Blog

Ahead of the adoption of the Political Agreement on the ILUC dossier in the Energy Council on 12 December 2013, a group of NGOs put out a briefing on the biofuels policy review and on the three main issues in the debate: the cap for land-based biofuels, the weakening of the 20% RED target and the inclusion of ILUC factors for accounting purposes.
A cap such as the one proposed by the Commission and defended by the NGOs is just a clumsy attempt to find a quick remedy to issues that remained unsolved in 2009, bringing no evident benefit in the long term. In fact, such a black and white approach would not take into account the good performances of well-performing conventional biofuels such as sugarcane ethanol.

A couple of new reports released this month in Brussels carry a similar message: Sustainable biofuels, like sugarcane-based ethanol from Brazil, will need to play a significant role if the decarbonization of European transport is going to happen longer term.
There’s also another important message in the two studies, one by E4Tech and the other by CE Delft/TNO: the EU still has an opportunity -- especially with a new Commission and new European Parliament taking over in 2014 -- to cultivate the right policy environment in order to move industry toward producing more advanced biofuels and enabling higher blending rates of sustainably produced biofuels for gasoline and diesel.

In response to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) unveiling a proposal that could cut next year’s Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) target for advanced biofuels by 20 percent, Leticia Phillips, the Brazilian Sugarcane Industry Association’s (known by the acronym “UNICA”) North American Representative issued the following statement.

As an indication of how the European Union biofuels dossier remains stuck in a holding pattern, the European Parliament’s Energy Committee has canceled a planned vote on whether to give the EU’s Parliament Rapporteur a mandate to hold negotiations with EU Member States and the European Commission to come up with a grand compromise on the dossier.

These inter-institution discussions are an important indication in the EU policymaking phase that signals that a conclusive policy text is likely to be around the corner. But this was not the case for the EU biofuels policy.

The 40-year anniversary of 1973’s OPEC oil embargo is an important milestone in the world’s transition toward renewable sources of fuel. Many media outlets and respected energy leaders have been looking back over the past four decades, searching for lessons learned.

The United Nations’ Committee on World Food Security (CFS) met last week in Rome and, not surprisingly, biofuels were again at the centre of a hot debate. Governments, industry, civil society and academics all represented at the meeting could agree on an overall mild conclusion which asks for further assessment, given the very controversial topic to which they were confronted.

Ecofys, a well-respected Dutch consultancy, is out with a new study that effectively eviscerates the association of biofuels with “land grabbing,” that favorite charged-phrase NGOs pedal that industry is in the business of pushing locals off their land.

The meaty conclusion from Ecofys: “At best, only 0.5% of all deals in the Land Matrix concern land grabs for EU biofuels.”

With Labor Day behind us, Washington D.C. has officially ended summer vacation and gotten back to work. Brazil’s sugarcane ethanol producers are no exception, and we’ve renewed our efforts making the case for advanced biofuels.

The late U.S. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan is often credited for quipping that everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not to their own facts.

Fresh export data from Brazil reminded me of that saying because it will come as an unwelcome reality check for naysayers of sugarcane ethanol. Let’s turn to the facts to debunk two leading myths circulating around Washington, D.C. about Brazilian sugarcane ethanol.

A mixed bag from Wednesday’s full European Parliament vote on biofuels and that issue of indirect land use change, ILUC, after months of debate in the parliament.

Another interesting report out last week on biofuels. This one is entitled, “Biofuels play minor role in local food prices,” and was produced by Ecofys, a Dutch consulting firm that does work regularly for the European Commission and sometimes for NGOs and the biofuels industry.

No American city enjoys its August vacations more than Washington. With Congress away on recess, most Washingtonians skip town for at least a week to rest and prepare for renewed policymaking in the fall. I’ll certainly confess to enjoying the sand between my toes last month!

Sugarcane ethanol producers applaud today’s EPA announcement on 2013 annual percentage standards for the RFS, which maintains the advanced biofuel volume at 2.75 billion gallons.

The latest comments come from both Shell and BP America, producers and importers of renewable fuel, and a joint letter by the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) and the American Petroleum Institute (API), two trade associations that represent many importers of renewable fuel in the United States.

Last week we weighed in with formal comments opposing a proposed rulemaking by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Many important economic and environmental causes for concern were echoed in other formal comments submitted to EPA by biofuel proponents and stakeholders.