Stop Biofuelling Deforestation: How your fuel bills are subsidising deforestation - and what you can do about it!
Demand for agricultural land is at the heart of the mass destruction of the world's forests. The main cause of forest loss in Indonesia, and the greatest threat to the continued survival of orangutans in the wild, is the conversion of forests to oil palm plantations.
Orangutans share their forest home with countless other critically endangered species, including Sumatran tigers, elephants, and rhinos. Agricultural expansion is also linked to other causes of biodiversity decline including hunting, poaching, human-wildlife conflict, illegal logging, and forest fires. Tropical forests are also crucial carbon sinks, so losing these habitats would be catastrophic in terms of the global fight to prevent dangerous climate change.
Yet, shockingly, the UK government is considering offering subsidies to power stations to burn biofuels - including palm oil - for heat and power. And what's more, this is being funded through our fuel bills!
These subsidies, called Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROCs) are the government's way of supporting renewable energy technologies, as part of plans to reduce the country's greenhouse gas emissions. Nobody would deny that we need more investment in renewables, but, as well as supporting clean technologies such as wind farms, ROCs also finance electricity generation from the burning of bioliquids such as palm oil.
On top of the threat that this increase in demand for fuel crops poses to tropical forests and biodiversity, some biofuels have been shown to actually lead to an increase in greenhouse gas emissions!
Bioliquids - what is the Government proposing?
The Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) is proposing to support the burning of up to 400,000 tonnes of bioliquids per year. A large proportion of this would be palm oil, as it is by far the cheapest vegetable oil. This target equates to 110,000 hectares of oil palm plantations. And simply asking them to exclude palm oil from the subsidies won't solve the problem - as palm oil is by far the most productive vegetable oil crop in the world, even more land would be put at risk if alternative bioliquids were used to meet this target.
What about ‘good' biofuels?
Used cooking oil can also be classified as a bioliquid, and is eligible for the same subsidies as palm oil. It is considered to be the most 'climate friendly' biofuel, but is already in very short supply and in high demand, for example for transport. The volumes available could only meet a tiny proportion of our energy needs.
Until the government can differentiate between ‘good' biofuels and those that are worse for the climate than the fossil fuels they are replacing, then no subsidies should be offered for any bioliquids.
What are the alternatives?
Renewable energy support should go to genuinely clean and sustainable renewables, such as appropriately sited wind, solar and tidal energy, and not to destructive bioliquid electricity.
What can we do about it?
DECC are currently putting together a proposal about the levels of subsidy that will be available for all types of electricity classed as renewable, including from bioliquids.
Please email Edward Davey, the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, and let him know that you don't want your fuel bills subsidising forest destruction and biodiversity loss. Please ask him not to subsidise bioliquids.
Send your email to: daveye@parliament.uk, and copy in correspondence@decc.gsi.gov.uk
Below is some suggested wording you could use when contacting Edward Davey. Please personalise the email if at all possible. It would be very helpful if you could copy any correspondence you may get back to Helen@orangutans-sos.org.
Please help spread the word about this urgent campaign. Thank you.
Template text:
Dear Mr. Davey,
I applaud the Government's commitments to reducing the UK's CO2 emissions, and to significantly increasing the proportion of our energy usage that comes from renewables. However, I strongly object to my fuel bills subsidising the use of imported biofuels such as palm oil to generate electricity.
In Southeast Asia, expansion of palm oil production has led to the conversion of vast tracts of forest and the primary driver of this expansion is the huge, growing, demand for this cheap vegetable oil. Indonesia and Malaysia produce the majority of the world's palm oil, and deforestation in both countries is linked to the destruction of peatlands and the emissions of vast quantities of carbon.
UK and EU renewable energy targets are sending strong signals that we regard commodities such as palm oil as part of the solution to our energy needs – a dangerous driver for the expansion of biofuel plantations. And as food production is displaced to grow fuel crops, demand for biofuels also causes indirect land use change as more and more forested land is opened up to grow food.
Once these impacts are taken into account, it is clear that some biofuels do not actually offer any greenhouse gas emissions savings compared to the petroleum-based fuels they are replacing. The European Commission's own data have revealed, for example, that palm oil fails to meet its criteria of leading to a minimum 35% reduction in CO2 emissions compared to regular fuel. Even burning European rapeseed oil is worse for the climate than burning fossil fuels due to emissions linked to fertiliser use and indirect land use change.
The UK's current legislation does not distinguish between biofuels which cause damage to valuable ecosystems and the climate, such as palm oil, and those which offer genuine GHG savings, such as fuels from waste products. Blanket subsidies for all biofuels, regardless of their real climate impacts, are likely to lead to increased production of fuel crops in areas where high conservation value and high carbon value land is particularly vulnerable.
It is completely inconceivable that a regulatory instrument that was designed to reduce the UK's greenhouse gas emissions should be used to worsen climate change rather than helping to mitigate it.
The anticipated proposals from DECC regarding ROC subsidies present an opportunity for the Government to promote and reward renewable technologies according to how much carbon they save, whilst also taking into account other environmental impacts such as their consequences for biodiversity.
Rather than continuing to provide support for all bioliquids, including palm oil, I urge you to base future eligibility for ROCs on genuine GHG savings.
Yours sincerely,
[Ensure that you enter both your postal address and email address]