By Joseph Milton, FT science intern
Members of the public, environmentalists, scientists and businessmen will be asked for their opinions on new types of biofuels as part of a consultation launched today by an independent body that examines the ethics of biology and medicine.
Just a few years ago, biofuels were being trumpeted as a possible panacea for global warming – here was a green, renewable and sustainable source of power. And biofuels would not just help to mitigate climate change, they would offer energy security and aid agriculture and economies in the developing world. But these hopes were dashed as the darker side of the first generation of biofuels was revealed.
Land grabs and deforestation increased in some countries as the rich and powerful saw a chance to make a quick buck. Vast swathes of once biologically rich forest were replaced with palm monocultures and large numbers of people were displaced to make way for plantations.
Biofuels were also produced from food crops, contributing to the food-price spike of 2008, which in turn led to food riots in poorer countries. Mexican unrest was directly related to US maize farmers who turned from food to biofuel production, encouraged by large government subsidies.
So first generation biofuels are at best ethically dubious and, at worst, ethically atrocious, but the rehabilitation of biofuels is beginning.
The prospect of a second generation of biofuels, derived from waste materials rather than food crops or palm oil, has recently been raised. It is this new generation which the consultation by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics aims to explore.
Second generation biofuel production is likely to be based on a range of technologies under development – from harvesting oils produced by seaweed to collecting ethanol produced from food waste by genetically modified bacteria.
There are plans to use waste wood and the fibrous, inedible parts of crops to produce fuel, and genetically modify fuel-specific crops to increase yields and introduce tolerance of high salinity and drought – allowing growth on land unsuitable for agriculture.
The team at Nuffield think these methods could cut greenhouse gas emissions by 80-90 per cent compared with fossil fuels, and hope biofuel production will present opportunities for income generation in developing countries, without affecting food supplies or contributing to deforestation.
They hope to gather a wide range of opinions on issues ranging from intellectual property rights for GM, which tends to be controlled by big agri-business because of the development costs, to the rights of farmers and workers in the developing world. Those wishing to participate in the consultation can do so online.
When the consultation is complete, late next year, the council will develop a set of ethical guidelines to advise government.
However, developing the new generation of biofuels will not be cheap. With the world unsure where it stands in terms of emission targets after the disappointment that was COP15, that investment may have just become harder to find.
Once again, hopes are high for biofuels. Let’s hope the investment is forthcoming, and this time the optimism is justified.