Wagner Nicky: Biofuel Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Wagner Nicky: Biofuel Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 02 September 2008. Volume:649;Page:18270. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 Of course we all like the idea of biofuels. All New Zealanders are keen to see a cleaner and greener New Zealand. The vast majority of the public are concerned about climate change issues—we are concerned—but we do not really want to change our lifestyles so we would be absolutely delighted if a simple change of fuel could solve some of these problems. If only life was so simple.  
I have a question for the House. What do the OECD Round Table on Sustainable Development the UK House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee report the G8 conference of legislators the UK’s chief scientist the World Food Organisation the UK Royal Society the World Bank and the United Nations Secretary-General all have in common? What do those august bodies have in common? They are all respected international organisations that comment on world issues and world policies. Several of them are specialist green organisations and they along with the New Zealand Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment have all expressed serious concerns about biofuels and any biofuel obligation.  
But this Labour Government thinks it knows best. This Labour Government wants to ram through this Biofuel Bill despite the reservations of all those world experts. The Labour Government thinks it knows best. The Labour Government wants to ram through the Biofuel Bill despite the fact that it will add increasing costs to all New Zealanders and that the environmental return is very debatable.  
There are serious costs to the introduction of biofuels. There is some debate over what those costs are. The chairperson of the Local Government and Environment Committee tells us that she does not know what they are. She does not really have much idea but the bill will still be passed. There is debate over these costs and the best estimates we have are somewhere between 1.5c a litre and 7c a litre. So even if we take a mid-point range the cost of the biofuels obligation will result in an increase to the New Zealand public to the tune of about $240 million. New Zealanders might be prepared to pay that because we know that they are keen to see the country being more clean and more green. They might be prepared to pay that but only if they are sure there will be some benefit and even the world’s experts cannot guarantee that.  
When we are making decisions about new green initiatives we need to prioritise the things that will give us the most bang for our buck. Members should consider other planned environmental spending. For example there is solar water heating and we are putting $4 million aside for that; maybe research into geothermal energy or even tidal energy and we are putting away $1 million each for that; or perhaps research into how we can reduce greenhouse gases from animals and we are putting $5 million into that. Members can compare that spending with the $240 million for biofuels—the spend for biofuels is huge. What could we achieve if we spent even half of that $240 million on doing some other environmental initiatives with a better pay-off?  
In saying that I also say that I support the development of biofuels. In my previous life as an Environment Canterbury councillor I was involved with the trialling of biofuels on the Christchurch City bus fleet. We undertook a trial that proved both tallow and reused oil-based biofuels would work very well in the city fleet. In fact they worked so well that one company Leopard Coachlines decided to use biofuels permanently. It decided to use a 5 percent blend. Then came the problem the problem we are all foreseeing with this Biofuel Bill: the availability of feedstock became the issue. We all talk about tallow today which is sold on the international market. The increased global demand for tallow has meant that the cost of tallow feedstock has become prohibitive for biofuel manufacturing and for this bus company. The bus company was caught between a rock and hard place.  
One of the aims of having a public transport system is to provide a more environmentally friendly method of getting people around the city. The more buses there are the less congestion there is and the fewer harmful emissions there are. But if bus fares increase because of the use of a cleaner fuel the service becomes less attractive and the environment suffers. It was a difficult balance for the bus company to make but in the end they are no longer using biofuels and that is a real shame.  
As the National spokesperson on waste I am particularly interested in the new technologies being developed to manufacture biofuels from waste products—the so-called second-generation biofuels. Producing biofuels from waste is a fantastic idea because one gets double the environmental benefit. It avoids the horrible downside of the world’s present focus on biofuels which is that biofuels stock is being grown instead of food. It is a supply and demand problem so any of the rules we put around this can only mitigate not solve the issue.  
The fact that biofuels stock is being grown instead of food has sent food costs spiralling up and out of control. The horrible downside we have seen is starving people rioting across the world. The horrible downside means that wealthy car owners can have cleaner fuel but desperate people who could never even imagine owning a car let alone buying biofuels are starving because they cannot afford food for themselves or for their families. We cannot allow our demands for biofuels to destroy other people’s lives.  
The use of waste as a feedstock for biofuels is a great idea because it cleans up the environment as well. During the last few months I have visited several biofuel manufacturing projects focusing on waste. One is in Blenheim. The Aquaflow plant is producing bio-diesel from algae growth in Blenheim’s sewage ponds—bio-diesel from nutrients that are polluting our environment bio-diesel from a very plentiful waste product. 
I have also seen projects that involve the digesting of dairy effluent from dairy sheds to provide a fuel source. We all know that the effective management of dairy effluent is essential if we are to be able to control the nitrate levels in ground water and streams so producing biofuels from dairy effluent is a further environmental bonus. Other groups are working with wood waste industrial waste and green matter. The bottom line is that all these projects are a better use of resources than growing biofuel feedstock. All these projects have dual benefits—cleaner fuel but also the recovery of resources that would otherwise pollute the environment.  
Right now we again have an environmental bill in this House that is on the right track but it just has not been very well-thought-out. The basic idea is good but although National supports the use of biofuels we are also very aware of the pitfalls of this legislation. These are perverse environmental effects unacceptably high costs and international humanitarian ramifications.