Biofuels’ green credentials called into question

April 22, 2010

Biofuels were once seen as the perfect way to make transport carbon-free, but a series of EU studies are throwing increasing doubt on the green credentials of the alternative fuel.

The latest to be released gave a preliminary assessment that biodiesel from soybeans could create four times more climate-warming emissions than conventional diesel.

The European Commission has not helped itself by keeping many of the studies hidden — the most recent being an annex cut from a published report that was only released after Reuters and several NGOs used transparency laws to gain access.

Two other studies and leaked emails have added to the dossier of worrying evidence.

At the heart of the debate is an issue drily referred to as “indirect land use change”. In short, that means that biofuels use land and soak up grain supplies, sending reverberations through world commodity markets.

So a target for biofuels set in Brussels can indirectly force up food prices on the other side of the world, making the poorest go hungry and encouraging farmers to hack into tropical forests to gain new land.

Burning forests can release huge amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, reversing the emissions reductions the biofuels were meant to achieve in the first place.

So, what happens next? Will the European Commission propose restrictions on land-using biofuels when it issues a report on the issue later this year? Or does the fact that it has been burying these studies suggest it is trying to gloss over the problem?


We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see

Did anybody really believe that biofuels would be a positive solution for carbon emissions? Anybody with a brain could forsee the side effects of replacing 20% diesel with biofuels would have numerous side effects and end up being counter productive – i.e. destroying more the global environment than it would cure it. Did anybody ever realy believe that the EU Baroso club ?rules were other than lobby driven

Posted by EUisgreat | Report as abusive

Conservation is the only viable immediate response to our present crisis’. Needless to say, more investment in alternative energy development would prove for more profitable in the long run than the trillions we have invested in the war against terror. Can one really wage a war against a noun?

Posted by coyotle | Report as abusive