Another conclusion can be drawn from this modeling: if we take account of impact categories other than GHG emissions and the exhaustion of fossil resources such as ecotoxicity, acidification of soils and eutrophication of water by waste pollution, it becomes clear that the fabrication of bioplastics leads to more damage to the environment than the traditional plastics sector. This applies regardless of the raw material in question.

No need to call BioWanze into question

Finally, we come to the third main category of results: the payback time for climate change. This is the number of years necessary so that a crop that is “economic” in greenhouse gas emissions compensates for its negative effect in terms of land use change. Therefore, if we take account of GHG emissions caused by deforestation linked to the cultivation of Brazilian sugar cane intended for use as biofuel, the payback time varies between 39 and… 152 years (in the event of indirect changes in land use). For Belgian crops used as biofuel, indirect changes in land use concern the transformation of grassland into land for the cultivation of wheat or sugar beet in other countries of the European Union  (on condition of obtaining a dispensation from the Common Agricultural Policy). Within this prospective framework, the payback times calculated are much shorter, that is to say, 14 years for wheat and 10 years for sugar beet.  In the case of bioplastics, the payback times vary between 26 and… 101 years for sugar cane (indirect changes here too). The payback times are 31 years for sugar beet from Ukraine and 8 years for Belgian sugar beet. For Belgian wheat it is 14 years. 

Such conclusions do not call into question the construction of production units for bioethanol such as the one for BioWanze, far from it indeed. In order to produce its 300,000 annual tons, this factory in the Mosane region uses strictly local sugar beet and cereals from an area within a radius of less than 300 kilometers. However, according to changes in the commodity market, the work of Sandra Belboom, extended to take account of the wider macroeconomic implications, could be useful for the various decision-makers. The history of biofuels which certain environmental organizations prefer to call agrofuels (thus distinguishing them from the protection of being labeled as “biological”), has certainly not been plain sailing.  The European Commission, for example, recently proposed to change the obligatory proportion of biofuel involved in transport from 10% to 5% by 2020.  Objective: to halt the worrying phenomenon of land-grabbing in Southern countries through which investors substitute energy crops for traditional crops causing an explosion in basic food prices and resulting in serious social problems for farmers.

Such considerations have evidently not been taken into account in the work of Sandra Belboom. “It is evident that the aspect I studied, which was strictly environmental, should ideally be completed from the perspective of sustainable development. We can well imagine that the same approach – life cycle assessment – serves as a back-up to economic and social analyses. Ultimately, a comprehensive analysis of this type should also be possible for second-generation biofuels (plant waste, sawdust from mills, etc.)” There is no doubt: given the energy and climate crises, that we have not heard the end of discussions about bio or agrofuels…