From the University of Leicester department of inconvenient truths:

New study suggests EU biofuels are as carbon intensive as petrol
University of Leicester research into greenhouse gas emissions from oil palm plantations provides robust measures now being used to inform international policies on greenhouse gas emissions
A new study on greenhouse gas emissions from oil palm plantations has calculated a more than 50% increase in levels of CO2 emissions than previously thought – and warned that the demand for ‘green’ biofuels could be costing the earth.
The study from the University of Leicester was conducted for the International Council on Clean Transportation, an international think tank that wished to assess the greenhouse gas emissions associated with biodiesel production. Biodiesel mandates can increase palm oil demand directly (the European Biodiesel Board recently reported big increases in biodiesel imported from Indonesia) and also indirectly, because palm oil is the world’s most important source of vegetable oil and will replace oil from rapeseed or soy in food if they are instead used to make biodiesel.
The University of Leicester researchers carried out the first comprehensive literature review of the scale of greenhouse gas emissions from oil palm plantations on tropical peatland in Southeast Asia. In contrast to previous work, this study also provides an assessment of the scientific methods used to derive emissions estimates.
They discovered that many previous studies were based on limited data without appropriate recognition of uncertainties and that these studies have been used to formulate current biofuel policies.
The Leicester team established that the scale of greenhouse gas emissions from oil palm plantations on peat is significantly higher than previously assumed. They concluded that a value of 86 tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) per hectare per year (annualised over 50 years) is the most robust currently available estimate; this compares with previous estimates of around 50 tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) per hectare per year. CO2 emissions increase further if you are interested specifically in the short term greenhouse gas implications of palm oil production – for instance under the EU Renewable Energy Directive which assesses emissions over 20 years, the corresponding emissions rate would be 106 tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) per hectare per year.
The findings have been published as an International White Paper from the ICCT.
![]() |
||||
Ross Morrison, of the University of Leicester Department of Geography, said: “Although the climate change impacts of palm oil production on tropical peatland are becoming more widely recognised, this research shows that estimates of emissions have been drawn from a very limited number of scientific studies, most of which have underestimated the actual scale of emissions from oil palm. These results show that biofuels causing any significant expansion of palm on tropical peat will actually increase emissions relative to petroleum fuels. When produced in this way, biofuels do not represent a sustainable fuel source”.
Dr Sue Page, Reader in Physical Geography at the University of Leicester, added: “Tropical peatlands in Southeast Asia are a globally important store of soil carbon – exceeding the amount stored in tropical forest vegetation. They are under enormous pressure from plantation development. Projections indicate an increase in oil palm plantations on peat to a total area of 2.5Mha by the year 2020 in western Indonesia alone –an area equivalent in size to the land area of the United Kingdom.”
Growth in palm oil production has been a key component of meeting growing global demand for biodiesel over recent decades. This growth has been accompanied by mounting concern over the impact of the oil palm business on tropical forests and carbon dense peat swamp forests in particular. Tropical peatland is one of Earth’s largest and most efficient carbon sinks. Development of tropical peatland for agriculture and plantations removes the carbon sink capacity of the peatland system with large carbon losses arising particularly from enhanced peat degradation and the loss of any future carbon sequestration by the native peat swamp forest vegetation.
Although there have been a number of assessments on greenhouse gas emissions from palm oil production systems, estimates of greenhouse gas emissions from land use have all been based on the results of a limited number of scientific studies. A general consensus has emerged that emissions from peat degradation have not yet been adequately accounted for.
The results of the Leicester study are important because an increase in the greenhouse gas emissions associated with biodiesel from palm oil, even if expansion on peat only occurs indirectly, will negate any savings relative to the use of diesel derived from fossil fuel.
If these improved estimates are applied to recent International Food Policy Research Institute modelling of the European biofuel market , they imply that on average biofuels in Europe will be as carbon intensive as petrol , with all biodiesel from food crops worse than fossil diesel and the biggest impact being a 60% increase in the land use emissions resulting from palm oil biodiesel. Bioethanol or biodiesel from waste cooking oil, on the other hand, could still offer carbon savings.
![]() |
||||
This outcome has important implications for European Union policies on climate and renewable energy sources.
Dr Sue Page said: “It is important that the full greenhouse gas emissions ‘cost’ of biofuel production is made clear to the consumer, who may otherwise be mislead into thinking that all biofuels have a positive environmental impact. In addition to the high greenhouse gas emissions associated with oil palm plantations on tropical peatlands, these agro-systems have also been implicated in loss of primary rainforest and associated biodiversity, including rare and endangered species such as the orang-utan and Sumatran tiger.
“We are very excited by the outcomes of our research – our study has already been accepted and used by several scientists, NGOs, economists and policy advisors in Europe and the USA to better represent the scale of greenhouse gas emissions from palm oil biodiesel production and consumption.
“The findings of this research will be used by organisations such as the US Environmental Protection Agency, European Commission and California Air Resources Board to more fully account for greenhouse gas emissions and their uncertainties from biofuel produced from palm oil. This is essential in identifying the least environmentally damaging biofuel production pathways, and the formulation of national and international biofuel and transportation policies.”
Dr Chris Malins of the ICCT said, “Peat degradation under oil palm is a major source of emissions from biodiesel production. Recognising that emissions are larger than previously thought will help regulators such as the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), European Commission (EC) and California Air Resources Board (CARB) identify which biofuel pathways are likely to lead to sustainable greenhouse gas emissions reductions”.
The research was funded by the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT), an international think-tank made up of representatives from the world’s leading vehicle manufacturing nations. The research was commissioned by Dr Chris Mallins of the ICCT and led by Dr Susan Page and Ross Morrison, both of the Department of Geography, University of Leicester. Other contributors to the work were Professor Jack Rieley of the University of Nottingham and chair of the scientific advisory board of the International Peat Society (IPS), Dr Aljosja Hooijer of Deltares in the Netherlands, and Dr Jyrki Jauhiainen of the University of Helsinki. The research was conducted over a period of three months during spring of this year and has recently been published as an International White Paper by the ICCT.


Here in the UK the costs of both food and fuel are soaring. This will inevitably lead to an increase in hunger and hypothermia related deaths this coming winter. The situation in the third world will be much, much worse. I would have thought that the obvious first step to mitigate against this human suffering would be to stop turning crops into automobile fuel.
In my opinion, anybody who advocates biofuel policies is not just wrong, but evil. The motive is as old as the hills – follow the money.
It’s good that we have the CAGW-theological CO2 counting business for these people; otherwise they would be unemployable. But please pay them a minimum wage.
We also have to look at the big picture and include Energy Return on Energy Invested (EROI/EROEI) e.g. see:
A Review of the Past and Current State of EROI Data Gupta et al. Sustainability 2011, 3, 1796-1809; doi:10.3390/su3101796
and
System Energy Assessment (SEA), Defining a Standard Measure of EROI for Energy Businesses as Whole Systems Murply et al. Sustainability 2011, 3, 1888-1907; doi:10.3390/su3101888
Using straight vegetable oil is much better than processed triglycerides. See:
Is it environmentally advantageous to use vegetable oil directly as biofuel instead of converting it to biodiesel? Estaban et al. Biomass and Bioenergy Volume 35, Issue 3, March 2011, Pages 1317-1328
To be sustainable, fuels need an EROI of >> 3. The EROI for petroleum is sinking fast as countries peak and progressively deplete their available light oil resources. Alternatives fossil fuels have relatively low EROI.
Ethanol is worse with EROI of about 1. Solar thermal energy or wind appear to have the highest EROI, and thus the greatest promise in the long term for future fuels.
Dang. There’s that unexpected consequence thing again. 😉 Everyday, it’s more and more obvious that the greenies have trouble seeing beyond the ends of their pointy little noses.
Is anyone surprised that bio-fuels increase CO2 emissions? Apart from watermelons and NGOs and bureaucrats and the BBC and…….
We’ll just stick with those nice, clean tar sands; ok?
I lost all faith in environ-mental-ists when I learned – The palm oil and timber industries are guilty of truly horrific ecological atrocities, one of which is the systematic genocide of orangutans
I’ve been saying for years that the cutting down of SE Asia forest for palm oil plantations, largely to produce biofuels is the biggest environmental disaster of my lifetime.
It happens I have been to Johor many times and have travelled through the vast palm oil plantation that covers the east of the state. Where I saw the only tiger I have ever seen in the wild. Sadly dead of starvation.
I could go on, but I would just get angry at the clueless no-nothing Greens who are wrecking the planet with their ignorance.
That’s *crazy*. Who would have ever thought that ideas that were pushed forward in response to feel-good environmental extremism with no thought for science or reality would be fraught with unintended consequences?
Dr Chris Malins of the ICCT said, “Peat degradation under oil palm is a major source of emissions from biodiesel production. Recognising that emissions are larger than previously thought will help regulators such as the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), European Commission (EC) and California Air Resources Board (CARB) identify which biofuel pathways are likely to lead to sustainable greenhouse gas emissions reductions”.
The answer is none.
My vote is still for using nuclear power plants to fix CO2 into Methane for transport, heat, and cheap energy storage.
That is the bridge technology until fusion becomes practical.
“The EU should support the development of renewable energy supply strategies in developing countries.” – WWF policy statement on biofuels.
We, the WWF, support the annihilation of Orangutans. Sure, we’ll tell you not to burn down the forest to plant palms, but we’ll offer incentives for you to do so – good hard cash from the EU, if we have any left.
It’s about time the WWF realised that biofuels suck. If they stuck to protecting wildlife rather being world carbon cops, I’d respect them a whole lot more.
TL;DR
Sorry, they lost me at “robust” in the first sentence.
How about this: “No food for fuel. If you can’t eat it, you can burn it. If you can eat it , don’t burn it.”
Just another example of unintended consequences (or were they?) from the “We gotta do sumthin’! Now!” crowd!
The subsidence pole measure is particularly telling. I would have liked to see the scale over time. No doubt there was an uptick in the speed of the process over the last decade or so! Wouldn’t it be funny if it was proved the sea wasn’t rising but that the land was sinking because of schemes like this?
I still don’t understand why releasing CO2 currently sequestered in plants by using them for fuel is better than releasing CO2 that was sequestered in plants a long time ago (oil). It just doesn’t make sense when it reduces the crop necessary to maintain human life through plain old eating!
Was there oil money used in the study? You know this will come up!
Latitude:
I think the term genocide is a little strong here. Kind of falls in to Godwin’s law.
Since my food isn’t made from the output of those tar sands, that’s a truly great idea. Perhaps the best one you’ve ever had.
John-X:
It goes a little farther. Often farmers will stop growing plants that you can eat to start growing subsidized plants you can’t eat for biofuel. Just as bad of consequences. Only waste bio products should be used for biofuel.
Wasn’t whale oil used at one time for heating and light?
Couldn’t that have been classified as a “renewable biofuel”? If we’re searching for renewable biofuels, why do we ever stop using the ones we had?
Dr Sue Page said: “It is important that the full greenhouse gas emissions ‘cost’ of biofuel production is made clear to the consumer, who may otherwise be mislead into thinking that all biofuels have a positive environmental impact.
Unfortunately, as the EU has mandated minimum percentages of bio-fuel in diesel. the consumer does not have any say in the matter.
I used to make bio-diesel myself on a smale scale. but that was with waste cooking oil so I get to keep my green brownie points.
Kum Dollison says:
November 4, 2011 at 8:38 am
“We’ll just stick with those nice, clean tar sands; ok?”
They’re only clean once the tar is removed.
Jeff in Calgary says:
November 4, 2011 at 9:22 am
Latitude:
I think the term genocide is a little strong here. Kind of falls in to Godwin’s law.
Sorry to say Jeff, but I think Latitude is spot on the mark.
More Soylent Green! says:
November 4, 2011 at 9:23 am
Kum Dollison says:
November 4, 2011 at 8:38 am
We’ll just stick with those nice, clean tar sands; ok?
Since my food isn’t made from the output of those tar sands, that’s a truly great idea. Perhaps the best one you’ve ever had.
=======================================================================
I wouldn’t be so sure about that. Do you cook your food? Is it transported via rail or truck? Does it require fertilizer? Is it wrapped in plastic?, etc. etc.
Yep, “Food” is in such short supply that we pay farmers NOT to plant 30,000,000 Acres every year.
And, that’s just in the U.S.
I would love to see a study on the number of times that attempts to mitigate perceived environmental problems have resulted in producing very real environmental disasters .
DirkH says:
November 4, 2011 at 8:20 am
………… Solar thermal energy or wind appear to have the highest EROI, and thus the greatest promise in the long term for future fuels.
———————
Yeah but that’s like talking about overdrive on a jackass. It’s a good idea but, it just doesn’t work.