|
With the weekly increases in the price of fuel, biofuels have become
more and more important as alternatives. But are we running on empty
with the promise of biofuels?
While ethanol and biodiesel obtained from crops
grow in importance in discussions about energy and climate change,
the extent to which biofuels can play a beneficial role in replacing
fossil fuels and reducing carbon emissions is still hotly debated.
In the Philippines, the Biofuels Act, enacted
into law last January, requires the mandatory blending of biodiesel
with petroleum diesel, initially at one percent in early May 2007
and increasing to two percent within two years. It also calls for a
mix of 5 percent ethanol with gasoline within the first four years
of implementation.
As a way to reduce carbon emissions, biofuels
would still have to show that it can surmount the energy-intensive
agricultural production and conversion of its core crops. A United
Nations study in 2007 (“Sustainable Bioenergy”) said that
“where crops are grown for energy purposes, use of large-scale
mono-cropping could lead to significant energy loss, soil erosion,
and nutrient leaching.” Furthermore, the large quantities of crops
required to produce biofuels will have a significant impact on our
food security and self-sufficiency.
Converting farmland allocated for rice or food
to biofuel cultivation or destroying forests to make way for fuel
crops are at best controversial, if not downright absurd. For a
country with a high hunger rate, as well as a large landless peasant
population, the conversion of farmlands will not only reduce the
land available for growing food but could possibly worsen the state
of landlessness affecting the country’s farming sector. The
clearing of natural forests for agrofuel plantations would also
affect water and soil quality and threaten biodiversity.
According to one estimate, a production plant of
ethanol from sugarcane would require around 7,000 to 8,000 hectares
to produce 120,000 liters of ethanol per day. According to the Sugar
Regulatory Administration, the country would need an additional
237,649 hectares of sugarcane land to satisfy the provisions of the
Biofuels Act. Large scale production of biofuels would promote
contract growing or even lead to the consolidation of massive tracts
of land to satisfy its plantation requirements. Rather than
genuinely sustaining domestic demand and lowering prices, biofuel
production, in this socio-economic milieu, promotes dependence and
re-concentration of land.
There are several companies in the Philippines
that want to produce biodiesel. According to newspaper reports,
Chemrez, the largest, targets to produce 60 million liters of
biodiesel per year out of a total annual requirement of 110 million
liters while Senbel will produce 25 million liters and RI Chemicals
by 10 million liters.
Japan and Germany, US, Australia and China are a
fast growing market for biodiesel and ethanol. If large scale
production of biodiesel shifts its focus to export markets due to
the increased demand of biofuels worldwide, then biofuel production
would be no different from other crops in our agricultural history
where the Philippines ends up producing only raw agricultural
exports for other countries.
Producing biofuels has been touted as a way to
achieve fuel independence. Yet, the machinery and equipment to be
used in its processing would still be mainly imported. The Biofuels
Act also ignores the oil giants’ commanding position in the
Philippines where only three companies control nearly 90 percent of
the local market and gasoline outlets as well as 100 percent of our
refining capacity. Furthermore, as long as the oil industry remains
deregulated, prices would be vulnerable to speculation and control
of these oil giants.
Good industrial policy would have had industries
sourcing raw materials from a healthy agricultural sector that could
provide for the nutritional needs of a growing population. These
include products such as biofuels and other waste materials for
fuel. Sadly, initiatives like the Biofuels Act only reflect the
confused policy directions of our government: token programs without
seriously building local industries with a modernized agriculture as
a base. Most agricultural development programs are geared towards
development of export crops than in trying to satisfy local domestic
needs. Food security and self-sufficiency problems had to reach
crisis levels to be noticed by our policymakers.
Biofuels and other fuel alternatives should be
developed in view of the long term problems and concerns of the
country. Biofuel production cannot and should not be divorced from
land reform. The current oil monopoly and control of a few
companies, the current land monopoly and control of a few landlords,
and the mainly export-oriented nature of production in our country
are major stumbling blocks to the benefits of these alternatives.
opinion@manilatimes.net
|
