It has been suggested that higher GHG thresholds for direct emissions are an adequate substitute for accounting
for indirect land use change emissions.
What's more, the standard includes a penalty for the carbon emissions caused
by indirect land use changes associated with the production of biofuels.
• Resist EPA efforts to water down implementation
of Indirect Land Use Change ILUC in the Energy Independence and Security Act EISA and elsewhere.
More than 170 scientists and economists have sent a letter to California Air Resources Board (ARB) Chairman Mary Nichols urging the board to account for greenhouse gas emissions
from indirect land use change for biofuels and all other transportation fuels under the state's proposed low carbon fuel standard (LCFS).
The research, commissioned by a coalition of environmental and development organisations [3],
includes indirect land use change impacts caused by biofuels, making it the most realistic assessment so far of the real world impacts of EU biofuels targets.
An earlier version of the report seen by ClimateWire indicates that there is medium evidence in the existing body of scientific studies that «the scientific debate about the marginal emissions of most bioenergy pathways... such
as indirect land use change, remains unresolved.»
When indirect land use change is taken into account, biofuels will emit an extra 27 to 56 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions per year — the equivalent to an extra 12 to 26 million cars on Europe's roads by 2020.
Two months ago, the California Air Resources Board voted to include greenhouse gas emissions from
indirect land use changes in calculating a biofuel was truly carbon neutral.
Likewise, Dr. Fargione said that the dedication of so much cropland in the United States to growing corn for bioethanol had
caused indirect land use changes far away.
Until indirect land use change is fully taken into account, Europe will continue to subsidise an alternative energy that is no better than the fossil fuels it is designed to replace.»
There have been drawn out debates
over indirect land use change and «sustainability standards» in particular, with the European Commission and Council suggesting that biofuel targets should be eliminated from the next climate and energy package (after 2020).
C - ARB illegally incorporated the
controversial indirect land use change theory into their rules, without scientific proof or independent peer review, especially in the realm of agricultural economics.
C - ARB falsely
applied indirect land use change to out of state ethanol production, partly to protect their own emerging «in - state» biofuels program, which will be unable to meet demand, with Corn Belt ethanol shut out.
Our comments are relevant to your deliberations
on indirect land use change emissions in the context of the Renewable Energy and Fuel Quality Directives.
«Decarbonization of heavy industry and aviation will be difficult, which makes converting industrial waste gases into low - carbon jet fuel a fascinating prospect,» said James Beard, climate and aviation specialist at WWF in the U.K. «All airlines should pursue the development of genuinely sustainable, low - carbon fuels that are certified to
minimize indirect land use change.»
As scientists and economists involved in the field of climate, energy, and land use, we are writing to you to recommend that policies recognize and account
for indirect land use change as a part of the lifecycle analyses of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from biofuels.
Promptly establishing a credible framework that
includes indirect land use change will signal the market to invest in biofuels that minimize deforestation and competition with food.
Also weighing - in on C - ARB's arrogant application of
indirect land use change theory, is the formal letter of protest by 111 scientists led by 3 prominent experts.
More than 170 scientists and economists have sent a letter to California Air Resources Board (ARB) Chairman Mary Nichols urging the board to account for greenhouse gas emissions
from indirect land use change for biofuels and all other transportation fuels under the state's proposed low carbon fuel standard (LCFS).
When full consideration is given, including impacts on soils, fertilizer use and both direct and
indirect land use change, bioenergy processes are, in reality, far from «neutral».
(10/10/2011) Europe's biofuel push could exacerbate climate change unless policies are in place to accounts for emissions from
indirect land use change, warns a letter signed by more than 100 scientists and economists.
[1] «
Indirect land use change» (ILUC) means that many biofuels harm the climate even more than the fossil fuels they replace — due to land use changes caused by the expansion of agriculture to meet the additional demand for crop - based biofuels.
«
Indirect Land Use Change: Much Ado About (Almost) Nothing.»
The LCFS regulation also levies the calculation of
Indirect Land Use Change (ILUC) effects against biofuels, against the opposition (earlier post) of the biofuels industry, and to the particular detriment of corn ethanol.
Europe must fully account for the greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation and «
indirect land use change» caused by expanding agrofuels.
«
Indirect land use change» is currently ignored by the European Union when the carbon balance for agrofuels is calculated.
It includes evidence on size and impacts of «
indirect land use change» resulting from biofuel use.
The regulation also levies the calculation of
Indirect Land Use Change (ILUC) effects against biofuels, against the opposition of the biofuels industry.
After a lot of pressure and campaigning, the Commission was mandated to look and take into account iLUC (
Indirect Land Use Change) in further deliberations of biofuels policy.
This new piece of legislation is also referred to as the iLUC Directive (
Indirect Land Use Change).
«There is a large body of evidence that because of
indirect land use change (ILUC), palm oil biodiesel is worse for the climate than the fossil fuel it replaces — perhaps several times worse,» the report concludes.
Indirect land use change (ILUC) is a key factor, but is currently completely ignored in all calculations linked to whether a biofuel is legitimate for support.