The last row provides an interesting view of US corn ethanol's eligibility from a WTO perspective:
| Abbreviation | Type of biofuel | Origin | Emission savings fulfilled? (Theshold: 35%) | Land-use criteria fulfilled? | Eligible? |
| Rapeseed-1 | Rapeseed biodiesel | EU | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Palmoil-1 | Palmoil biodiesel | Malaysia | Yes (due to methane extraction) | Yes | Yes |
| Palmoil-2 | Palmoil biodiesel | Malaysia | No (due to lack of no methane extraction) | Yes | No |
| Palmoil-3 | Palmoil biodiesel | Indonesia | Yes (due to methane extraction) | No (land was rainforest until 2009) | No |
| Soybean-1 | Soybean biodiesel | Brazil | Yes (low transport emissions because low-weight biodiesel is shipped, rather than bulky soybeans) | Yes | Yes |
| Soybean-2 | Soybean biodiesel | Processed in EU with soybeans from Brazil | No (emissions are too high due to transport emissions of bulky soybeans) | Yes | No |
| Soybean-3 | Soybean biodiesel | Brazil | Yes (low transport emissions because low-weight biodiesel is shipped, rather than soybeans) | No (land that is a designated protection area by the Fed. Govt. and producer cannot provide evidence that planning of soybeans did not interfere with protection purpose) | No |
| Corn-1 | Corn-based ethanol | EU | Yes (default value (49%) used with only applies to EU corn) | Yes | Yes |
| Corn-2 | Corn-based ethanol | USA | No (calculation shows that GHG savings are only 34% and EU default value cannot be applied) | Yes | No |
Source: http://ictsd.org/i/publications/86798/ (pp 10)
No comments:
Post a Comment