Biofuel To Fire

Biofuel development is ignoring critical socio-economic concerns

SHALINI BHUTANI,Grain

KANCHI KOHLI,Kalpavriksh Group

IN APRIL 2008, a representative of the United States Department of Energy made a presentation to India’s Ministry of Commerce. It spelt out parts of the USDE’s Biomass Programme Mission and built a case for cost-competitive, high-performance next generation biofuels.

Let’s see this against the backdrop of the huge global outcry against biofuels. The first generation biofuels include biodiesel from jatropha, pongamia or other oil-bearing plants; vegetable oils or animal fats; and ethanol extracted from sugar and starch crops such as corn or wheat. Their promotion puts new pressure on limited land resources. With a new-found market value for agricultural crops as feedstock for biofuel, there is a real, adverse impact on food prices and food availability.

Illustration: Neelakash Kshetrimayum

India’s Prime Minister and Finance Minister have voiced, in soft tones, their concerns about the impact of land conversion to biofuels on food security. This may have led some to believe that there would be serious re-thinking on the issue of the efficacy, control and need for biofuels as a solution to the world’s energy crisis. Ironically, the trend is now towards a different technological fix — second-generation biofuels!

This is clearly visible in the National Action Plan for Climate Change (NAPCC) and the Draft Biofuel Policy cleared by the Group of Ministers. These documents present a rather muted critique of first-generation biofuels, only to lay the ground for the entry of second- generation biofuels!

This is also visible in the strategies of international financial institutions. The Guardian recently reported the leak of the secret World Bank report denouncing firstgeneration biofuels, given the food crisis across the globe. Ironically, the World Bank remains committed to fund research and development of second-generation fuel production systems and keeping its focus on cellulosic materials and crop wastes.

Clearly fundamental questions remain misaddressed. Will second-generation technologies contribute in any way to achieving energy sovereignty, or address issues of fuel injustices? Will the sheer scale of their operations make them any more people- and planet-friendly? Will such a push facilitate genuine research on ecological, socially sensitive alternatives? How would these be directed toward reducing consumption, which is the real cause of the crisis today?

The US, the country with the highest percapita energy consumption, and the one with the biggest cellulosic biofuel agenda, is seeking to control research and commercial application through agreements with countries like India, China and Brazil.

While India-US negotiations are on, China inked an agreement in December, 2007, becoming the first Asian country to do so, “to accelerate the development of secondgeneration biofuels”. Brazil has also entered a cooperation agreement on biofuels with the US Government.

Interestingly, the movers and players in this scenario are the same as those pushing the first-generation agenda. There is clear evidence that large corporations and their governments are fuelling debates, pushing for policy changes and industrial support. The new US energy law, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, signed in December, 2007, looks at biofuel conversion targets to increase to 36 billion gallons by 2022, from 4.7 billion gallons in 2007. European countries are also reluctant to bring down their biofuel production targets and emphasise second- generation technologies in the EU Biofuel Action Plan.

The biggest argument made for secondgeneration biofuel is that it can overcome the limitations of first-generation ones because of reduced life-cycle emissions, no use of food crops (only their byproducts) and no new land requirement. Production will be from waste that is not only cost-effective but will also produce better quality fuel.

But this win-win scenario is ridden with concerns more dangerous and unexplored. Cellulosic technology looks at genetic modification, an arena that is highly controversial and full of risks. Moreover, it means more monopolised, patented and heavily-priced technology transfer. The ‘noble’ intentions of large corporations like the Canadian Iogen, Shell, Alico Inc, Mascoma Corporation to be green, eco-friendly and contribute to counter global warming will be at a cost.

Therefore, one needs to understand the politics of the biofuel debate and the business surrounding it. The cry around first-generation biofuels is being neatly used as an excuse to develop agendas for second and third-generation (for example, ‘algaculture’) technological solutions.

It is ironic that neither the energy discourse nor that around climate change is centered on consumption and reduction, but instead on adaptation and ‘scientific’ solutions. We have to face the fact that until we deal with the root of the problem, none of these paradigms will be able to leave the planet’s carbon balance neutral. •