New EU Renewables Policy Includes Palm Oil?
As the EU Commission prepares to present its draft for the review of the Renewable Energy Directive (RED) the palm oil industry is abuzz with its implications for palm oil.
The draft was leaked in mid June which prompted a backlash against the new proposal from NGOs that are opposed to the use of biomass from wood sources as renewable energy. Use of woody biomass increased dramatically after the EU Commission’s Delegated Act pinpointed palm oil as a source to be phased out for energy use.
The draft was leaked in mid June which prompted a backlash against the new proposal from NGOs that are opposed to the use of biomass from wood sources as renewable energy. Use of woody biomass increased dramatically after the EU Commission’s Delegated Act pinpointed palm oil as a source to be phased out for energy use.
CPOPC logo
Forester Defenders Alliance EU criticized the draft and published its analysis of what must be changed.
Birdlife Europe on its Twitter feed shouted:
‘+221 000 citizens have demanded the EU to protect forests instead of burning them for fake "renewable" energy.
Today, on behalf of 127 NGOs, we're bringing these voices to the EU Commission & @TimmermansEU
: it’s time to #StopFakeRenewables and fight the climate and nature crises’
Even popular teen activist Greta Thurnberg chimed in on Twitter and urged netizens to sign a petition against the use of forests for biofuels. She tweeted that she will be meeting ‘to discuss the climate- and ecological emergency and the fairytale of the so-called "sustainable" Swedish forestry.’
Her reference to the fairytale of sustainable Swedish forestry for biomass is a long-standing campaign by European NGOs who had called Swedish biomass a forest crime.
The fairytale as she calls it seems to have an odd bedfellow in the Council of Palm Oil Producing Countries, the CPOPC.
In a series of blogs that were targeted at the EU, the CPOPC systematically attacked the EU RED policy and questioned its choices for renewable energy which includes biomass.
The failure of founding members of the European Union like Belgium to meet EU commitments to decarbonize was highlighted as well as the qualification of imported rapeseed for renewable energy.
The concern of European NGOs about burning European forests for energy was of special interest to the palm oil industry as the EU policy on renewable energy has wide implications beyond the borders of Europe.
Resource poor but energy hungry countries like Japan had at one time looked towards the use of palm oil as a sustainable source of renewable energy. Japan has backed off the use of palm oil but has continued to source palm wastes for energy. Taking direction from the EU will not work for Japan as the CPOPC had already shown that EU policies are long on words but short on solutions.
Policy analysts at the CPOPC have meanwhile identified a key paragraph from the EU draft that had them wondering if the EU was backpedaling its position on the ban on palm oil for biofuels. The paragraph reads as:
“the share of high indirect land-use change-risk biofuels, bioliquids or biomass fuels produced from food and feed crops for which a significant expansion of the production area into land with high-carbon stock is observed shall not exceed the level of consumption of such fuels in that Member State in 2019, unless they are certified to be low indirect land-use change-risk biofuels, bioliquids or biomass fuels pursuant to this paragraph.”
Until the draft is finalized, the connotation of this paragraph is unknown. What it does imply is that palm oil can continue to qualify as low indirect land use change risk biofuel as long as it certified by a credible body.
The CPOPC had argued in one of its blogs that certification by the German based ISCC System was a possible solution that palm oil producing countries could accept. The ISCC’s condemnation of the EU ban on palm oil biofuel here.
To hammer home this point, the CPOPC issued a public statement that challenged the concept of ILUC calling it a supposition that provides an excuse for EU members continued failure to address climate change.
The most powerful argument against ILUC is how the CPOPC exposed the discrimination against the sustainable development of third world countries which relied on palm oil to fund their development. This presents a moral and ethical dilemma to the European Union whose members built their economies off the backs of third world countries. The horrific legacies of the colonial histories of Belgium, France and Germany remain contentious issues even as African countries look towards cultivating palm oil as a means out of poverty.
The major palm oil producing countries of Indonesia and Malaysia had better experiences under colonial rule which may explain the pro-palm oil attitudes adopted by the Netherlands and Great Britain. In arguing for the sustainability of palm oil, the CPOPC leveraged the recent findings of Nature which identified 43 million Km2 of terrestrial areas affected by human activities and hammered it home with the fact that palm oil cultivation occupies a small percentage of this as it feeds and fuels local and global needs.
This argument may continue to be lost on the EU which continues to ignore the environmental impacts of renewable energy sources that have nothing to do with palm oil. The BIG question on palm oil is whether the EU Delegated Act that singled out palm oil for elimination will continue to stay in force.
In the meantime, the EU’s new darling source of “renewable energy” in hydrogen is becoming embroiled in controversy as industry lobbyists face off with environmentalists.
An older favored source of renewable energy in solar energy looks like its being left behind as the EU has no immediate solutions for the environmental problems it causes from cradle to grave. Mining to create solar energy had long been exposed as having a detrimental Land Use Change but this was greenwashed by proponents of solar energy who argued that “solar energy is free.” The sun may provide energy but its capture and use from cradle to grave has severe implications. The rush to ‘go electric’ comes with a hidden cost: destructive lithium mining from the Guardian is a good introduction to environmental problems at the cradle stage. At the grave stage, when solar panels die, an environmental crisis happens.
Finding a solution to fight climate change while sustaining economies will obviously need a smart mix of available options from solar to Swedish biomass and palm oil. However, renewable sources of energy that is grown can have their emissions managed while the same cannot be said for fossil fuels. The same sources of energy are a needed element in greening hydrogen and possibly in powering the recycling of solar energy wastes.
Here’s hoping that common sense will prevail over ambitions as the EU looks to lead a global charge towards a sustainable future.
Published June 2021. CSPO Watch