the Searchinger and Wirsenius (SW) have published a study where they claim that all biofuels are based on crops on average have greater climate impacts than fossil petrol and diesel. An astonishing position. How will they arrive at this conclusion? Well, they assume that if we had not cultivated the raw materials to produce biofuels, it would grow the forest on the ground. Based on this assumption as they argue that biofuels either cause deforestation or stand in the way for the establishment of new forests that bind carbon dioxide.
a expanding the cultivation of energy crops affect land-use is well known and this is taken into account for the biofuels ‘ contribution to a reduced carbon footprint analysed. Summaries of the research on biofuels is given in the reports from the UN intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC) ( Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation, AR5, Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change and Global Warming of 1.5 ºC) gives a completely different picture than what SW. One reason for this is that it is not basing the analyses on the assumption that all land is covered by a growing forest if not used for the cultivation of energy crops. Instead, the designed scenarios with the intention that they shall be realistic and provide the relevant documentation to support biofuels that provide good benefit to the climate.
emissions from the production of biofuels so, give the chart that SW presents in his op-ed, not a true picture of the Swedish ethanol production , which takes place without fossil fuels. In addition, the produced protein feed and bio-based carbon dioxide providing additional carbon reduction by replacing other products. Overall, the emissions in the chart greatly overestimated for the Swedish production.
It is also not true that Sweden has limited possibilities to produce biofuels based on domestic raw materials. Agriculture has untapped potentials in the form of manure, straw and plant debris that can be converted into biofuels with high carbon reduction. Forest logging residues can be used in higher extent and it is made big bets in order to make better use of forest industry by-products, among other things, for biodrivmedelsproduktion. The most important factor behind the industry’s bets are reduktionsplikten that reward biofuels with high carbon reduction, such as fuels based on residues from the forest industry.
the Cultivation of energy crops on these land areas does not away from food production. Cultivation can contribute to kolinbindning in the soil and improved called soil fertility, at the same time as fossil fuels are replaced. If these chips are needed for food production in the future, they can easily be set, which is not the case if the afforested to bind the carbon dioxide.
SW writes that the fleet can use the electric drive and elektrobränslen from renewable electricity. It is true that these are important options, but it will take time to ask about transportation and energy systems. It rolls a 5 million internal combustion engines on our roads. What SW misses in his argument is that biofuels, together with increased electrification and improved efficiency of the transport system in common can speed the transition away from fossil fuels. This conversion can also help to establish markets for sustainable biomass from forest and agricultural residues as well as from unused agricultural landscapes. On the term, biofuels have an important role in the aviation sector, where options for long-distance flights it is likely to get in the foreseeable future.
, especially on the basis of the hypothetical assumptions on which the SW make that large areas of arable land afforested to bind the carbon dioxide – something that also feels unrealistic both from an economic perspective, the landowners and from the perspective that we in Sweden wish to maintain an open and varied landscape.
