At first glance, it's sounds like a perfect solution to the damage caused by fossil fuels: we replace polluting oils made from dead plants and animals with newer, greener ones that run on the cleaner carbon found in living plants - and carry on the car-reliant lifestyle we're used to. Who would have thought such a noble idea could turn so ugly?
Pat Thomas, writing in the Ecologist recently pointed out that if something sounds too good to be true, it probably is, and the biofuels question seems to be a case in point for this old adage.
There are all sorts of reasons why designating land to produce fuel is morally suspect, but George Monbiot in the Guardian put it in its starkest and most worrying terms when he argued that 'oil produced from plants sets up competition between cars and people. People - and the environment - will lose.' There is already evidence to back up his fears: in just a year, the price of maize has doubled, the price of wheat has reached a ten-year high due to the sudden demand for ethanol, which is made from these crops. The rise in value of palm oil is also having devastating effects on plants and wildlife.
So how concerned are you about this supposedly 'green' initiative that are getting governments around the globe so excited, yet is already leaving visible destruction in its wake? Is it worth sacrificing wildlife and risking famine for the less-polluting properties of biofuel, in a world where many people would never give up their reliance on the car? Would you like to see effort being put into alternative sources of green energy, or into changing our lifestyles completely?
Biofuels are a great idea if surplus crops are turned into non-degradeable fuels. They're a terrible idea if large swathes of Brazilian rain forest are cleared to plant corn to make ethanol. That utterly defeats the purpose.
While I can see it would be nice for cars not to be brought in opposition with people, Monbiot is being a simplistic ass as usual: its already the case. Does the government spend money on roads or schools? Is spare land used to build parks or motorways? Do I buy petrol for my car or send charitable donations to Africa? Is oil extracted in Nigeria sold cheaply to the west by a Western country, or sold for a profit to the benefit of Nigeria? Etc.
Let's see, out here in the midwest there's been a decline in farmland, farms being sold for mcmansion developments or strip malls.
So right, let's not go for biofuel, let's have more farmland sold and turned into Walmarts and Home Depots and stick some more giant homes on small lots.
It's a better use of the land, don't you think? It's not as if forests are being torn down here, this would save existing farmland. And they are trying to develop new and improved ways to make the biofuels, using the waste materials, using as much as possible for as many uses as possible.
I'd rather look at acres of corn and soy than another cul de sac of boring houses with no landscaping of any worth, or another boxy big store.
Be selective of the biolfuels you support. If they are tearing down rainforests to do so, speak out! If they are preserving farmland, instead of turning it over for development, then think about supporting that. There CAN be a middle ground.
Have to agree with both of you that it seems a shame to dismiss the entire proposal under the (perhaps cynical) assumption that governments will ignore the risks and every company involved will necessarily be morally corrupt. I think we're in danger of overlooking the benefits, and to deny that they exist would be idiotic. I'd prefer if there were some serious research going into how to do the whole thing sustainably. Otherwise, might it just be a missed opportunity?
Now Dubya and his mate Lula have got so into the biofuels idea it is easy to see why people are worried though.
Why do people always talk about growing crops for biofuel but ignore the aspect of recycling used oils from restaurants etc for use in vehicles?
I suppose Biodiesel could just have some sort of 'fair trade' type label so we all know it comes from a sustainable source. It would be great if the UK could use it worthless farmland to grow biodiesel rather than as a sink for EU subsidies. England would then have homegrown fuels and not have to go fighting in the middle east and supporting corrupt African regimes to secure its oil. Aces.
If you look at highly energy efficient countries, (e.g Sweden, Denmark...) that incinerate their waste in power stations rather than throwing it on landfills, they are (so to speak) already using all the biofuels they have available. Even so, they also need fossil fuels to cover their energy needs.
This planet's annual biomass production is less than humanity's total food + energy consumption. If we were to cover the world's current energy consumption with biofuels, there wouldn't be enough food for everyone. Using waste materials and planting crops on derelict land won't produce anywhere near enough fuel to replace fossil fuels. Perhaps biofuels can cover a small part of what we need, but it won't save us from reducing our consumption in this part of the world.
Our way of life is not sustainable and we have no miracle solution to solve this. It's that simple.