by Michael Eggleston* (Advanced Biofuels USA) Carbon is the backbone of the fossil-based economy and feedstock to a bio-based economy. However, how exactly this carbon is handled continues to divide people regarding what the development of a bio-based economy is actually trying to accomplish.
On one side there is a growing concern surrounding the consequences of climate change with atmospheric carbon identified as the main agent of global climatic risk. They argue that the purpose of a bio-based economy is to reduce anthropogenic carbon, to “decarbonize” the economy.
On another side is a growing concern surrounding the consequences of a fossil-based economy with the ‘’price’’ of oil not only a threat to national security but also to the quality of the environment from which many other industries profit. They argue that the purpose of a bio-based economy is to mitigate the negative impacts fossil fuels have on our way of life, to ‘’defossilize’’ the economy.
If one were to remove fossil-based resources as the main driver to the means of production wouldn’t one also decrease carbon emissions in the process? Yes and no. In principle, a bio-economy uses carbon to supply the production of fuels, chemicals, polymers, etc. However, all bio-based products are not created equal, depending on where the product comes from and from what it’s made of. Many continue to debate on how these products should be made sustainably.
Since carbon is the feedstock for a bio-economy, then discussions on how this carbon should be handled must also remain at the forefront of developing proper legislation. Regarding biofuels, the breaking and forming of carbon bonds into released and stored energy implies carbon to be at the center of attention. This means that consideration needs to be made regarding how atmospheric carbon is managed if both anthropogenic climate change and feedstock supply for a bio-economy are to be addressed. If a bio-based economy is going to make any significant impact in those regards, the correct terminology must be used if we are to be effective with our current actions.
Curious to bring clarity to this dilemma I traveled to Amsterdam, Netherlands to ask participants of this year’s World Bio Markets conference if they thought the use of the term “decarbonization” gives the wrong impression in regards to the actions of the bio-based economy.
Shortly after a presentation made by Transport & Environment, I followed up with Jori Shivonen, Biofuels Officer for this non-governmental organization (NGO). He explained to me that from his point of view “decarbonization” means decreasing the amount of carbon emissions not the amount of carbon held in the atmosphere. He suggested that if a concern were to ever come about regarding depleted levels of atmospheric carbon from supplying the bio-economy then industries should simply turn to flaring fossil-fuels back-up into the atmosphere.
For many, such as Commercial Develop Manager of Biojet at Air British Petroleum (BP), Thomas Parsons, it was too soon to say if managing existing atmospheric carbon levels was something to worry about. Like many other speakers before him, Parsons highlighted his company’s efforts to reduce additional carbon directly emitted from the engine.
After Parsons finished his presentation, however, a representative from Shell criticized Parsons’ concern as being overblown since aviation only contributes to a small percentage of the emissions made by the transportation sector.
Challenging the Shell representative’s criticism was the Director of Sustainability at North European Oil Trade Oy, Timo Huhtisaari, who reasoned that the distillation of jetfuel promotes the production of lower-stream products such as gasoline, thus encouraging the uptake of the whole barrel of oil. He implied that if less jetfuel was produced from petroleum, then less petroleum products would be produced as well.
Upon asking these fellows, Patrik Klintbom, Vice Chair for the ETIP Bioenergy Platform and Paolo Corvo, Head of Sales and Marketing for Business Line Biofuels & Derivatives at Clariant sitting together on the panel for the macro-economic view of the biofuels landscape, I received very mixed reviews.
Out of the four gentlemen only Shivonen expressed a stark opinion against using the term ‘’defossilization’’ to describe the actions of the bio-economy. Shivonen argued that conventional bio-based products should only be consumed when they are better than using those made from fossil fuels. In his opinion, all forms of carbon emissions are equally as harmful to the environment, no matter if they are bio-based.
Despite this implication the other speakers on the panel all acknowledged the importance of phasing-out fossil fuels; however, they did not either care about the implications of the definition or did not understand the differences between the terminology.
After the panel discussions concluded, Klintbom expanded upon my question after acknowledging the need to mitigate the effects of climate change and phase-out fossil fuels. Although this was expressed as getting-off carbon, he answered that whatever alternative(s) are chosen must also have limited to no unforeseen side-effects attached to them, such as indirect land-use change (iLUC).
Following up with this comment, Shivonen stated that the tricky part of iLUC is allocating any blame for deforestation to Europe. In this sense, Shivonen hinted his reasoning behind Transport & Environment’s position in concert with the European Commission’s newly proposed Renewable Energy Directive (RED II). It was no surprise to me that the NGO has taken the same position of the Commission by supporting the phase-out of all crop-based biofuels since they contribute to the large resistance of accepting responsibility in Europe for buying fuel that allegedly promotes deforestation half-way across the world.
Feeling left out of the conversation was Don McCabe, the Vice President of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture who said he believes farmers want to get involved in creating the bio-based economy. Although agriculture will remain a key component of this development for decades to come, he stated, he remained unsatisfied with how farmers were being treated in the conference’s discussions. He concluded by affirming his “waste” is just underutilized and underpriced opportunity.
Although ‘’decarbonization’’ and ‘’defossilization’’ might just be words to the panelists I interviewed, to Michael Carus, Chief Executive Officer at nova-Institute, they are the sole reason there remains a lack of consumer up-take of bio-based products. He explained that the problem in the bio-based economy is that businesses are only focused on their own problems and not on how they fit into the big picture. He suggested that for consumers to become aware of the many solutions the bio-based economy offers that the formation of coalitions among a broad range of stakeholders throughout the value-chain is necessary. To this end Carus claimed that consumer awareness will facilitate the development of holding industries accountable to a common standard of product quality.
Clearly climate change is an issue. Using ‘’decarbonization’’ to describe the purpose of the bio-economy focuses only on decreasing carbon-based transportation fuel emissions and not giving any credence to atmospheric carbon management which focuses on life cycle analysis and recycling carbon already in the atmosphere.
Managing proper levels of existing carbon remains key to mitigating the harms of fossil fuels and securing a sustainable supply of feedstock to fuel the bio-based economy. The best solution, as Carus proposed, is to promote dialogue up and down the value chain. Without a common understanding of the problem, legislators will continue to have a challenging task to make way for a bio-based economy.
It is up to the industry to create a positive public opinion towards biofuels with the development of coherent sustainability criteria. When they agree upon the objective of what the bio-economy is trying to accomplish progress can be made.