biofuelwatch - Email action against European Commission funding for aviation biofuels R&D

There is a new email alert which calls for an end to European Commission support and funding for the development of aviation biofuels:

www.regenwald.org/international/englisch/protestaktion.php?id=428

The European Commission is funding an industry study to facilitate the development and take-up of 'alternative aviation fuels', primarily biofuels. This study is entirely carried out by industry and some research institutes with industry links and is supposed to result in a 'roadmap' for policy makers. Industry is thus being paid by the Commission to come up with policy proposals for the EU.

Aviation biofuels could be used commercially in aircraft within the next 1-5 years and initially vegetable oil is the most likely source, with Neste Oil suggesting that they could convert the world's biggest palm oil biofuel refinery which they are building in Singapore to produce jet fuel.

__._,_.___

The detail as below:

European Commission must stop funding aviation biofuel development

Since 30.06.09 590 people have participated in this protest action.

AAA (Action Against Agrofuels) and Plane Stupid at Heathrow airport

The aviation industry hopes to continue growing at 3 – 4% per year over coming decades, and is set to become a new vast market for agrofuels as it struggles to be seen to curtail fossil fuel use. During the past 16 months, four airlines have, technically successfully, tested agrofuels from vegetable oil for flights and those fuels could be licensed for use in aircraft as early as next year. Agrofuels are being seen by the aviation industry as the salvation, providing the impossible solution for which they desperately hope – the means of continuing to grow and pollute and claiming that this growth is ‘carbon neutral’. They can make this claim only because none of the emissions from deforestation, wetland destruction, agro-chemical use, etc linked to agrofuel production are attributed to those who use them.

Aviation agrofuels will create more greenhouse gases, more climate change, hunger (as food is displaced and food prices pushed up), deforestation and displacement of rural communities, as well as more of the local environmental damage created by expanding airports and increased numbers of flights.

Companies are also researching aviation fuels from wood, crops and other solid biomass. Much of this research involves genetically engineered microbes and algae, with unknown and potentially very serious impacts on the environment. In the short term, palm oil is the most likely feedstock: Neste Oil say that they could easily convert the world’s biggest palm oil biofuel refinery, which they are building to produce fuel for aircraft.

Emails:

Antonio Tajani, Vice President, Commissioner for Transport
CAB-TAJANI-WEBPAGE@ec.europa.eu

Andris Piebalgs, Energy Commissioner
cab-piebalgs-archives@ec.europa.eu

Stavros Dimas, Environment Commissioner
stavros.dimas@ec.europa.eu

The European Commission has started funding a study into ‘alternative fuels for aviation’ which primarily means agrofuels (though ‘alternative’ fuels from coal and natural gas also exist, but these are worse for the climate than kerosene). The aims are to devise a ‘roadmap’ for their use, and ‘informing policy makers’ – not to discuss the overall impacts of using even more agrofuels. The study costs the EU 5.1 million Euros and it is entirely run by industry and research institutes with industry links. They will discuss ‘environmental and social sustainability’ – without even a single civil society organisation being involved, let alone the views of any affected communities being considered. It is coordinated by the French Aerospace Lab, ONERA – hardly experts in agrofuel impacts. The European Commission say on their website that they support ‘renewable fuels’ for aviation.

For communities, biodiversity, forests and climate, an additional large agrofuel market will be disastrous. Please write to the European Commission and ask them to immediately abandon this biased study and to address the unsustainable growth and plans of the aviation industry, rather than allowing it to keep expanding with agrofuels.

Dear Sir,

I am deeply concerned about the impacts of European biofuel policy on the climate, communities, food, biodiversity and rainforests. I am also very aware of the aviation industry’s ever growing impact on climate, air pollution, biodiversity (through airport expansion) and communities. I believe the proposals by the aviation industry to attempt to resolve their carbon emissions problems through massive use of biofuels in future is a matter for grave concern.

I was therefore shocked to learn that the Commission is paying 5.1 million Euros for an industry study to facilitate the development and take-up of ‘alternative fuels’ and in particular biofuels for aviation. The only other ‘alternative fuels’ available in the medium term are fossil-fuel based ones, with a worse greenhouse gas balance than kerosene. This ‘SWAEFA’ study (“Sustainable Ways for Alternative Fuels in Aviation”) is entirely carried out by industry: Aviation companies and airlines, fuel companies, consultancy firms and research institutes with industry link. They are supposed to look at ‘environmental and social sustainability’, yet there is no civil society representation at all. The industry is thus being paid by the European Commission to draft a ‘roadmap’ to advise policy makers on aviation biofuels which I consider undemocratic and unacceptable.
Yours faithfully