Bye-Bye or Buy-Buy to Biofuels?

The debate about whether biofuels are actually beneficial to the planet continues to rumble on (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jan/26/biofuels.carbonemissions), especially as the EU is apparently going to force oil companies selling in Europe to incorporate biofuels into the petrol and diesel that they market. Even the major environmental action groups cannot agree, with 'Friends of the Earth' condemning the move and the W0rldwide Fund for Nature (WWF) applauding it. The basic problem (as we have seen in my earlier postings) is that, if one does a 'proper' audit of the environmental impacts of biofuels as well as their effects on the emissions of 'greenhouse gases', one gets very varied pictures for the benefits of different materials. The first thing to note, is that methanol/ethanol and biodiesel are competing fuels for internal combustion engines. A proper environmental costs versus greenhouse gas production benefits analysis seems to show that the worst biofuels are more destructive to the planet than petrol or diesel derived from fossil oils. Amongst the very worst appear to be ethanol derived from Rye or Potatos in the EU (with both a high environmental impact and greenhouse gas emissions similar to regular petrol), Biodiesel derived from Soya beans in Brazil (with their impact on the destruction of the Amazon rain forest that can be viewed as the planet's lung) and ethanol obtained from fermenting corn in the USA. The best biofuels appear to be less damaging than the fuels derived from the dwindling fossil oils. These include biodiesel obtained in France from recycled oil (and this is a bit dubious, given the fact that ultimately it is derived from fossil fuels), methanol/ethanol obtained by fermenting wood chippings (a waste forestry/garden product) and ethanol obtained from whey (a waste dairy product). What is particularly striking is that none of the biofuels obtained from plants grown in a similar way to food crops (including grass, sugarcane, sugar beet or palm oil) appeared superior to petrol. These, of course, will include precisely the materials in the EU that farmers will be keen to grow for their obvious economic benefits. I doubt whether the EU will attempt to distinguish between good and bad biofuels in the rush to be seen to be doing something about climate change. This sounds very negative but at least people appear to be thinking more widely about the whole issue of engine fuels and their true impacts. I suspect that the debate has away to rumble.