Aviation Biofuels – Better in Theory Than in Practice?

The use of biofuels in the Aviation industry seems to be a hot topic right now. So why use biofuels in commercial aircraft? And is there an assumption that using biofuels will have less of a detrimental environmental impact than conventional fuels?

The Aviation industry accounts for almost three percent of greenhouse gas emissions from human activity. In light of this there is an ever present need to reduce emissions, particularly reducing fossil fuel use. With Aviation’s output of greenhouse gas emissions set to grow due to airport expansion and travel service increases, it is argued that biofuels provide an answer to reducing these emissions. The reason biofuels are being pushed through so fast is the industry’s need for ‘zero carbon growth’. Effectively, biofuels are seen by the industry as their best means of achieving sustainability in carbon emissions yet still allowing for expansion and growth.

But is this true? Well firstly the Aviation industry is aided by the fact that all biofuels are classed as carbon-neutral despite any environmental impacts. While greenhouse gas savings are assumed by using biofuel as opposed to fossil fuels, Almuth Ernsting of BiofuelWatch for Airport Watch argues this not to be the case, pointing out that many scientific studies have shown that the full climate impacts of biofuels have in some cases been even worse than the fossil fuels they look to replace.

While Airlines are looking into a variety of different biofuel feedstocks, there are still large technical hurdles, and even with the mass planting of Jatropha, commercial yields are hard to produce. Plus when we take into account that its mass planting over 4 years has forced the eviction of many farmers and indigenous communities, with no commercial scale yields produced, it is hard to argue in favour of it.

All other feedstocks are in the research and development stages, and a long way from any commercial value. In light of this it seems set that for the foreseeable future, palm oil is the best source for commercial yields as it is not only the cheapest feedstock, but also the one most capable of higher yields. But still to produce commercial yields will take hectares upon hectares of land, and while aviation companies and biofuel producers talk of palm oil as being temporary until other feedstock sources can be fully developed, it still does not reverse the environmental damage done to rainforest and peatland, and indigenous communities, all of which will be destroyed for palm oil.

As of March 2011 we will begin to see the first passenger flights using biofuels. As Rainforest Rescue note, Lufthansa Germany has recently published plans to provide the world’s first commercial flights using a biofuel blend that includes palm oil. Neste Oil will be the providers from their Singapore biodiesel refinery, which is the world’s largest, and runs exclusively on palm oil. As Ernsting notes, their main supplier is the Malaysian IOI Corporation, who is responsible for large-scale destruction of rainforests, peatlands and fields being cultivated by local farmers in large parts of South East Asia, such as Sarawak and Kalimantan.

IOI is one of the main companies investing in a 1 million hectare oil palm expansion programme that was recently announced by the Government of Sarawak and which will primarily convert forests which belong to indigenous peoples. And so the damage risks are large in terms of the displacement of peoples, deforestation and destruction of grasslands. This will hurt not only indigenous communities, but also inhabiting species. In fact, Biofuel Watch note that if just one British airline, Ryanair, was to replace all kerosene with biofuels, they would require at least 407,500 hectares of oil palm plantations – or 1.25 million hectares of camelina ones.

The environmental damage from such a move would be immense for reasons I have stated. On face value biofuels may seem like a good idea, but right now with palm oil the only possible source, the environmental impacts outweigh any benefits.

FoE has campaigned against Biofuels targets without proper research into the effects and has shown that they actually increase carbon emissions: http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/press_releases/biofuels_double_carbon_emissions_15042009.html

Rainforest Rescue has begun an email action against the Lufthansa plans, if you would like to get involved please visit: http://www.rainforest-rescue.org.

Tom Hulme

Happily Ever Crafter

The tale of Its a wrap continued...

On the 3rd Monday of the month at 6.30pm at Birmingham Friends of the Earth's warehouse Allison St, B5 5TH, There will be a craft group! Led by Becks and Beth, it will cover loads of different ways of making things over the weeks.

The first session will be Recycled Craft! on Monday the 15th of February we will be looking at what can be made out of a juice cartons for example wallets, decorations, jewellery, baskets etc. Please bring juice cartons if you have any lying around, we have got some, but more is always better!

So.... please come along for tea and craft and do get in touch if you have any talent, maybe you would like to lead a work shop or requests, for a workshop you would like us to run any suggestions welcome! you can email us at reused.it@gmail.com

Airmiles Allowance : time for some blue skies thinking?

‘Airmiles’ is still taken by most people to refer to be a good thing : vouchers for extra ‘free’ air travel, as a reward for having paid for previous flights. With growing awareness of global warming, however, some individuals have begun to restrict their personal air travel, to limit the damage they do.
The airline industry plays down its greenhouse impact, of course – but as far as it does recognise a need to limit, for example, CO2 emissions, it directs attention overwhelmingly to improvements in the fuel efficiency of planes, per mile flown, rather than reduce the number of miles flown. And indeed, if a ‘zero carbon airline’ could exist, then “the sky’s the limit” might ring truer!


As we’re nowhere near fuel efficient flight, however, perhaps we do have to ask ourselves : How many miles per year can we sustainably travel by air?

We can arrive at a figure, but this will be based on certain assumptions, as well as firmer information.
First, let’s for the sake of argument suppose that each mile travelled by air will continue to have the same greenhouse impact as now. Then, let’s remind ourselves that global greenhouse emissions must be reduced by 80% by the year 2050 after the Climate Change Act was passed last year. Let’s therefore assume that the contribution from airmiles must reduce by that amount too.

So, what is our current air mileage? According to IATA (2009), a global total of 2.218 trillion miles (3.578 trillion kilometres) were flown on scheduled flights in 2008. They only have figures for scheduled flights, but estimate that this accounts for 95% of commercial air traffic (for the purpose of this discussion, let’s ignore military and private mileage). So, 100% of these current flights would be about 2.335 trillion miles.


Most of the world’s 7 billion population have never flown, of course, and our current airmiles are flown by perhaps just the richest 10%. So, ‘rich world’ citizens seem to be averaging about 3340 miles each per year (with most intensive use being made by people such as frequent business fliers).

In keeping with the principle of ‘Contraction & Convergence’, however, whatever amount of fossil fuels etc that we use in future, we can only do so sustainably if it is shared out equally amongst all the world’s citizens (greenhouse pollution to date has, of course, come overwhelmingly from the ‘rich minority’).
So, an equal allocation of our airmiles would mean that on average each global citizen’s share would currently be 334 miles per year (something that most of the world might dream of).
Furthermore, if we give an extra allowance to members of migrant diaspora communities (in order that they can occasionally visit their family/heritage home overseas), and people living in isolated areas, this would reduce most citizens’ allowance further, to maybe 300 miles.

Finally, recalling that we must also make allowance for essential (hopefully greatly reduced) military & other state use, this would further reduce most citizens’ allowance to perhaps 280 miles in 2009. By 2050, this would reduce to just 56 miles per year per person (2% per year on average over these next 40 years).

In the meantime, what does this mean for us in the ‘rich minority’? Anybody currently exceeding 280 airmiles per year might be accused of ‘carbon theft’, ie. taking more than our fair share. In reality, most of the world’s citizen’s are not going to make use of their share in the next 40 years – this might be taken to mean we have some ‘elbow room’, to steadily and drastically reduce our consumption, without eliminating it overnight. The financial cost of air travel will clearly have to increase drastically, however, partly to compensate the majority who don’t fly, but require investment in other areas of their social development.

So, perhaps we could start by saying that :

Most individuals in the ‘rich minority’ should at least not exceed the current average of 3340 miles in the next year.


In keeping with the ’10:10’ campaign (run by Franny Armstrong, the director of Age of Stupid and aiming for people to cut their cO2 emissions by 10% in 2010), our personal allowance should be reduced to no more than 3000 miles by the end of next year.
The personal allowance should further reduce by at least 70 miles per year for the next 40 years, to bring us down to the global average allowance.

… Unless by some miracle (don’t hold your breath!) air travel becomes carbon-neutral, or following other less unlikely changes, in which case we recalculate again.

Comments are invited, eg on the assumptions I’ve made, or alternative figures we might use.

A workshop activity could be run on this, part of which could include participants working out their own actual airmile total for last 12 months, and what the 10:10 reduction would mean for their immediate future.

Please reply directly by email to aldomussi@hotmail.com

Aldo Mussi December 2009

CLIMATE JUSTICE NOW! SPEAKER TOUR

Here are the details of our speaker event at the University of Birmingham Avon Room, University Centre on 19th November at 7pm.


CLIMATE JUSTICE NOW!- UK SPEAKER TOUR
The climate crisis has been caused by rich industrialised countries, but it is the world’s poorer majority who are paying the highest price, as extreme weather events become more common, freshwater glaciers melt, and droughts increase. We believe that this means rich countries owe a ‘climate debt’ to the global south.

The Climate Justice UK speaker tour this autumn will see public meetings held around the country. Join us to hear why we need a global climate agreement which is both effective and delivers justice for the global south, and how you can make this happen.
Speakers are:
* Mohammed Shamsuddoha (Equity Bangladesh)
* Andy Atkins (Friends of the Earth)
* Hilary Thorndike (Refugee Council)

Spread the word: Invite your friends to this event!

Full details of the tour can be found at: http://www.climatejusticenow.org.uk

Organised by: World Development Movement, People & Planet, Jubilee Debt Campaign, and Friends of the Earth.

More information about the Shared Planet conference is at: http://peopleandplanet.org/shared-planet-09

********************************************************

WHAT IS CLIMATE JUSTICE?
The climate crisis has been caused by the rich industrialised countries, but it is the world’s poorer majority who are paying the highest price, as extreme weather events become more common, freshwater glaciers melt, and droughts increase.

We believe that rich countries owe a ‘climate debt’ to the global south. Not only do we need to reduce our emissions drastically, but we also need to provide new money so that poor countries can develop in a sustainable way and cope with the climate crisis which is already putting millions of lives at risk. This should not be seen as overseas aid, given out of charity, but compensation for our overuse of the earth’s resources.

In the run up to the UN climate negotiations in Copenhagen in December, rich countries are trying to bully developing countries into accept unreasonably large emissions cuts, whilst shirking making the necessary cuts themselves. At the same time, they are seeking to channel climate change funding for poor countries through the World Bank, the largest multilateral lender for fossil fuel projects in the world! What’s more, this will mostly be in the form of loans which will only add to the unjust debts which developing countries owe the rich world.

Come and hear our speakers explain why we need a global climate agreement which is both effective and delivers justice for the global south, and how you can make this happen.