An email addressed to Al Gore appeared in my inbox. It is from a number of pro-green biofuel campaigners. Given Gore’s new status as a do-as-I-say, not-as-I-do environmentalist, you could expect that the mail was to ask him to practise what he preaches, cut back on his personal jet travel, install low-wattage lighting at home, that sort of thing.
His seven petitioners, who attach an open letter to the European Union from 225 organisations and individuals, have mailed Gore to express their concern about the impact of large-scale biofuel production, including the setting of biofuel targets and incentives that promote biofuels derived from energy crops.
If you have not been following this debate closely, it is easy to be confused. With concerns about global warming now top of mind, using renewables, including fuel derived from renewables, seems to be the way to go.
Two recent documents commissioned by the South African government speak glowingly of the potential for biofuels in the local market.
Government is so taken with biofuels that their introduction is a key part of the Asgisa initiative, the economic plan which is the cornerstone of government’s growth strategy.
The task team which considered windfalls taxes on Sasol and the rest of the fuel industry is also enthusiastic about biofuels, going so far as to suggest that government policy should favour the import of biofuels over fossil fuels.
This, in part, is to help keep developing world monies in the developing world, supporting Brazil, for instance, rather than the oil producing cartel nations of the Middle East.
There is also the draft biofuels strategy produced at the Central Energy Fund. This sees the potential for a biofuel industry to create 55Â 000 jobs, add 0,12% to GDP and save R3,7billion on foreign exchange and R100million in greenhouse gas annually.
Gore’s petitioners, who represent bodies such as Biofuelswatch, Econexus, Large Scale Biofuels Action Group and Carbon Trade Watch, raise a set of concerns with him.
They say the Stern and IPCC reports have identified deforestation and agriculture as together accounting for about one-third of global greenhouse gases.
“Energy yields are highest from crops growing in the tropics. Already biofuel production is leading to increased rates of deforestation in many rainforest nations.
“As you know, old growth forests and peat lands play a crucial role in regulating climate change. Indonesia’s biofuel plans are set to expand palm oil production 43-fold and threaten most of that country’s remaining rainforests and peat lands.”
The mail to Al Gore says that the poor in Mexico have recently seen the price of staple corn rise by 70% in six months because of ethanol production in the United States.
It also says that an increase in agricultural intensity to produce biofuels will be devastating for biodiversity.
In South Africa, too, there appears to be no shortage of critics of the planned biofuel programme. Criticisms include that the country is already water challenged, that food prices are likely to rise, that there is a shortage of arable land and investment costs are too high. Proposed subsidies are also seen as being too generous or insufficiently generous.
The windfalls task team says biofuels offer increased self-sufficiency and security of supply, reduce the need to import fuel at a time when the country is running out of refining capacity, offer price advantages and can benefit the development of local technology and bring environmental and employment benefits.
South Africa’s biofuel ambitions, as detailed in the draft, can be seen as relatively modest, targeting less than 5% of total fuel supply.
It largely wants to use surplus production such as sugar, which is currently exported, and appears keenly aware that soaring food prices as a consequence of increased biofuel production is not a desired outcome.
The strategy appears to be guided by the fact that water is scarce and that this water shortage is going to be an increasing challenge in the future.
Biofuels are a new area, driven for the most part by sustained high oil prices, but also by the need, coupled with incentives, to find alternatives to fossil fuels. There appear to be few areas of agreement, but conservationists are clear on one thing, the world will not save itself by switching to different fuels: we have to consume less, and better.