OT Top scientists warn against rush to biofuel

Gordon Brown is preparing for a battle with the European Union over biofuels after one of the government's leading scientists warned they could exacerbate climate change rather than combat it.

In an outspoken attack on a policy which comes into force next week, Professor Bob Watson, the chief scientific adviser at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, said it would be wrong to introduce compulsory quotas for the use of biofuels in petrol and diesel before their effects had been properly assessed.

"If one started to use biofuels ... and in reality that policy led to an increase in greenhouse gases rather than a decrease, that would obviously be insane," Watson said. "It would certainly be a perverse outcome."

Under the Renewable Transport Fuels Obligation, all petrol and diesel must contain 2.5% of biofuels from April 1. This is designed to ensure that Britain complies with a 2003 EU directive that 5.75% of petrol and diesel come from renewable sources by 2010.

But scientists have increasingly questioned the sustainability of biofuels, warning that by increasing deforestation the energy source may be contributing to global warming.

Watson's warning was echoed last night by Professor Sir David King, who recently retired as the government's chief scientific adviser. He said biofuel quotas should be put on hold until the results were known of a review which has been commissioned by ministers.

"What is absolutely desperately needed within government are people of integrity who will state what the science advice is under whatever political pressure or circumstances," he said.

The EU plans to raise the compulsory biofuel quota to 10% by 2020, but Brown is understood to be ready to challenge this plan. A senior government source said last night: "There is a growing feeling that we need to get all the facts. Some biofuels are OK but there are serious questions about others. More work needs to be done."

Sources say the government has no choice but to implement the guidelines next month because Britain is obliged under EU law to comply with the

2010 target.

But the report on biofuels, to come from the head of the Renewable Fuels Agency, Professor Ed Gallagher, may be used to challenge the more ambitious target for 2020, which is not set in law.

John Beddington, the government's current chief scientific adviser, has already expressed scepticism about biofuels. At a speech in Westminster this month he said demand for biofuels from the US had delivered a "major shock" to world agriculture, which was raising food prices globally. "There are real problems with the unsustainability of biofuels," he said, adding that cutting down rainforest to grow the crops was "profoundly stupid".

Britain will move cautiously in its battle with Brussels because José Manuel Barroso, the European commission president, is championing the

10% target for 2020. Barroso this month dismissed as "exaggerated" claims that biofuels can lead to increases in food prices and greenhouse gas emissions due to deforestation. But other members of the commission and other countries, including Germany, sympathise with Britain.

Brown was due to release a report touching on issues including biofuels, when he met Barroso in Brussels last month. But the prime minister decided that the time was "not right or ripe".

The prime minister made clear that Britain is wary of the target when he said last November: "I take extremely seriously concerns about the impact of biofuels on deforestation, precious habitats and on food security, and the UK is working to ensure a European sustainability standard is introduced as soon as possible, and we will not support an increase in biofuels over current target levels until an effective standard is in place."

Reply to
dbu
Loading thread data ...

Ethanol is subsidized, by the US government today, to the tune of around $1 a gallon today. Guess what will happen to the price of the fuel for you car if ethanol ever becomes the fuel of choice? LOL

Reply to
Mike hunt

Does it ever seem to anyone else that if we did everything "leading scientist" (at least the ones looking for grant money) said we should do, we would all have to go back to living in mud huts and grow our own food?

I don't think "science" was always so focused on gloom and doom. I suppose like in politics, the big payoff is in going negative.

Ed

Reply to
C. E. White

"C. E. White" wrote in news:47e95c51$1 @kcnews01:

That's /exactly/ what the nation of Bhutan has done.

There is an article in last Saturday/Sunday's Wall Street Street Journal on this. It starts on the front page, at the bottom.

Reply to
Tegger

What strikes me as amusing is that those who scream the loudest for just this always seem to want others to go first.

Their lives are far too important.

Want credibility, Ms. Streisand and Co.?, go first. Give up your jet, your cars, your high "carbon footprint" mansion, etc.

What? Not you?

KMA.

Reply to
witfal

"Mike hunt" wrote in message news:vridnXmcyYcysXTanZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@ptd.net...

I often see large numbers quoted for ethanol subsidies, but I think you are over stating the facts. From what I was able to find, the Feds provide a $0.51 credit per gallon of ethanol to companies that add ethanol to gasoline. Sources that quote higher figures for the subsidy are not being entirely honest since they include research grants and farm subsidies paid to corn growers as an ethanol subsidy. This is not true in any meaningful way. I grow corn and while I get payments from the government based on my corn acreage, the payments are based on historical acreage and not recent changes. If I planted no corn this year, I'd still get some payments. And until recently with corn selling near or below the cost of production, the subsidies mainly benefited the public by keeping the cost of corn low (most corn is still used for animal feed - even after it is used to make ethanol, the dried mash ends up as feed). Furthermore the payments have decreased significantly in recent years. I have no idea what they will be after a new farm bill is enacted (it is due now). What does bother me is the fact that it only cost about $0.38 more to make a gallon of ethanol than to make gasoline with the same energy content (about 0.87 gallons of gasoline), yet the feds are providing a $0.51 subsidy. Furthermore, foreign ethanol (mostly Brazilian) is much cheaper - it only cost about $0.14 more per gallon than an energy equivalent amount of gasoline. BUT, federal tariffs effectively prevent the importation of ethanol from overseas (but not gasoline.....).

It is unlikely that ethanol from corn will ever be the primary source of fuel in the US. Ethanol from cellulose might be viable. The US government has subsidized research into this process. But, anyone who looks at the facts knows that oil will remain the primary source of energy for transportation for at least the next 30 years.

Ed

Reply to
C. E. White

Hmm. In California we pay a total tax of around 75-80 cents per gallon at the pump. This includes federal of 18.4 cpg on down.

I wonder what would happen to the economy should the second-largest chunk of the cost per gallon just go away.

Reply to
witfal

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.