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.

Posted by: Rick | March 28, 2007 4:00 PM

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.

Posted by: Anna | March 28, 2007 4:10 PM

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.

Posted by: Abi | March 28, 2007 4:35 PM

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?

Posted by: Nikki | March 28, 2007 5:35 PM

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.

Posted by: Rick | March 28, 2007 6:17 PM

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.

Posted by: Mr.B | March 29, 2007 9:25 PM