supported after 2020 due to ILUC emissions.
"Maybe this is not the end of bad biofuels now, but this surely is the beginning of the end for pouring food in our tanks," said Caloprisco. "The message is clear: land-based biofuels have no future in Europe, at least after 2020."
Important lesson
T&E, along with nine environmental organisations, believes the biofuels reform can draw important lessons that should now be applied in legislation on the use of biomass, such as wood and agricultural residues, for all bioenergy purposes.
Caloprisco concluded: "Europe should learn from the biofuels reform and get things right from the beginning on bioenergy. Thus, we urge the European Commission to introduce the necessary sustainability checks for all bioenergy to ensure we don't make the same mistake twice. Making the same mistake twice on bioenergy is not a mistake, it's a deliberate choice."
Caloprisco concluded: "Europe should learn from the biofuels reform and get things right from the beginning on bioenergy. Thus, we urge the European Commission to introduce the necessary sustainability checks for all bioenergy to ensure we don't make the same mistake twice. Making the same mistake twice on bioenergy is not a mistake, it's a deliberate choice."
EU agrees to burst biofuels bubble after 2020
A very good piece in Wikipedia points to pretty much all the arguments:
Food vs. fuel
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Food versus fuel is the dilemma regarding the risk of diverting farmland or crops forbiofuels production to the detriment of thefood supply. The biofuel and food price debate involves wide-ranging views, and is a long-standing, controversial one in the literature.[1][2][3][4] There is disagreement about the significance of the issue, what is causing it, and what can or should be done to remedy the situation. This complexity and uncertainty is due to the large number of impacts and feedback loops that can positively or negatively affect the price system. Moreover, the relative strengths of these positive and negative impacts vary in the short and long terms, and involve delayed effects. The academic side of the debate is also blurred by the use of different economic models and competing forms of statistical analysis.[5]
Biofuel production has increased in recent years. Some commodities like maize (corn), sugar cane or vegetable oil can be used either as food, feed, or to make biofuels. For example, since 2006, a portion of land that was also formerly used to grow other crops in the United States is now used to grow corn for biofuels, and a larger share of corn is destined to ethanolproduction, reaching 25% in 2007.[6] Second generation biofuels could potentially combine farming for food and fuel and moreover, electricity could be generated simultaneously, which could be beneficial for developing countries and rural areas in developed countries.[7] With global demand for biofuels on the increase due to the oil price increases taking place since 2003 and the desire to reduce oil dependency as well as reduce GHG emissions from transportation, there is also fear of the potential destruction of natural habitats by being converted into farmland.[8] Environmental groups have raised concerns about this trade-off for several years,[9][10][11][12] but now the debate reached a global scale due to the 2007–2008 world food price crisis. On the other hand, several studies do show that biofuel production can be significantly increased without increased acreage. Therefore stating that the crisis in hand relies on the food scarcity.[13][14][15]
Brazil has been considered to have the world's first sustainable biofuels economy[16][17][18]and its government claims Brazil's sugar cane based ethanol industry has not contributed to the 2008 food crisis.[18][19] A World Bank policy research working paper released in July 2008[20] concluded that "...large increases in biofuels production in the United States and Europe are the main reason behind the steep rise in global food prices", and also stated that "Brazil's sugar-based ethanol did not push food prices appreciably higher".[21][22] However, a 2010 study also by the World Bank concluded that their previous study may have overestimated the contribution of biofuel production, as "the effect of biofuels on food prices has not been as large as originally thought, but that the use of commodities by financial investors (the so-called "financialisation of commodities") may have been partly responsible for the 2007/08 spike."[23] A 2008 independent study by OECD also found that the impact of biofuels on food prices are much smaller.[24]
Contents
- 1 Food price inflation
- 2 Proposed causes
- 2.1 Ethanol fuel as an oxygenate additive
- 2.2 Other factors
- 2.3 Government regulations of food and fuel markets
- 2.4 Oil price increases
- 2.5 US government policy
- 2.6 Freeze on first generation biofuel production
- 2.7 Non-food crops for biofuel
- 2.8 Biofuel from food byproducts and coproducts
- 2.9 Biofuel subsidies and tariffs
- 2.10 Reduce farmland reserves and set asides
- 2.11 Sustainable production of biofuels
- 2.12 Continuation of the status quo
- 3 Impact on developing countries
- 4 National Corn Growers Association
- 5 Controversy within the international system
- 6 See also
- 7 Bibliography
- 8 References
- 9 External links
Food vs. fuel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
With a slightly different set of parameters from the German Wikipedia site:
Flächenkonkurrenz – Wikipedia
.
.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment