Dear friends,

 

This article deconstructs the criticisms on first generation biofuels (jatropha, pongamia) across the world and how many of them in the trade and government circuit are using it as a mechanism to bring forward the agenda of second generation ones based more on biotechnology. Ironically neither the first nor the second and now the third generation argument address the issue of consumption from where the energy crisis emanates and finds arguments for market based solutions like biofuels.

 

Look forward to your feedback, whenever you find the time. This is a sequel to one that we did in end July on first generation biofuels also in Tehelka.

 

Kanchi

From Tehelka Magazine, Vol 5, Issue 37, Dated Sept 20, 2008

OPINION   change

Biofuel To Fire

Biofuel development is ignoring critical socio-economic concerns

SHALINI BHUTANI,Grain

KANCHI KOHLI,Kalpavriksh Group

http://www.tehelka.com/story_main40.asp?filename=Op200908change.asp

IN APRIL 2008, a representative of the United States Department of Energy made a presentation to India’s Ministry of Commerce. It spelt out parts of the USDE’s Biomass Programme Mission and built a case for cost-competitive, high-performance next generation biofuels.

Let’s see this against the backdrop of the huge global outcry against biofuels. The first generation biofuels include biodiesel from jatropha, pongamia or other oil-bearing plants; vegetable oils or animal fats; and ethanol extracted from sugar and starch crops such as corn or wheat. Their promotion puts new pressure on limited land resources. With a new-found market value for agricultural crops as feedstock for biofuel, there is a real, adverse impact on food prices and food availability.

Illustration: Neelakash Kshetrimayum

India’s Prime Minister and Finance Minister have voiced, in soft tones, their concerns about the impact of land conversion to biofuels on food security. This may have led some to believe that there would be serious re-thinking on the issue of the efficacy, control and need for biofuels as a solution to the world’s energy crisis. Ironically, the trend is now towards a different technological fix — second-generation biofuels!

This is clearly visible in the National Action Plan for Climate Change (NAPCC) and the Draft Biofuel Policy cleared by the Group of Ministers. These documents present a rather muted critique of first-generation biofuels, only to lay the ground for the entry of second- generation biofuels!

This is also visible in the strategies of international financial institutions. The Guardian recently reported the leak of the secret World Bank report denouncing firstgeneration biofuels, given the food crisis across the globe. Ironically, the World Bank remains committed to fund research and development of second-generation fuel production systems and keeping its focus on cellulosic materials and crop wastes.

Clearly fundamental questions remain misaddressed. Will second-generation technologies contribute in any way to achieving energy sovereignty, or address issues of fuel injustices? Will the sheer scale of their operations make them any more people- and planet-friendly? Will such a push facilitate genuine research on ecological, socially sensitive alternatives? How would these be directed toward reducing consumption, which is the real cause of the crisis today?

The US, the country with the highest percapita energy consumption, and the one with the biggest cellulosic biofuel agenda, is seeking to control research and commercial application through agreements with countries like India, China and Brazil.

While India-US negotiations are on, China inked an agreement in December, 2007, becoming the first Asian country to do so, “to accelerate the development of secondgeneration biofuels”. Brazil has also entered a cooperation agreement on biofuels with the US Government.

Interestingly, the movers and players in this scenario are the same as those pushing the first-generation agenda. There is clear evidence that large corporations and their governments are fuelling debates, pushing for policy changes and industrial support. The new US energy law, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, signed in December, 2007, looks at biofuel conversion targets to increase to 36 billion gallons by 2022, from 4.7 billion gallons in 2007. European countries are also reluctant to bring down their biofuel production targets and emphasise second- generation technologies in the EU Biofuel Action Plan.

The biggest argument made for secondgeneration biofuel is that it can overcome the limitations of first-generation ones because of reduced life-cycle emissions, no use of food crops (only their byproducts) and no new land requirement. Production will be from waste that is not only cost-effective but will also produce better quality fuel.

But this win-win scenario is ridden with concerns more dangerous and unexplored. Cellulosic technology looks at genetic modification, an arena that is highly controversial and full of risks. Moreover, it means more monopolised, patented and heavily-priced technology transfer. The ‘noble’ intentions of large corporations like the Canadian Iogen, Shell, Alico Inc, Mascoma Corporation to be green, eco-friendly and contribute to counter global warming will be at a cost.

Therefore, one needs to understand the politics of the biofuel debate and the business surrounding it. The cry around first-generation biofuels is being neatly used as an excuse to develop agendas for second and third-generation (for example, ‘algaculture’) technological solutions.

It is ironic that neither the energy discourse nor that around climate change is centered on consumption and reduction, but instead on adaptation and ‘scientific’ solutions. We have to face the fact that until we deal with the root of the problem, none of these paradigms will be able to leave the planet’s carbon balance neutral. •

From Tehelka Magazine, Vol 5, Issue 37, Dated Sept 20, 2008

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………     From Tehelka Magazine, Vol 5, Issue 30, Dated Aug 02, 2008

OPINION   change

Oily Green Mask

SHALINI BHUTANI AND KANCHI KOHLI Bhutani works with GRAIN; Kohli is a member of Kalpavriksh Environmental Action Group

THE GOVERNMENT OF India is drafting the country’s first ever biofuel policy, which has been a closed door affair for civil society. One can keep guessing what the final text would read but seeing the current thrust, it is likely to give impetus to an already inflated drive to promote corporate-sponsored biofuels.

Since 2003, the government’s intent has been articulated in a National Biodiesel Mission. This has been mirrored in the recommendations of the Planning Commission’s Committee on Development of Biofuels — the proportion of biofuel blends to be mixed with petroleum be increased from five percent to 20 percent by 2012. A Group of Ministers (GoM), headed by the Union Minister of Agriculture, is tasked with a fullfledged biofuels policy.

Biofuels are another instance where the need for a solution has been used as a business opportunity by those who created the problem in the first place! It might be opportune to mention two things here — first, that a series of Indo-US energy talks preceded the announcement of any domestic biofuel policy. Second, the demand for more fuel has been created by high levels of consumption caused by the expansion of an energy-intensive world order. Manufacturing and business processes have been exploiting natural resources. The biofuel propaganda by businesses is simply an act against its own destruction.

In the context of climate change, large corporations — including petroleum giants, mining companies, automobile manufacturers and food processors — have hopped on to the biofuel bandwagon, even sponsoring debates on the criteria for “sustainable biofuels”. The noble intention of “green” energy appear to be more reflective of the colour of money than any ecological consideration.

So it is not surprising that the main players attempting to influence the domestic policy on biofuels are business and industry. In 2006, biodiesel suppliers and others formed the Biodiesel Association of India, which is the main group lobbying for legal and policy changes, including more land, raw material and tax exemptions. Likewise, the sugar manufacturers are lobbying for favourable policy support.

For a country like India where the majority lead an off-the-grid life, this means that more land needs to come under cultivation of crops like jatropha, pongamia and sugar sources, which can be tapped for oil and ethanol production respectively. Agricultural land, forests and even grazing land, which support people’s livelihoods, are being used to promote fuel plantations. Land, a source of food, is now being seen as a source for oil extraction. The rising demand for fuel in an increasingly mechanised world simply cannot be fulfilled even if more land is brought under biofuel plantations.

In 2005, the Chhattisgarh Biofuel Development Authority was set up and, in 2006, a set of Rules was notified for biodiesel plantations in the state. Forest and “waste” land began to be diverted for ratanjyot or karanj plantations. In traditional wisdom and in the ecological worldview, there is nothing “waste”. In states like Rajasthan, huge tracts of the neeji beer (private grazing lands) projected as “waste” lands are being systematically promoted for jatropha plantations, through the state government’s “green patta” policy. For a pastoralist society, this would mean using pastures for “fuel” cultivation, and the survival of livestock then becomes a serious question.

In Orissa, some villagers have been duped of their land, including revenue-generating, fully grown mahua trees, in the garb of leasing out their land for an environment-friendly option. The Orissa government’s Renewable Energy Development Agency is pushing the state’s draft biofuels policy as a poverty alleviation programme. Ironically, jatropha plantations are being pushed in the Kalahandi- Bolangir-Koraput region, which is known for its food shortage.

Special Economic Zones, industries, mines and dams are obviously industrial undertakings. It is a different thing that their impact is forgotten and condoned for the
sake of the “growth” of a nation. But biofuels wear a green mask while touting solutions to climate change. This veil is gradually lifting now, with the promotion of biofuels being seen as adding to the food crisis. Peasant communities, indigenous people and regular consumers have been crying hoarse about the direct ill-effects, from land grab to food price hikes, which they are facing due to the expansion of the biofuel industry. More recently, there have also been murmurs of concern from within the officialdom, with the Finance Minister of India raising concerns about these ill-effects.

The promotion of biofuels today is yet another corporate agenda with clear intentions of private profit. We have to stop regarding our forest, fallow, pasture and agricultural land as “waste” or convertibles, and the people who are dependent on these lands as dispensable. Till then, the business of changing the climate will go on in full swing.

From Tehelka Magazine, Vol 5, Issue 30, Dated Aug 02, 2008