The dilemma of indirect land-use changes in EU biofuel policy – An empirical study of policy-making in the context of scientific uncertainty

Bioenergy in the Republic of Macedonia: Regulatory Uncertainties, EU Policies, and Civil Society Opinions Shape the Narrative

“…Conversely, the biofuels industry has argued that, given the ambiguity and poor reliability of the modelling ILUCs should not be factored into the GHG emissions accounting (Di Lucia et al, 2012). The industry would like to see low or no-ILUC risk biofuels allocated to the RE share, free of the proposed 7% transportation fuels ceiling as a means to allow further market penetration of best performing biofuels (ePURE, 2014).…”

Sustainability and Ecological Civilization in the Age of Anthropocene: An Epistemological Analysis of the Psychosocial and “Culturalist” Interpretations of Global Environmental Risks

“…Uncertainty can be invoked by scientists to ask for more public funding to further investigate irresolute cases; but it can also be used by lobbyists to discard preventive policies in the name of ignorance or by lawyers to postpone the legal resolution of trials by asking the plaintiffs to provide complementary information in the name of incomplete data [47]. If uncertainties are often linked to psycho-sociological biases, risks analysis often goes with socio-economic struggle about safety policies between actors with conflicting interests [48].…”

Transformations in EU biofuels markets under the Renewable Energy Directive and the implications for land use, trade and forests

“…Each of these alternatives obviously has advantages and disadvantages, but a preventative approach is probably the most practical choice in terms of effectiveness and stakeholder acceptability (Di Lucia et al 2012). …”

“…Di Lucia et al (2012) The EC decision to delay rules on including indirect climate impacts provides some time to reach better consensus on iLUC approaches and to allow operators time to adjust to changing conditions (Reuters 2011). This decision is a political compromise designed to protect the interests of the EU biofuels industry, but should also serve to discourage new investments in biofuels with a poor GHG emissions profile.…”