Text: Marie Widengård
Podcast: From Residue to Rubbish
The Spectrum of Residues: From Biofuel Resource to Rubbish
The podcast From Residue to Rubbish explores how materials like Palm Fatty Acid Distillate (PFAD) shift along the spectrum of residues, materials, and sustainability in the biofuel industry. It examines how classification systems determine whether substances are seen as valuable biofuel resources or discarded as unsustainable waste.
At the heart of this spectrum is the reclassification of PFAD, which moved from a "residue"—a category that allowed for minimal sustainability oversight—to a "co-product," subject to stricter regulatory scrutiny.
The Reclassification of PFAD: Shifting Across the Residue Spectrum
PFAD, a byproduct of palm oil refining, was initially classified as a "residue" in Sweden, which exempted it from strict sustainability requirements. However, environmental organisations challenged this classification, arguing that PFAD’s connection to palm oil production—linked to deforestation and high Indirect Land-Use Change (ILUC) risks—made it unsuitable for sustainable biofuels. Groups such as the Swedish Society for Nature Conservation and the Green Motorists campaigned to "sanitise" the industry by reducing reliance on PFAD, highlighting that Sweden was consuming over 15% of global PFAD production.
Sweden leveraged its flexibility within the EU framework to redefine what constitutes a residue. See decision tree below. By introducing a 40% market value threshold, PFAD was deemed too economically valuable to qualify as a residue. This economic criterion became an arbitrary but effective boundary-setting tool—one that dictated where on the spectrum PFAD belonged.
After this regulatory shift, PFAD was reclassified as a co-product, excluded from sustainable biofuel standards due to its high carbon emission risks. PFAD was effectively "rubbished", removed from the clean biofuel economy.
A Spectrum of Sustainability: The Role of Classification Systems
While PFAD was reclassified, CTO—pine or "tall" oil, a domestic byproduct of the Swedish forestry industry—retained its residue status, despite also having economic value. This discrepancy underscores how classification systems reflect national economic interests rather than neutral sustainability assessments. revealing the role of national interests in classification. This case highlights how classification systems act as valuation tools, shaping both the perceived sustainability and economic worth of materials in the biofuel sector.
This shift across the spectrum of residues exposes how sustainability is not an intrinsic property of materials but is socially, politically, and economically constructed. The case of PFAD and CTO reveals a complex interplay of environmental concerns, regulatory frameworks, economic interests, and political manoeuvring that determines which materials are included in or excluded from the biofuel economy.
Exploring the Spectrum: The Podcast’s Readings
I: From Residue to Rubbish: The Reclassification of Industrial Discards in Swedish Biofuels by Marie Widengård (in press), in All That Glitters Is Not Garbage, edited by Benedict Singleton. MayFly Press.
This text applies Michael Thompson’s Rubbish Theory to show how materials transition between different value categories—Rubbish, Transient, and Durable. It highlights how different actors—regulators, industry players, and environmentalists—play different value games, determining the fate of materials based on competing sustainability narratives.
In Sweden's case, PFAD was framed as "polluted" due to its association with palm oil, while CTO was constructed as a "pure" and sustainable alternative. By invoking ILUC risks, Sweden reinforced PFAD’s status as environmental "dirt," justifying its exclusion from the biofuel market.
II: Good Riddance: Sorting Out 'Bad' Palm Residues from the 'Good' Biofuel Economy by Marie Widengård (in press), Valuation studies.
This text introduces the concept of good riddance—where sustainability is not just about adding green solutions but about selectively removing undesirable materials to uphold a positive environmental image. It argues that biofuel regulation often operates through subtractive logic, where sustainability is constructed not by adding better materials but by removing contested ones. The exclusion of PFAD reflects Sweden's dual objective of "doing good" (strengthening sustainability standards) and "doing well" (protecting domestic economic interests).
Sweden's exclusion of PFAD reflects this subtractive logic. By "banning" PFAD, Sweden positioned itself as a leader in sustainability while simultaneously limiting competition from imported biofuel feedstocks. The move reinforced Sweden’s national sustainability branding, where biofuels were portrayed as clean, ethical, and integral to the welfare state. This process showcases how biofuel policies can simultaneously aim to "do good" environmentally while "doing well" economically, by shaping the sustainability spectrum in ways that align with national interests.
Together, these insights highlight the dynamic nature of value and the strategic processes involved in shaping biofuel sustainability. They remind us that claims of "clean" biofuels are not just about science but also about politics, economics, and the power to define what counts as sustainable. It prompts questions like:
Residual Governance and the Illusion of Sustainability
The case of PFAD exposes the weaknesses of residual governance—the regulatory framework allowing residues to bypass stringent scrutiny. Labeling a material as a residue often assumes sustainability rather than proving it. Sweden’s reclassification of PFAD illustrates how regulatory mechanisms can be used to construct and maintain the image of a "clean" biofuel sector while obscuring underlying environmental and social impacts.
Key Takeaways
- Classification matters: The designation of a material as a "residue" or "co-product" determines its sustainability status and market viability.
- Sustainability is selective: The removal of PFAD strengthened Sweden’s green reputation while benefitting domestic forestry residues like CTO.
- Residue governance is not neutral: Biofuel policies often assume that residues are sustainable rather than critically assessing their actual impact.
The reclassification of PFAD reveals how sorting and categorisation influence what materials count as sustainable. It urges us to critically examine how residues, waste, and value are assigned within the spectrum of sustainability, rather than taking these categories for granted. Stay alert!
- Does classifying something as a residue make it sustainable?
- Do biofuel policies assess the sustainability of residual materials—or merely assume it?
Now that you've explored how materials shift across the spectrum of residues, take a closer look at how classification works in practice. Can you determine what qualifies as a residue in the Swedish decision-tree below? What factors influence these decisions—and who benefits from them?
PODCASTS
Our podcasts have been generated using NotebookLM, drawing on key texts from our research to explore central themes and questions.