Bio-fuels

The week in Parliament wasn't remarkable for a lifting of the standards of performance. Question Time remains unmoved by calls for improved behaviour, particularly with regard to the way in which questions are answered by Ministers.

One debate I wished to join was on Bio-fuels; increasing the mandated levels of ethanol and bio-diesel in use. Unfortunately the debate was adjourned to Friday. As I believe my attendance at a Union meeting at Mannering Park regarding proposed power sector privatisation is more important, I missed the opportunity to contribute to the bio-fuels debate.

What I would have said is:

The benefits of and arguments for bio-fuel as either ethanol or bio-diesel seem to have compelling logic. We all know that E10 has provided a consistently lower cost option for motorists to fill their cars for some time. This was no doubt mostly appreciated by motorists during the period of rapid price escalation of petrol through 2007 and 2008.

While price differential and pricing point is not quite so significant at this point in time, petrol prices having reduced significantly, this will inevitably change in the foreseeable future; and, E10 is still saving motorists money.

The environmental benefits of bio-fuels have been at the forefront of the enthusiasm to increase the use of bio-diesel, and ethanol, inparticular, for many years. I can clearly recall the increased enthusiasm for ethanol coming out of the environmental movement in the 1970’s and 80’s. It was seen as a green alternative fuel that would reduce demand on finite and diminsihing fossil fuel reserves.

And so it is in many aspects. As well as reducing the demand for fossil fuel, the burning of bio-fuels produces less carbon output than fossil fuels and also less particulate matter, a major cause of health impacts particularly on our more densely populated communities.

The Member for Riverstone, in introducing the Bill on behalf of the Minister, made reference to the distinction between first-generation bio-fuels and second-generation bio-fuels, the latter of which seem at least 5 to 10 years away from being commercially viable. This Bill mandates a bio-fuel increase where for at least the short to medium term will see the feedstock being from feedstock that has other potential uses, or at least, fit the definition of first-generation bio-fuel feedstock.

Second generation include a much wider range of feedstock for ethanol production, including, manure, food waste, wood, straw, sewage, algae and other waste or by-product from food production with no current economic use.

As well as the distinction between 1st and 2nd generation feedstock, the point has been strongly made by other members that feedstock for this bio-fuel increase, even though it is first-generation bio-fuel, will be from sources that have no impact on food product or agricultuaral land that would be otherwise used for food production.

That is pleasing to know and I am sure that no member here would want to be part of supporting an industry that would have huge impacts in the areas of social justice or ecological destruction. Under the scenarios used to justify this Bill, all seems good. Without impacting on food production we can advance bio-fuel using first-gen feedstock as we move to even more sustainable second-generation bio-fuels.

Of course this doesn’t allay the fears of many including a number of academics who have watched the development of the bio-fuel industry. We are creating an industry by the use of legislated targets. It would be amazing if this industry does not reach a point where it wishes to expand beyond the mandated levels – this will no doubt change everything and create demand for feedstocks that ae currently being ruled out.

I note the Member for Kiama stating that 40% of the fuel for vehicles in Brazil is now from ethanol. The fact that vehicles can effectively be run on 40% ethanol is noted, but so should the worldwide concern over the loss of food productive land and the threat to one of the most incredible and important ecosystems on the planet, the Amazon rainforest. No one can seriously wave the flag for the industry in Brazil without recognising the massive ongoing environmental destruction occurring there.

Mandating a figure for bio-fuels intentionally creates an artificial environment for this industry. This could be supported if the concerns around bio-fuels were clearly addressed, particularly by only mandating increased bio-fuel production with second or third-generation bio-fuels.
It is inconceivable that once the mandated target is achieved, this new industry will not wish to expand, and if that means placing pressure on food production or ecological valuable land, this will be hard to resist by the government of the day.

I acknowledge that within the legislation there are provisions to suspend the mandate if available supplies of bio-fuels or feedstocks are inadequate or uneconomic. The way in which the Expert Panel referred to would consider this or apply the Sustainability Standard referred to, is unknown, and as far as I know the details surrounding the Sustainability Standard are unknown.

These matters should be much better understood prior to increasing these mandated bio-fuel levels. As with any technology, there needs to be a period of growth and development so as to be able to improve the technology. Perhaps until we know more about the impacts of bio-fuel production, the approach should be that the prescribed levels are maximum levels of bio-fuel rather than minimum.

In an article in TIME magazine of 27 March 2008, Michael Grunwald, stated “biofuels have become the vanguard of the green-tech revolution, the trendy way for politicians and corporations to show they’re serious about finding alternative sources of energy and in the process slowing global warming.”

As the Member for Sydney stated in her contribution, we are part of a global economy, and what we do here cannot be seen in isolation to other parts of the world. In many areas around the world, bio-fuels are clearly causing greater problems through their production, than easing problems associated with global warming.
The Member for Riverstone in his introductory speech quoted Rudolf Diesel when he said “The engine can be fed with vegetable oils and would help considerably in the development of agriculture in the countries that use it.” Mr Speaker, I suggest Rudolf Diesel could never have imagined the world population growth, demand for resources and the environmental impacts that we would be dealing with in 2009.
From the aforementioned Time article by Michael Grunwald, “The biofuels boom, in short, is one that could haunt the planet for generations – and it’s only getting started.”