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
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
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
Offline 
Send Email
