Biofuels switch a mistake, say researchers

Tristan Farrow | August 17

The Guardian - Increasing production of biofuels to combat climate change will release between two and nine times more carbon gases over the next 30 years than fossil fuels, according to the first comprehensive analysis of emissions from biofuels.

Biofuels - petrol and diesel extracted from plants - are presented as an environmentally friendly alternative to fossil fuels because the crops absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as they grow.

The study warns that forests must not be cleared to make way for biofuel crops. Clearing forests produces an immediate release of carbon gases into the atmosphere, accompanied by a loss of habitats, wildlife and livelihoods, the researchers said.

Britain is committed to substituting 10% of its transport fuel with biofuels under Europewide plans to slash carbon emissions by 2020.

"Biofuel policy is rushing ahead without understanding the implications," said Renton Righelato of the World Land Trust, a conservation charity. "It is a mistake in climate change terms to use biofuels."

Biofuels look good in climate change terms from a Western perspective, said Dr Spracklen, but globally they actually lead to higher carbon emissions. "Brazil, Paraguay, Indonesia among others have huge deforestation programmes to supply the world biofuel market", he said.


Raja August 19, 2007 - 12:04pm
( categories: News | Environment )

when all it's saying is that deforestation to provide biofuels is a mistake. Deforestation to provide anything makes the air more toxic.


"George Washington did not cross the Delaware for Capitalism," Shmuley Boteach

nymole August 19, 2007 - 2:15pm

The only folks who are going to benefit from biofuels are the large corporations like ADM. Some scientists say biofuels take as much energy to produce as they provide (fertilizer, costs of transportation, etc.).

jtruett August 19, 2007 - 2:23pm

...on marginally (if that) plausible programs such as ethanol. The real gains in carbon reduction just aren't there, when the cost of agriculture and processing is factored in.

In some respects, I have to agree with Robert Samuelson.

We're so afraid of nuclear power that we'd rather do almost anything else other than use it. Yet nuclear is carbon-neutral and moving toward EV, even for short-range vehicles would do wonders for air quality.

Solar is still a possibility, but it's not going to get competitive until economies of scale are brought to bear.

What the whole carbon-reduction/greenhouse-gas-elimination program seems to lack is a common focus. Were we to select one or two technologies to concentrate on, instead of playing around with unproven ones, we might be able to revolutionize the way we obtain our power.

Petronius August 19, 2007 - 3:54pm

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.