September 12, 2007
Well, yes and no. Tom Stevenson is absolutely correct that the biofuel industry is a disastrous con, that it doesn't reduce CO2 emissions, it pushes up food prices, increases the pressures on currently unfarmed land and so on. It's an excellent example of the truth that if you think governments are going to solve climate change then you're obviously not paying attention. However:
Now, gratifyingly, the OECD has come out and said what many suspected all along. The biofuels revolution is actually a con. Filling up with recycled chip fat is damaging to the environment,
He's there actually pointed to the one time when biofuels are indeed an extremely good idea. Recycled chip fat....we can throw it away, feed it to the pigs or drive cars on it. That last is probably the highest value use. Making new chip fat to run cars on might be a silly thing to do but using what we've already got sounds great. Straining for a phrase he actually makes the opposite case he means to.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Biofuels:
You missed the best quote out:
"The EU, which plans to derive 10pc of transport fuels from plants by 2020, would be better off letting the market decide what is the most efficient way of cutting greenhouse gases. Trying to rig the outcome never works."
Posted by: Kay Tie | Sep 12, 2007 11:54:42 AM
Tom clearly got slightly infected by the Green delusion. I hope he has made a full recovery.
As Lovelock said, it takes 10x more land to power the car than feed the driver.
Gordon Brown still wants his pound of flesh for recycled chip fat. That is Gordon in a (dry roasted) nutshell.
Posted by: Roger Thornhill | Sep 12, 2007 12:59:51 PM