Green Machines

The launch of GECO’s biofuel boiler-house in Kaunas gives further proof of Lithuania’s commitment to green technology and energy efficiency. This launch comes just days after Obeliai Distillery announced its intention to start its own set of bio-reactors to burn production waste for the production of electricity and heat both for internal use and external sale. While these can be seen as steps in the “right” direction, the announcements come on the tails of another, less desirable one. Lithuania and its two northern neighbors Latvia and Estonia rank in the bottom ten countries in the European Union in waste disposal.

While the projects with Obeliai and GECO are hugely influential steps towards a greener industrial process, it cannot overshadow the EU report. Lithuania ranked lowest of the three Baltic States, beating out Greece, Bulgaria, and Malta. This is a tough position to be in given the report’s purpose. The bottom ten countries will be scrutinized closely by the European Commission, the issuers of the report. The EU reportedly will fund various waste management projects, but only if the countries in question will work with the Commission to improve waste management. The potential investment from the EU should the countries be found satisfactory could total nearly 400,000 jobs in the foreseeable future.

To pass the Commission’s checks, countries had to be tested in eighteen different areas of their waste management infrastructure. Those in the bottom ten, including the Baltic States, are expected to improve at least in those areas if they want to have a chance of getting EU funding for waste management projects. Admittedly the Commission is already preparing plans for the ten lowest scoring countries to follow. However it would be foolish to think that extra effort will not go unnoticed.

The construction of facilities that use biofuel can be seen as a positive move for Lithuania. It can’t be denied that using more of the available fuel for production is a good thing. Yet there are some problems to it. Biofuels may be a way to create more energy, but that only applies if the market is ready for it. Lithuania reportedly makes nearly two million tons of “oil equivalent biofuel” each year. Yet some reports go to say that only half of that fuel is used. That leaves one million tons of fuel sitting around doing absolutely nothing. Companies claim that they are being conservative with the amount of biofuel used, as the number of energy users in Lithuania has steadily decreased over the last two decades.

Herein is the issue. The market.The energy market at present has a division between various energy sources, biofuel, nuclear, natural gas, etc. By flooding the fraction of that market with fuel, as seems to be the case in Lithuania, any additional production will only go to waste after the biofuel demand has been consumed. The potentiality for reduced costs is fantastic to the consumer, but that can’t apply if the market doesn’t allow the supply to be used. There is even the potential for a reversal. If so much available fuel is underutilized, the demand for such fuel could wane causing even more to go to waste.

Though the successful implementation of biofuel production and use may be in question, the positive influence it has cannot be denied. Whether the projects themselves work both physically and economically, the message sent by furthering green technology cannot be denied. With the European Commission turning their sights onto the Baltic, green projects may start springing up more often. As with the others, the effectiveness is almost less of an issue than the message they send. A message that Lithuania wants a greener reputation.

Remaining environmentally conscious is one of the great challenges of the age. Companies and countries across the globe are trying to look out for the environment. Or at the very least, pretend to look out for the environment before going back to old habits. It would be cynical to think that green projects are only being started because of a bad grade on a report. This is not the position being stated here. A focus on the environment will never go the wrong way. If nationwide scrutiny is what it takes to influence that, by all means. In the end, a greener world is, at this time in history, a more positive one.