The Biofuels Fallacy
Sometimes policy heads off in entirely the wrong direction on climate change and biofuels looks like it’s a classic example of this.
Yes it is true that growing crops especially for fuel is carbon neutral as the CO2 they take in while they grow cancels out the CO2 they produce when they are burned for energy and so they are better in pure CO2 terms than fossil fuels.
But that’s where the benefits end.
Biofuels are turning out to be an environmental hazard and potentially a disaster for sustainable development. The EU and the UK governments would be well advised to retreat away from policies they are currently promoting to increase the use of biofuels. Why?
Biofuels take vast amounts of land to produce which could otherwise be used for the cultivation of food. With world food prices now rising faster than they have done for 20 years, there is a huge risk that hunger will be on the rise again throughout the world. Is it really right to use valuable plants to power your car when they could feed people instead?
Deforestation causes up to 25 per cent of climate change gases. The Stern report pointed out that this must be an area for the world to tackle if we are to reduce climate change. But in Brazil and in other areas of the world, there is a huge risk that deforestation could be caused by the desire to cultivate land for biofuels.
Bad for sustainable development, likely to encourage further rises in the price of food and likely to increase deforestation – does not sound like a winning environmental policy to me. The US, EU and UK need to withdraw gracefully from their support for biofuels until such time as they can be proven to have a genuinely positive impact.