Biofuels

Asif Maqbool

 Muhammad Rasheed

Biofuels are derived from biomass (typically plant-based organic matter). Although most biomass can be burned to release energy (e.g. burning wood), it cannot for example be burned in an engine to power a car. It must first be transformed into a liquid fuel. It may be noted that biofuels need not necessarily be liquid in nature – for example, methane gas from animal dung. Biofuels and fossil fuels are different from each other. On one hand, biofuel is essentially either carbohydrate or fatty acid in nature, captured by plants from the sun’s rays through photosynthesis. On the other hand, if biomass is compressed at huge pressure over great period of time beneath the earth’s surface, the result will be hydrocarbon-based fossil fuels. Hydrocarbon based fossil fuels represent a much denser energy source than carbohydrate or fatty acid based biofuel. For instance, one kilo of coal may contain the same amount of energy as up to four kilos of wood.

Secondly, whereas fossil fuels will run out, biofuels are potentially renewable – as long as we continue to grow and refine biomass at the same rate that we consume it. Thirdly, when fossil fuels are burned, we return to the atmosphere carbon that was captured by generation upon generation of plants over millions of years and kept locked under the ground in the form of hydrocarbons. Whereas when we burn biofuels, the carbon that is released back into the atmosphere is actually the carbon from the present generation of plants.

Currently, the two most important biofuels are bioethanol and biodiesel. There are various biofuels produced from different feed stocks. Bioethanol is simply common alcohol, distilled from sugar and it is typically blended with petrol for vehicle fuel in proportions up to 25 percent without the need for engine modification, or alternatively, can be used to run specially designed cars. Biodiesel is refined from vegetable oils, animal fats or recycled cooking oil and can be used in diesel engines.

‘Second generation’ refers to production methods still in the research and development (R&D) phase that will hopefully yield biofuels that are more energy and cost efficient.

Much hope is attached to these technologies, which should bring a number of advantages including greater energy efficiency and environmental benefits, and a broader base of potential biomass. These technologies will have lower feedstock costs than first generation ones, but will be much more capital intensive, requiring large production facilities to be economically viable. It is unclear when exactly these technologies will become commercial, but 2015 is often mooted as a possible date. Except a few petroleum rich countries, all other countries across the world are facing oil deficit. As the fossil fuel resources are finite, search for alternative mainly for transportation fuel is continuing all over the world. It is in this context that development of biofuels as an alternative and renewable source of energy assumes importance. On this pretext, biofuel is also touted as a key instrument for achieving energy security.

The second rationale is that biofuels like ethanol and biodiesel are environment friendly and therefore will help to conform to the stricter emission and help fight climate change.

Particularly in the developing countries, besides the two rationales of energy security and climate security, the third rationale offered is the prospect of rural development. As biofuels are derived from agricultural produce, the huge demand for biofuels may also create opportunities for enhanced employment and income for farmers.

Biofuels are being promoted as a source of renewable energy and a means to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However studies say that deforestation (forest clearing) caused by expanding soya and palm oil plantations is leading to increased carbon dioxide emissions. FAO estimates that 1.6 billion tones or 25 to 30 percent of the greenhouse gas released into the atmosphere each year comes from deforestation, particularly in South East Asia and South America, where rainforest is cleared to make way for palm oil or soy plantations. Forested tropical peat lands in South East Asia contain at least 42,000 mega tonnes of soil carbon, which can be released into the atmosphere by drainage or fires associated with plantation development. Current emissions from peat lands make up nearly eight percent of global emissions, almost 90 percent of which is attributable to Indonesia. Because rainforests are natural carbon sinks, deforestation increases the emissions associated with biofuel production. For example, one study finds that one hectare of land in Brazil can save 13 tonnes of CO2 each year if it is planted with sugarcane to make bioethanol. But if natural forests were allowed to regenerate on the same hectare of land, this would absorb 20 tonnes of CO2 every year.

In Europe and America, the preferred option of biofuel is agricultural products. According to an IMF report, the use of corn for ethanol production in the US and their demand for soybean oil has increased world food prices by about 10 percent. Moreover, the price of maize rose by 23 percent in 2000 and by 50 percent over the past two years largely because of US ethanol programme.  

The US is pushing the third world nations to go in for biofuel production so that their energy needs are met at the expense of plundering other’s resources. In Mexico, there have been riots because of 100 percent rise in prices of tortillas in the year 2007 on account of diversion of corn for producing biofuels.

Representatives of organizations and social movements from Brazil, Bolivia, Costa Rica, Columbia, Guatemala and the Dominican Republic in a declaration titled “Full Tanks at the Cost of Empty Stomachs” wrote, “The current model of production of biofuel is sustained by the same elements that have always caused the oppression of our people’s territory, of natural resources and labour force.” The picture on the rural opportunities front is not encouraging either. Feedstock cultivation in developing countries can also have negative implications for poverty and suffering owing to abuse of land rights, environmental destruction and abusive labour standards.

FAO suggests that if developing countries can reap the benefits of biofuel production, and if those benefits reach the poor, it will help promote rural development. Good intention, but easier said than done. Those who have been long witness to the government apathy to poor farmers and rural development would agree that such conditional recommendations have yielded very limited benefits to rural Pakistan. The biofuel policy makers need to clearly outline, in concrete and specific terms, what are the benefits from biofuel and how will they benefit the poor.

The structurally low prices of agricultural goods for the last 10 years were considered a bane for the Pakistan agriculture, threatening livelihood and development prospects. But when the prices swung upwards last year, benefits have still not reached small farmers and wage earners, a vast majority of who are women. Unfortunately, high agricultural commodity prices are already having a negative impact on developing countries that are highly dependent on imports to meet their food requirements. Particularly at risk are poor urban consumers and poor net food buyers in rural areas. Many of the world’s poor spend more than half of their incomes on food. This double-edged price policy dilemma is posing a serious challenge to the policy makers because either way, it is the farmers and agricultural workers who are eventually left high and dry.

What is the way out? It is argued that growing demand for biofuels and the resulting higher agricultural commodity prices may offer important opportunities for enhanced income and employment in rural India, but do we have the institutional and regulatory mechanisms in place to ensure equitable distribution of benefits from growth? On the other hand, for lack of such mechanisms, abandoning the very idea of biofuels would tantamount to throwing the baby with the bath water.

This issue of Trading Up highlights the complex debates around biofuels, discusses the opportunities and risks associated and thereby seeks to contribute to opinion building on the same. The risks emerging from biofuel must be made public and should be adequately addressed in formulating the plan, policy and the required prudent institutional and regulatory mechanisms.