Canada’s canola biodiesel industry is expressing relief that the federal government appears to have no appetite to include the indirect land-use factor in its looming renewable fuel standard regulations.
That is not the case south of the border where the United States soybean biodiesel industry fears it could be destroyed if the Environmental Protection Agency sticks with its method of calculating greenhouse gas emission reductions.
“It would be a significant threat to the industry and the continuance and growth of the industry, there is no doubt about that,” said Michael Frohlich, director of communication with the U.S. National Biodiesel Board.
Read Also
Agriculture ministers agree to AgriStability changes
federal government proposed several months ago to increase the compensation rate from 80 to 90 per cent and double the maximum payment from $3 million to $6 million
To qualify for the U.S. renewable fuel standard, which calls for 3.8 billion litres of biodiesel by 2012, the alternative fuel must be deemed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 50 percent compared to regular diesel.
According to the U.S. EPA, soy biodiesel can’t muster half of the necessary emission reductions. The agency’s life cycle analysis of the fuel showed a 22 percent decrease in greenhouse gases.
That is largely because the EPA has assessed soy biodiesel with an indirect land-use penalty based on the assumption that growing soybeans for fuel in the U.S. will indirectly lead to the destruction of environmentally sensitive land elsewhere in the world to make room for more soybeans grown for food. In particular, there is concern about the destruction of Brazilian rainforest.
Frohlich said the agency is using poor assumptions in place of sound science. He noted that U.S. biodiesel production has risen from 95 million litres in 2004 to 2.6 billion litres in 2008. Brazilian soybean acreage has dropped slightly over that time.
“That speaks louder than anything else. There is really no correlation here between U.S. biodiesel production and land changes in other countries,” he said.
It should be noted that world soybean plantings rose over that period, mostly due to increased plantings in Argentina.
Doug Hooper, chief executive officer of Canadian Bioenergy Corp., a company in negotiations with Archer Daniels Midland to build a 265 million litre canola biodiesel plant in Lloydminster, said senior officials with Environment Canada and Natural Resources Canada have indicated that indirect land use won’t factor into Canada’s renewable fuel standard, which calls for a two percent biodiesel mandate by 2012.
He called that approach more sensible because measuring the effects of indirect land use is an inaccurate science.
Hooper is also pleased that Canada hasn’t established minimum greenhouse gas reduction requirements for its biofuel. U.S. legislation stipulates that biodiesel must reduce greenhouse gases by a minimum of 50 percent compared to regular diesel.
“If you held any other industry to a test of saying, ‘What you do tomorrow has to be 50 percent better than what you do today, you wouldn’t get progress,” he said.
Any improvement in carbon emissions should be welcome.
“Better is better.”
If canola biodiesel were subjected to indirect land-use rules, he believes it would fare well because the amount of canola required to meet Canada’s biodiesel mandate would be less than the annual carryover of the crop.
But if Canada eventually decides to go that route, it could be opening up Pandora’s box. It wouldn’t be long before other key industries would be subjected to the same scrutiny.
“How would these same sort of regulations impact the petroleum industry or how would they impact the agriculture and forestry industries?” Hooper wondered.
