the Substance of the investigator Maria Wetterstrands investigation ”Biojet for a flight” reviewed in the media, but obscured by the issue of a conflict of interest. The former MP-spokesperson claims that her involvement in the company Cortus Energy have not affected the conclusions of the investigation.
the Investigation assumes that the availability of biomass for the production of biofuels for aviation is secured. But in fact it is sufficient not for all sectors.
the Question of whether we should invest in to produce biofuel for the flights was investigated in 2013 by Arne Karyd in the report, ”fossil-fuel-free air travel”. The government's investigator, in which it maintained that the availability of biomass, not by a long shot enough for the road and vessel traffic, where the biomass can be used with better benefit to the climate than in aviation.
To move the biomass from the sectors and the biofuel for the flight, therefore increasing emissions of climate gases and alienates us from reaching our climate change goals. Government investigators advised, therefore, from such a bet.
to miljöpartisterna Isabella and Maria Wetterstrand. They should know well the six-year-old report on its conclusions. If you can't demonstrate that he is wrong in his conclusions, one has to ask why the new investigation was added at all.
In ”Biojet for the aviation” is neither a discussion or a reference to his report. One might suspect that his conclusions were not a desired answer, since they lead to that we need to reduce flying.
A fundamental error in the ”Biojet for the aviation” is that the issue of the lack of availability of biomass is not taken seriously. On page 165, you can read: ”the Question whether there is sufficient biomass to cover the need of biojetbränsle in Sweden cannot answer because the question must be asked in relation to the entire biomass supply and demand in all sectors. A question that is far beyond what this investigation should and can manage”.
absolutely central, and the answer is simple. The biomass is not sufficient to produce biofuel for the flight, but must be redirected from other sectors where it will provide at least equal benefit to the climate.
the Growth in emissions in these sectors as biofuels replaced fossil fuels must therefore be taken into account in the calculation before suggesting a reduktionsplikt for the flight. This is not done in Maria Wetterstrands investigation.
Thus, it is considered that the proposed reduktionsplikten is counter-productive in the pursuit of climate change goals. If Wetterstrand is aware of this, it can call into question her objectivity in the conclusions of the inquiry.