Shipping Industry Urges IMO To Address Risks Of Biofuels As A Green Alternative

A growing debate over the use of biofuels in international shipping is gaining global attention, with environmental organisations and major shipping companies calling for action ahead of International Maritime Organisation (IMO) discussions.

Environmental groups, including the European Federation for Transport and Environment (T&E), have teamed up with leading shipping companies like Hapag Lloyd, urging the IMO to exclude biofuels from its list of green alternatives to fossil fuels.

These groups argue that biofuels could do more harm than good, claiming their widespread use could be unsustainable and lead to severe environmental damage.

A recent study commissioned by T&E and conducted by Cerulogy suggests that nearly a third of global shipping could run on biofuels by 2030, up from less than 1% today.

The report acknowledges that biofuels were initially intended to repurpose waste oil, but the growing demand for biofuels could lead to unsustainable consequences.

T&E warns that limited supplies of waste biofuels, such as those made from used cooking oil and animal fats, could only meet about 2.5% to 3% of shipping’s projected demand for biofuels by 2030.

The report reveals the widespread use of palm and soy oils as the primary source of biofuels, which could account for 60% of biofuel demand. This reliance on crops like palm and soy could pressure vegetable oil prices and contribute to deforestation and land grabbing.

T&E highlights the doubling of palm oil biofuel use in the EU from 2010 to 2020, following laws promoting biofuels in vehicles, as an example of the negative impacts of biofuel demand.

Countries such as France, Norway, and the Netherlands have already restricted or ceased the use of palm and soy biofuels, while the EU has excluded food crops from its FuelEU shipping fuels regulation.

The potential for increased demand for biofuels to compete with food supplies has raised concerns about food security globally.

Constance Dijkstra, shipping manager at T&E, warned that the IMO risks exacerbating climate issues by enforcing biofuels. She argued that palm and soy biofuels are harmful to the environment and that the shipping industry should focus on cleaner alternatives, such as hydrogen-based fuels.

According to T&E’s report, by 2030, the biofuel industry could require 34 million hectares of farmland, equivalent to the size of Germany, to meet the rising demand from the shipping sector, with possible consequences for food production.

Biofuels derived from palm and soy are linked to significantly higher carbon emissions than the dirtiest shipping fuels available today due to deforestation and land clearance.

In a related incident, the Global Forest Coalition (GFC) and Biofuelwatch joined 69 other organisations in calling on the IMO to reject biofuels.

Their open letter, addressed to the IMO Secretariat and delegates ahead of negotiations for a new low-carbon fuel standard, stresses the need for the IMO to prioritise genuine clean energy solutions instead of biofuels.

Almuth Ernsting of Biofuelwatch said that endorsing biofuels as a low-carbon alternative would only lead to environmental destruction.

According to Maria Emilia Pacheco, an advisor to the Brazilian NGO FASE, large-scale biofuel production would risk food supplies in regions like Brazil, where biofuels are being promoted as a long-term solution despite the environmental harm caused by soy and palm oil cultivation.

Biofuelwatch, GFC, and the other signatories to the letter called for the IMO to exclude biofuels from the Global Fuel Standard (GFS) which is designed to incentivise the use of clean energy in shipping.

Reference: globalforestcoalition

Do you have info to share with us ? Suggest a correction