Mon, Jan 21, 2008 page6

• British MPs fear effects of biofuels

  BETTER OFF WITH OIL? Producing some biofuels could emit more gases than fossil fuels, some critics warn, and lead to the demise of rainforests to make room for crops

  • THE OBSERVER
  • • 
    • 
    • 

  Controversial plans to make cars greener by using fuel made from crops and animal fat will be thrown into doubt this week when British members of parliament are expected to question whether they will do more harm than good.

  Biofuels have been hailed as a green alternative to oil by some, but in the US, where there are massive plants converting corn, it has been criticized for making food more expensive and being environmentally unfriendly.

  From April, gasoline and diesel sold in the UK must have 2.5 percent biofuels, drawn from sources such as tallow, rapeseed and sugar beet, rising to 5 percent in two years' time.

  The EU wants to increase this to 10 percent by 2020.

  But the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee is likely to call today for the schemes to be delayed because of fears that biofuels can have negative consequences.

  Criticisms include claims that producing some biofuels emits more greenhouse gases than fossil fuels and that habitats such as tropical rainforests are being destroyed to plant the new crops. The report, Are Biofuels Sustainable?, is also thought to predict that rising food prices pushed up by competition for land could restrict growth in the industry.

  The committee's report follows a separate study last week by the Royal Society in London calling for strict controls on how biofuels are grown. EU Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas has also admitted that it might have been premature to press ahead with biofuels, which were fiercely debated at the UN's Bali conference on climate change last month.

  Groups representing farmers and biofuel producers have warned any delay could damage the fledgling industry at a time of intense competition from overseas.

  Clare Wenner, head of transport biofuels for the Renewable Energy Association, said: "The US won't close down [their industry], Brazil isn't going to close down, EU countries aren't going to close down, the emerging countries are not going to close down and the world is not going to have the example we have set because we won't be there."

  UK Environment Minister Phil Woolas said he had not seen the report, but defended the government's plans, particularly the requirement that in two years' time biofuels must cut greenhouse gas emissions by a minimum amount.

  "Even if biofuels are not as good as people claim, the question that matters is, are they better than oil?" he said. "The answer in most cases is they are."

  However, a moratorium would be welcomed by campaigners, who claim Britain and other countries have rushed into biofuels too quickly.

  Friends of the Earth (FOE), which said it could not comment on the report, is concerned that there is not enough distinction between good and bad biofuels and believes that there are better and greener alternatives.

  "We should be pushing for more efficient engines, smaller vehicles and better public transport so people want to drive less," said Hannah Griffiths, FOE's biofuels campaigner.

  Britain produces about 55,000 tonnes a year of bioethanol, which is added to gasoline, mostly from sugarbeet, and 75,000 tonnes of biodiesel, added to diesel, from tallow and rape, soya and palm oil. Two million tonnes a year would be needed to meet the 5 percent target.
• Most Popular

  • 1

    Police identify man who engaged in indecency at park

  • 2

    Taiwan’s GDP per capita lead fuels South Korean unease

  • 3

    McDonald’s to raise prices on select items from May 27

  • 4

    TSMC expects global chip revenue to hit US$1.5tn

  • 5

    Wildlife cam sex scene drawing copycats, visitors