Car manufacturing in Europe is in dire straits, no doubt about that. Following the “Made in China” electric vehicle (EV) threat, 2025 brings the U.S. tariffs. Creativity to challenge existing climate regulations is thus back with a revenge across the EU. The 2035 Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles (ICEV) Ban is challenged, as are Low-Emission Zones and the subsidies in favor of EV purchases.
Much to the discontent of the promoters of electromobility, here and now. Celebrating—if not merely endorsing—in the name of fighting climate change, the rise of Chinese EVs and U.S. autonomous vehicles as the future of personal mobility, despite the anticipated strain on the electricity grid from surging demand and the risks of hacking these “computers on wheels” to sow road chaos (recall the movie Leave the World Behind?).
Disregarding, as unacceptable and contemptible lobbying from their enemies, ICEV manufacturers and liquid fuel producers, the concept of technology neutrality, offering a diversity of solutions able to accelerate the much-needed decrease in CO2 emissions, here and now, and not when it is too late. Especially ruling out the use of biofuels as one of those solutions to improve the carbon footprint of road transport.
As an example of what can be called ostracism, cancel culture in newspeak, this op-ed from Transport & Environment in the French center-left leaning newspaper Le Monde on April 6 accusing biofuels of “not being produced in large enough quantities, of not being competitive and not really ecological”. Against reality on the three counts:
- Quantities can easily and quickly be increased to meet any supplemental demand: production technologies are mature and easy to replicate, incorporation rates can be increased within the existing car pool.
- Cost per abated CO2 is among the smallest of low-carbon solutions in transport, does not require public subsidies, contrary to EV, e-SAF or hydrogen.
- Verified CO2 emission abatement nears 80 % for EU-produced ethanol, closing to climate-neutrality.
So, why so much hatred against biofuels?
Environmental NGOs have always opposed biofuels for many possible and plausible reasons.
Their sponsors and financers, some wary of the impact on food prices, thus on their profitability, of diverting biomass from its near-exclusive use in the West in the 20th century for food, whereas food, feed, fuel and fiber (the 4 Fs) have historically been supplied by crops and forests.
Their dislike of capitalism, the latest version, late 20th century, of previous anti-West activism, such as anti-nuclear energy, nurtured by Communist regimes during the Cold War. Has China replaced the Soviet Union as #1 foe of the West or has radicalism translated in an endless fight against scale, Big Oil, Big Ag, Big Agro-Industry, actors of biofuels development (just think of the 95 million acres of corn growing in the USA)? Not against Big Utilities, so far at least, though preferred green electricity production is rather in the “small is beautiful” league, which may not fit the industrial scale of (electro)mobility.
Along with their dislike of our neo-liberal, globalized, environment is their preference for a more sober way of life, clearly not including the individual mobility element, which could be prolonged by the use of low-carbon biofuels, whereas the extortionary price of EV is a strong deterrent to the growth of the car pool. Anti-biofuel and pro-EV go along in reducing the importance of cars in our daily life, regardless of the impact on the car-dependent citizens.
Which brings us, finally, to the social background of Environmental NGO employees: typically educated and urban (i.e., accustomed to using public transport)—in short, what David Goodhart would call “anywheres.” These individuals are not only opposed to but often completely disconnected from—and unable to understand—the “somewheres”: people who cannot afford expensive EVs and continue to rely on aging internal combustion vehicles in suburban, exurban, and rural areas. This divide is well captured in a cartoon showing backlash against the installation of speed cameras designed to catch vehicles banned from entering Low-Emission Zones in larger French cities (those with more than 150,000 inhabitants).
Amazing to note that Environmental NGOs rely on lobbying, which they call advocacy, to the point of being accused by EU Parliament members of being subsidized by the European Commission to lobby in favor of its own Green Deal strategy, but denounce, as not acceptable, the lobbying by car manufacturers to protect their interests, a sure sign of authoritarianism, green of course. Not making it acceptable.
One academic expert of the car sector even claimed, in the same newspaper above mentioned, that inviting Environmental NGOs in the co-construction of transport regulation had been welcome and necessary. The revision of the EU Renewable Energy Directive in 2015, capping the use of first-generation biofuels to take into account land-use change (LUC), is a clear example of the ideology conveyed by those NGOs, as described above, which has no physical relevance for the production of biofuels in Europe, as demonstrated in the last ten years by numerous academic research, and which has eventually brought forth the concept of low-indirect LUC biofuels (a counter-counter regulation). So much time and effort lost.
The Green Gospel says biofuels are bad, period. Let us just hope our democracies will prove to be more balanced in their fair evaluation of the rightfulness of regulations aimed at improving our environment and making our future as pleasant as possible. A Just Transition is not only about heavily subsidizing low-carbon innovations that fit the flavor-of-the-day favored by Environmental NGOs, it is also about finding the right balance between imperfect, but practical, solutions, with a strategy of keeping expenses in check, lest we die of a debt crisis before we are fried.
Philippe Marchand is a Bioenergy Steering Committee Member of the European Technology and Innovation Platform (ETIP).
