Biofuels or Biofools?
There has been considerable debate about whether a way out of our dependence on oil is to grow a range of fuels (such as biodiesel). Strong advocates of this have been the Institute of Biology (Report Fueling the Future 3. Biofuels Consultation Response Document) which can be found on http://www.managenergy.net/products/R225.htm . It concludes that "Biofuel production could add value and diversity to agricultural enterprises and have a sustainable impact on the rural economy in many parts of the UK." It has recently been reported that the Bush administration in the USA perceive biofuels as being a means of weaning that country away from its dependence on oil. Ranged against such developments is environmental campaigner George Monbiot (running a campaign at http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/). He recently (27/03/2007 www.monbiot.com) argued that "oil produced from plants sets up competition for food between cars and people." He points out that increasing use of biofuels drives up prices for certain crops (e.g. maize, palm oil and sugar cane) and that farmers will respond to better prices by planting more , probably by "ploughing up virgin habitat." He also states that "Already we know that biofuel is worse for the planet than petroleum" citing a report from Delft Hydraulics (Netherlands) that biodiesel from palm oil causes 10 times as much change as ordinary diesel. Clearly this is a very complex debate (one has to factor in items such as geopolitical dependence, extraction costs, transport costs, spillage charges, payment of unemployed farmers etc). It is well worth attempting to look seriously at the range of arguments.
There has been considerable debate about whether a way out of our dependence on oil is to grow a range of fuels (such as biodiesel). Strong advocates of this have been the Institute of Biology (Report Fueling the Future 3. Biofuels Consultation Response Document) which can be found on http://www.managenergy.net/products/R225.htm . It concludes that "Biofuel production could add value and diversity to agricultural enterprises and have a sustainable impact on the rural economy in many parts of the UK." It has recently been reported that the Bush administration in the USA perceive biofuels as being a means of weaning that country away from its dependence on oil. Ranged against such developments is environmental campaigner George Monbiot (running a campaign at http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/). He recently (27/03/2007 www.monbiot.com) argued that "oil produced from plants sets up competition for food between cars and people." He points out that increasing use of biofuels drives up prices for certain crops (e.g. maize, palm oil and sugar cane) and that farmers will respond to better prices by planting more , probably by "ploughing up virgin habitat." He also states that "Already we know that biofuel is worse for the planet than petroleum" citing a report from Delft Hydraulics (Netherlands) that biodiesel from palm oil causes 10 times as much change as ordinary diesel. Clearly this is a very complex debate (one has to factor in items such as geopolitical dependence, extraction costs, transport costs, spillage charges, payment of unemployed farmers etc). It is well worth attempting to look seriously at the range of arguments.
No comments:
Post a Comment