Analysis and criticism of the EMPA findings

Context and cautionary note

The EMPA study, entitled "Ökolbilanzierung von Bioenergie", published in spring 2007, is quite negative about the environmental impact of biofuels. However, it contains a number of weak points that should be mentioned.  

Alcosuisse findings

In our opinion, the published findings and the supposedly objective nature of the study do not stand up to serious analysis:

Partisan, with questionable methodology

• The findings are presented in absolute terms as the final word on what constitutes the limits of biofuels. However, further analysis shows the study to be partisan and to contain many elements that are easily challenged.
• The general methodology, the organisation, the one-sided choices and the working hypotheses have clearly had a very negative impact on the findings. However, this aspect was disregarded when the study was published.

Biased comparisons with oil derivatives

• The approach is based on a direct comparison between the use of biofuels and fossil fuels. This would only make sense in a specific context, i.e. if there were unlimited reserves of fossil fuels (particularly oil) and if consumption of these fuels did not have a negative impact on the climate. This is obviously not the case. The authors of the study imagined a situation in which we would still have the choice between two alternatives - releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide while continuing to exhaust oil resources, and seeking alternative, more sustainable solutions. As far as we are concerned, such a choice no longer exists. The perception underlying this approach is misguided.
• The problems associated with oil products - non-renewable resources, production of greenhouse gases, high energy dependence, risk of large-scale accidental pollution etc. - are hardly touched upon in the overall assessment.

Orientations of the study

• The orientation of the study totally ignores the strategic political vision behind the introduction of biofuels, in terms of combating climate change and developing renewable energy.
• The study focuses on the agricultural phase of biofuel production, which obviously has no equivalent in the case of oil. For some production channels, this phase accounts for up to 98% of all factors considered.
• The methodology used emphasises the importance accorded to certain pollutants in the agricultural phase (non-existent for oil), when in fact their value in absolute terms is sometimes very low.
• The examples and assumptions are almost systematically unfavourable to biofuels.
• Neither the existing potential for improvements nor improvements that have already been made are covered in the examples.
• Generalisations about a given feedstock based on a particular case are not valid, since in the real world each production channel is different from the test case.
• The use of ethanol improves an engine’s performance, resulting in reduced fuel consumption. This has been proved by various Swiss and international measurement programmes, but it was not taken into account in the EMPA study, thereby worsening the findings by about 50%.
• The positive contribution of biofuels is underestimated in every respect.

To find out more about the subject, see our in-depth analysis and our suggestions for conducting sustainability assessments.

Impact of findings

The EMPA study does not hold water for the reasons outlined above. Unfortunately, in the absence of other comprehensive studies in Switzerland, its general findings were given wide press coverage as they stand, i.e. without discussion of the finer points, and therefore contributed greatly to the erosion of public confidence in biofuels. Moreover, the study is now considered to be authoritative and serves as a reference for various schools of thought in Switzerland. It has also influenced thinking abroad, and the OECD’s negative assessment of the environmental impact of biofuels was based on its findings. The OECD recommends that governments refrain from providing support for biofuel development in Europe. In our opinion, it is unacceptable that such a one-sided and flawed report should be used as a basis for important political decisions.