All the recent buzz about the bio-based economy may lead us to think that it is a whole new discipline in politics. In fact it is not. The story of Henry Ford and bioethanol should remind us of how misguided political decisions can lock us into dependency on an energy source of lesser choice.
The bio-economy, now associated with high-end application of agricultural output, is not so bound to this era after all. Over the past few centuries, entrepreneurs have developed cellophane, rubber, paper and a broad range of other materials gleaned from biomass. Lately the bio-based economy and especially the potential of biomass gained renewed attention, perhaps because of the augmented diplomatic tensions that, especially for the European Union, have rekindled the desire to be energy independent.
However, the EU and its member states are not living up to this desire. Member states delay the implementation of an EU internal energy market and the European commission has failed to draft strong binding targets for energy efficiency, renewable energy and carbon emissions. Against this backdrop, it would seem almost naive to expect coherent and ambitious EU legislation on the use of bio-energy. Yet, failing to do so would resemble the ill-fated choices that have partly led to the fact that we are fossil fuel dependent in the first place.
"Biomass provides about seven per cent of the total EU energy need, but the patchwork of national rules that is now in place hampers sustainable entrepreneurs that want to invest"
To illustrate this point, we can think of Henry Ford, who set the standard for the modern automobile with his mass production of the Ford model-T. His preferred fuel was not gasoline, but ethanol – a type of alcohol made from corn or sugar. He thought this auto fuel could help to strengthen linkages between the farm and the city. "If we want the American farmer to be our customer, we must find a way to become his customer," he said.
Back then, as Daniel Yergin exposes in his book The Quest, the support for alcohol was almost ubiquitous among stakeholders, and even General Motors hailed the fuel as a clean and inexhaustible alternative for gasoline. However, when the US prohibition was adopted, and all 'intoxicating drinks' were banned, in order to prevent gas pumps from becoming potential 'speakeasies' (covert pubs for alcohol consumption), it was ruled that the ban included ethanol. As a consequence, the green alternative for fossil-based fuel fell behind, and never managed catch up with gasoline.
As of 2014, we are at a crossroads again. Save from a very conservative (but powerful) part of the industry lobby, everyone agrees that we have to move away from import dependency for energy. A growing coalition, including US president Barack Obama, upholds that the future of Europe is on shale gas, and a recent editorial comment of the Financial Times championed a shale gas-friendly regulation for Europe.
However, the ethanol example shows how energy decisions can unintentionally lay down standards for decades. Rash decisions can have far-reaching consequences. Therefore, for each energy decision we make, we have to think on a coherent long-term framework in which the development of this energy source takes place.
As for biomass, it is important to note that this energy source can reduce our import dependency and help to green our economy. Today, biomass provides about seven per cent of the total EU energy need, but the patchwork of national rules that is now in place hampers sustainable entrepreneurs that want to invest. Therefore, we need a European framework that lays down encompassing rules and criteria for real sustainable use of biomass. If the European commission finally presented its long postponed criteria for sustainable biomass, this would be a good step. For history teaches us that without the commitment of leaders, a greener and more self-sufficient economy will not establish itself.