The indiscriminate use of “first-generation” biofuels (derived from food crops) could cause more damage than fossil fuels. The International Energy Agency (IEA) issued the warning. It sustains that the massive demand for biofuel for large cargo ships could encourage intensive cultivation of palm oil plantations, leading to deforestation and the loss of entire natural habitats.
The basic concept is that if a tropical forest is cleared to plant soybeans for biofuel, the release of carbon from the soil could make that fuel up to three times more polluting than conventual fuel.
According to recent studies, it would take approximately 35 million hectares of agricultural land to meet only part of shipping’s demand for biofuel.
According to Lloyd’s List, Paolo Frankl, head of the IEA’s Renewable Energy Division, recently highlighted the problem. The expert argues that it is not enough for a fuel to be organic for it to be sustainable. If its production destroys carbon sinks (such as tropical forests), the net balance is worse than oil.
In Frankl’s opinion, focusing entirely on biofuels for shipping could be risky for shipowners. If international regulations (such as those of the EU or IMO) suddenly become stricter on deforestation, those who have invested solely in biofuel supply chains could find themselves with fuels that are no longer certified as “green”.
Frankl and his team believe the solution is not to eliminate biofuels, but to strictly limit their use to residues and waste: used cooking oil (UCO) and agricultural waste that does not take land away from forests or food.
Frankl concludes that the challenge lies in creating the right policy to promote different technologies simultaneously, which have varying levels of maturity, costs, raw material availability and environmental performance.
Translation by Giles Foster
