© 2011 The Royal Statistical Society

can contribute towards national energy security. As new agricultural products they enable farmers to diversify their activities and reduce dependence on volatile inter-national food markets.

Still more significantly, biofuels are portrayed as “carbon neutral” since the carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted during their combustion is balanced by the CO2 absorbed by the plants from which they were produced. Strictly speaking, biofuels should really be considered as “low car-bon” sources of energy because greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, which include methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) as well as CO2, are linked to fossil fuels that are burnt during the cultivation, harvesting, transporta-tion, conversion, processing and delivery of the biofuel. Additionally, other GHG emissions are caused by the conversion of unused land to grow biomass feedstocks, by agricultural inputs, especially the manufacture of nitrogen fertilisers, and by the interaction of all sources of nitrogen with cultivated soils, resulting in N2O emissions.

(It is worth noting that N2O is a particularly po-tent greenhouse gas. The relative significance of different GHG emissions is governed by their values of global warming potential. From the perspective of a 100-year timescale, the global warming potential of N2O is 298 times greater than the same amount of CO2 gas1. Hence, the emission of comparatively small amounts of N2O can cause a similar impact on global climate change as a much larger amount of CO2.)

However, if biofuels actually are “low carbon” energy sources, they can play a significant role in the mitigation of global climate change. This is particularly so because they can be used as transport fuels that are not substan-tially different from existing petrol, diesel, etc. This means

Ethics for biofuels … and everything else

Biofuels good

The introduction of biofuels into our transport fuel mix has attracted much controversy. The case for biofuels as a practical alternative to conventional fuels obtained from crude oil is based on their claims to deliver a number of important benefits. Originating from organic matter such as plants and, potentially at least, algae, biofuels offer the prospect of being renewable thereby avoiding the resource depletion that is associated with all fossil fuels. They also avoid the related consequences of short-term price volatility and longer-term price inflation. As different sources for biofuels, or biomass feedstocks, can be cultivated and harvested in almost every country, they

Biofuels save the planet. Biofuels destroy rainforests, add to greenhouse gases and starve the poor. Both claims are made. What should we do? Decisions call for careful quantification of the benefits and drawbacks and an appreciation of the uncertainties involved, says Nigel Mortimer

© iStockphoto.com/Monika Wisniewska

108 september2011

109september2011

that, logistically, they can be easily and rapidly introduced into the transport fuel supply system without the need for radically new infrastruc-ture, such as a network of electricity charging points or hydrogen filling stations. Additionally, they can be used by existing vehicles with little or no modification, and do not require the development and commercial introduction of entirely new vehicle technologies. Furthermore, they present an immediate solution to the ap-parently intractable problem of the urgent need to “decarbonise” the global transport system. There are few such solutions and, in certain parts of the sector, such as marine and air transport, they provide the only major current alternative to fossil fuels. What, one might ask, is there not to like?

Biofuels bad

Against this impressive list of possible benefits, why are biofuels so controversial? The reason, as with any new solution, is that reality is not quite as simple as the predicted advantages suggest it should be. Biofuels are only renew-able if their biomass feedstocks are cultivated sustainably. Even so, in order to make a sig-nificant impact, biofuels have to be produced in very large quantities if they are to reduce conventional fuel consumption, slow the pace of fossil fuel resource depletion and increase national energy security. Huge amounts are required to make a noticeable impact on global climate change. Whether biofuels can do this depends on the choice of biomass feedstocks used in their production and how they are converted into suitable fuels. At this point it is necessary to appreciate that not all biofuels are the same.

Most but not all biofuels currently on the market are derived from plants that have alternative uses, often in the form of food. For example, large-scale bioethanol production is based on maize (corn), sugar beet, sugar cane and wheat, whilst biodiesel is derived from oil palms, oilseed rape, soy beans and sunflowers. This immediately raises the potential for conflict between the uses of existing agricultural land to provide food or fuel. This is the essence of the “food versus fuel” debate with biofuels. At the very least, it raises the spectre of food price infla-tion affecting the world’s poorest people and, at the very worst, starvation. Presented in its most extreme form, this argument is a choice between all food, as “a basic essential for the poor”, against all transport, as “a trivial luxury for the rich”.

New biofuels

There is a related issue that has gained much traction in the biofuels debate. This concerns indirect land use change2. The basic conjecture with indirect land use change is that, in a world with an ever-expanding population and limited land for agricultural cultivation, any pressure for more land for crop production, such as that required for biofuels, will lead to further destruction of major carbon reservoirs such as wetlands, peatlands and rain forests. The total GHG emissions caused by such change of land use negate claimed savings from the biofuels that set off this global chain of events. This is a serious and profound hypothesis which obviously bears more thorough investigation.

Before considering indirect land use change further, its speculated impact has led to the conclusion that new biofuel technologies which reduce or avoid the use of land, in gen-eral, or agricultural land, in particular, would represent a very positive step forward. There are a number of such promising technologies at various stages of development; some that are technically proven but not economically viable and others that require fundamental advances in scientific research. Possible technological developments include breeding characteristics in plants which improve biofuel production or enable biomass feedstocks to be grown in hostile environments; commercialised Fis-cher–Tropsch and lignocellulosic processing of a range of different biomass feedstocks, such as various grasses and sources of wood; and bio-fuel extraction from algae that can be cultivated in the sea, in waste areas or in purpose-built facilities. Whilst the epithet “first generation” is frequently applied to current biofuels, the terms “second and third generation” are often used with future biofuels. However, in the absence of any strict definitions such terminol-ogy is not particularly helpful.

Ethical guide through the maze

It is against this background of contentious debate over current biofuel and the acclaimed prospects of future biofuels that the Nuffield Council on Bioethics established a Working Party to examine the ethics of biofuels in October 2009. Through discussions at Work-ing Party meetings, and fact-finding sessions and consultations with interested parties, it decided that the focus should be on all biofuels and their ethical implications. Relying on

a robust ethical framework of a number of widely shared values, five ethical principles and a subsequent ethical duty were formulated to guide the current and future development and commercialisation of biofuels3. The five ethical principles are:

•Human rights. Biofuels development should not be at the expense of people’s essential rights, including access to sufficient food and water, health rights, work rights and land entitlements.

•Environmental sustainability. Biofuels should be environmentally sustainable.

•Climate change. Biofuels should contribute to a net reduction of total GHG emissions and not exacerbate global climate change.

•Just reward. Biofuels should be developed in accordance with trade principles that are fair and recognise the rights of people to just reward, including labour rights and intellectual property rights.

•Equitable distribution. Costs and ben-efits of biofuels should be distributed in an equitable way.

If a biofuel can meet these ethical principles and certain other conditions, it was concluded that there should be a moral imperative to act by supporting and promoting biofuels as one of many means of addressing the formidable challenges of sustainable development within the context of global climate change. At this point, it needs to be emphasised that most biofuels development and implementation has come about through government policy measures which have subsidised or otherwise encouraged their deployment, either directly or indirectly. Before current high crude oil prices, such support was essential as the market itself would not have brought forward these new technologies. Hence, it was necessary for the Working Party to consider the implications of its ethical principles for the current poli-cies and their subsequent development in the European Union generally, and the United Kingdom specifically.

Need for numbers

There is a range of qualitative criteria in exist-ing biofuels policies, addressing, for example, sustainability, biodiversity and voluntary standards on human rights. However, the

110 september2011

role of quantitative criteria is crucial for de-termining whether biofuels have a meaningful contribution to make in combating global cli-mate change. Biofuels policy for the European Union, set out in the European Commission’s Renewable Energy Directive4, establishes two

critical and specific numerical targets. These concern the proportion of biofuels that should be incorporated in transport fuel supply, and the minimum net GHG emissions savings that any given biofuel should achieve. The use of these criteria may seem simple but, in practice, it is somewhat more complicated.

Originally, the biofuels supply target was set at a 10% share of petrol and diesel con-sumption. However, this was revised to a 10% share from renewable sources and subsequently elaborated in the European Commission’s Fuel Quality Directive5 as a 10% reduction in life cycle GHG emissions per unit of energy sup-plied to the transport sector. The required con-tribution of biofuels is incorporated, along with those from alternative fuels and improvements in fossil fuel production, into a minimum 6% reduction in GHG emissions by 2020.

The situation with the GHG emissions savings targets for individual biofuels might appear to be less complex. This is because such savings targets have a strict definition (see

box, page 111). However, the devil is in the detail, especially when it comes to calculating the total GHG emissions associated with the production of a biofuel. The Energy Directive does provide a methodology for these calcula-tions but it is insufficiently prescriptive, lacks clarity on certain points and, crucially, contains inconsistencies which undermine its practical application as a basis for regulation. In order to understand why this should be, it is necessary to consider, in some detail, the technique of life cycle assessment on which such calculations are, ultimately, based.

Life Cycle Assessment

Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a technique for quantifying any or all aspects of the impacts on natural resources and environment that are associated with the provision of a product or service. A basic principle of it is that the way calculations are performed is determined, fundamentally, by the reason why they are being undertaken. In other words, the methodology has to be “fit for purpose”. The “question asked” decides the precise details of the calculations. This is not an esoteric matter since it is essential to realise that “answers” will change if different methodologies are adopted. In relation to biofuels, such calculations are conducted either for regulatory reasons or for policy analysis purposes6. The two cases are calculated differently and produce different results.

Targets for the net GHG emissions sav-ings that a given biofuel must achieve are a regulatory issue, and this must be addressed

by what is called attributional LCA. Savings targets are imposed upon biofuels suppliers (who are referred to as “economic operators”). This implies a responsibility for GHG emis-sions over which such economic operators can exert, directly or indirectly, some realistic control. Hence, it would seem reasonable that an economic operator should be expected to “have ownership” of the GHG emissions asso-ciated with the fossil fuels, chemicals and other significant inputs required to cultivate, harvest, transport and process the biomass feedstocks used to produce their biofuels. Additionally, if their decision is to apply nitrogen fertilisers then subsequent N2O emissions from the soil must be allocated to them.

Furthermore, if economic operators obtain biomass feedstocks that are grown on land which has been recently converted to such cultivation, then they are effectively im-plicated in this decision and, consequently, are responsible for the GHG emissions related to such direct land use change. However, given the potentially tenuous and tortuous nature of displacement that underpins the concept of indirect land use change, they cannot be held responsible for any remote knock-on effects which may or may not result, ultimately, in the destruction of high carbon reservoirs. For one thing, there are many other participants who should also share some of the responsibility in the chain of events that could lead from the cultivation of land for biomass feedstock production to, say, subsequent clearing of part of a rain forest. For another thing, biofuel regulation is a rather blunt instrument for addressing rain forest destruction. This

The role of quantitative criteria is crucial for

determining whether biofuels can combat climate change

Sugar cane plantation in Queensland, Australia. © iStockphoto.com/Johan Larson

111september2011

continuing destruction of rain forest and other high carbon reserves is the real villain of the piece and is more effectively tackled directly where it happens by vigilant monitor-ing, strong policing, and firm and coordinated international action.

With regard to the target for biofuels supply, different considerations, and different calculations, apply because this should be derived from policy analysis. In this context, a different question has to be answered: “what is the global impact of setting a level for the supply of biofuels?” Hence, GHG emissions calculations must this time be all-inclusive. They are called consequential LCA; they do not exclude the distant and indirect changes referred to above. Emis-sions arising from indirect land use change can legitimately be incorporated into GHG emissions calculations and should contribute to necessary analysis on which policy is based. However, the demands of this particular challenge should not be underestimated. It requires a reliable model of global land use and a means of accurately predicting the most likely sequence of actions leading to land use change. The ultimate consequences of these actions then need to be allocated, in a justifiable way, to the original causes. Despite many valiant attempts, no such model has yet gained universal acceptance7. Furthermore, if this were to happen, it is highly doubtful whether adequate data will ever be available to generate wholly convincing results.

Responding to uncertainty

It should be apparent that there are significant areas of contention in the biofuels debate. One area concerns reliable quantification of indirect land use change or else resolving that issue by means of direct action on its major consequence, which is the continued destruction of high carbon stocks such as forests and wetlands. Another area of concern

is the derivation of soundly based, quantifi-able relationships between nitrogen fertiliser application and N2O emissions from the soil. These and other concerns will only be resolved, eventually, through a combination of basic research and policy implementation.

But how should policy-makers respond to such potentially significant uncertainties? Unfortunately, the world does not have the luxury of waiting for the ultimate answers since action on global climate change mitiga-tion is pressing and long overdue. Doing noth-ing is not an option, as the likely consequences of inaction are already known – the continued use of fossil fuels, especially in transport, and a relentless increase in global GHG emissions. In this sense, the precautionary principle does not help with this problem.

Using current biofuels as an immediately available technology for essential transport needs and a transition to the commercialisa-tion of future biofuels and other, longer-term integrated transport solutions is a viable op-tion provided that they can meet the ethical principles laid out by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics. This will mean the strengthening of current biofuels policy, including net GHG emissions savings targets that are properly based on the full application of attributional LCA. It will also need biofuels supply targets properly based on consequential LCAs, with the proviso that high carbon reservoirs will be protected from destruction; this last proviso would reduce or even eliminate the signifi-cance of indirect land use change. All this must also be combined with serious support for the development of future biofuels.

Why just biofuels?

Finally, why do these strict criteria apply only to biofuels when there are so many other products and services that are much more damaging to the environment and society? There is, of course, no reason at all why the bar

for biofuels should be higher than for anything else. Hence, the Working Party recommended that its ethical principles should “be applied, ultimately, as a benchmark to all comparable technologies and products”.

References1. Inter-governmental Panel on Climate

Change (2007) Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report: Fourth Assessment Report. www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar-syr.pdf

2. Searchinger, T., Heimlich, R., Houghton, R., Dong, F., Elobeid, A., Fabiosa, J., Tokgoz, S., Hayes, D. and Yu, T. (2008) Use of US croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions from land use change. Sciencexpress, 319(5867), 1238–1240.

3. Nuffield Council on Bioethics (2011) Biofuels: Ethical Principles. London: National Council on Bioethics. www.nuffieldbioethics.org

4. European Commission (2009) Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC. Brussels: EC. http://ec.europa.eu/energy/renewables

5. European Commission (2009) Directive 2009/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 amending Directive 98/70/EC as regards the specification of petrol, diesel and gas-oil and introducing a mechanism to monitor and reduce greenhouse gas emissions and amending Council Directive 1999/32/EC as regards the specification of fuel used by inland waterway vessels and repealing Directive 93/12/EC. Brussels: EC. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/transport/fuel

6. Brander, M., Tipper., Hutchinson., C., and Davis, G. (2009) Consequential and attributional approaches to LCA: A guide to policy makers with specific reference to greenhouse gas lca of biofuels. Technical Paper TP-090403-A, Ecometrica Press, Edinburgh. www.ecometrica.co.uk.

7. European Commission (2010) Report from the Commission on indirect land-use change related to biofuels and bioliquids. COM(2010)811 final, 22 December. http://ec.europa.eu/energy/renewables/studies/land_use_change.en.htm.

Until 2004 Nigel Mortimer held the Chair in Sustainable Energy Development at Sheffield Hallam University. He is a founding director of North Energy Associates Ltd and is a member of the Nuffield Council on Bioethics Working Party on Biofuels.

The definition of the greenhouse gas savings target from replacing conventional fuel with biofuel is

SG G

Ga b

b

= − × 100%

where S is the percentage net GHG emissions savings of a biofuel, Ga is the total GHG emissions of a conventional fuel (kg eq. CO2/MJ) and Gb is the total GHG emissions of a biofuel (kg eq. CO2/MJ).