Improving EU Biofuels Policy? Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Policy Efficiency, and WTO Compatibility

被引:0
|
作者
Swinbank, Alan [1 ]
Daugbjerg, Carsten [2 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Univ Reading, Sch Agr Policy & Dev, Reading RG6 2AH, Berks, England
[2] Australian Natl Univ, Crawford Sch Publ Policy, Canberra, ACT, Australia
[3] Univ Copenhagen, Dept Food & Resource Econ, DK-1168 Copenhagen, Denmark
关键词
SUSTAINABILITY;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
Both the EU's Renewable Energy Directive (RED) and Article 7a of its Fuel Quality Directive (FQD) seek to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from transport fuels. The RED mandates a 10% share of renewable energy in transport fuels by 2020, whilst the FQD requires a 6% reduction in GHG emissions (from a 2010 base) by the same date. In practice, it will mainly be biofuels that economic operators will use to meet these requirements, but the different approaches can lead to either the RED, or the FQD, acting as the binding constraint. A common set of environmental sustainability criteria apply to biofuels under both the RED and the FQD. In particular, biofuels have to demonstrate a 35% (later increasing to 50/60%) saving in life-cycle GHG emissions. This could be problematic in the World Trade Organization (WTO), as a non-compliant biofuel with a 34% emissions saving would probably be judged to be 'like' a compliant biofuel. A more economically rational way to reduce GHG emissions, and one that might attract greater public support, would be for the RED to reward emission reductions along the lines of the FQD. Moreover, this modification would probably make the provisions more acceptable in the WTO, as there would be a clearer link between policy measures and the objective of reductions in GHG emissions; and the combination of the revised RED and the FQD would lessen the commercial incentive to import biofuels with modest GHG emission savings, and thus reduce the risk of trade tension.
引用
收藏
页码:813 / 834
页数:22
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] EU BIOFUELS POLICY-RAISING THE QUESTION OF WTO COMPATIBILITY
    Switzer, Stephanie
    McMahon, Joseph A.
    INTERNATIONAL & COMPARATIVE LAW QUARTERLY, 2011, 60 (03) : 713 - 736
  • [2] Policy Implications of Uncertainty in Modeled Life-Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Biofuels
    Mullins, Kimberley A.
    Griffin, W. Michael
    Matthews, H. Scott
    ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, 2011, 45 (01) : 132 - 138
  • [3] Energy and greenhouse gas emission savings of biofuels in Spain's transport fuel. The adoption of the EU policy on biofuels
    Lechon, Y.
    Cabal, H.
    de la Rua, C.
    Caldes, N.
    Santamaria, M.
    Saez, R.
    BIOMASS & BIOENERGY, 2009, 33 (6-7): : 920 - 932
  • [4] Good science for improving policy: greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural manures
    Pratt, Chris
    Redding, Matthew
    Hill, Jaye
    Shilton, Andrew
    Chung, Matthew
    Guieysse, Benoit
    ANIMAL PRODUCTION SCIENCE, 2015, 55 (06) : 691 - 701
  • [5] Greenhouse gas emissions, waste and recycling policy
    Acuff, Kaylee
    Kaffine, Daniel T.
    JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS AND MANAGEMENT, 2013, 65 (01) : 74 - 86
  • [6] Improving energy efficiency to control greenhouse gas emissions
    Redman, PJ
    GREENHOUSE GAS CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES, 1999, : 659 - 663
  • [7] A Comparison of Policy Instruments to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions
    Freebairn, John
    ECONOMIC PAPERS, 2016, 35 (03): : 204 - 215
  • [8] Modeling California policy impacts on greenhouse gas emissions
    Greenblatt, Jeffery B.
    ENERGY POLICY, 2015, 78 : 158 - 172
  • [9] CALIFORNIA TRADABLE EMISSIONS POLICY AND GREENHOUSE GAS CONTROL
    DWYER, JP
    JOURNAL OF ENERGY ENGINEERING-ASCE, 1992, 118 (02): : 59 - 76
  • [10] Policy Options to Reduce Electricity Greenhouse Gas Emissions
    Freebairn, John
    AUSTRALIAN ECONOMIC REVIEW, 2018, 51 (04) : 474 - 485