Biofuels Nonsense...

[strogoff]

From BIASED-BBC, criticizing BBC´s global warmist alarmist Mark Kinver for an article on a new EU sustainability certificate for biofuels:

Quote:On the one side, the EU is doing what it does best - creating new layers of lunatic bureaucracy to "certify" that forests cut down for biofuel are not doing ecological harm. They proudly declare that their new laws are the "most stringent" (i.e. most repressive) in the world. Over in the other corner, those "environmentalists" (to the BBC, the most saintly group of people on earth) are yelping that - despite years of pressure to force biofuel production - they now think that cutting down trees by the million to do so is not a good idea. Mr Kinver, of course, reports it all without any attempt at balance.

There´s a lot of nonsense coming from each corner, but I would like to remark each "position" with the key issue (land use); looks like an insane dialog about completely different things:


Greenpeace:

Quote:As agricultural land is set aside to grow biofuels, pressure grows to cut down forests to grow food. The increase in European biodiesel demand could lead to the loss of vast areas of forests. The Commission is expected to make a policy decision over how to manage ILUC (indirect land use change) impacts by the end of the year.

Note that it is not the same whether food or biofuel crops are the ones to grow in the cut down forests. Biofuel crops are more profitable. Do subsidies sound familiar?


EU Commision:

Quote:Land is limited. Do you not need to cut down forests to produce biofuels?

The 10% target would require some 2 – 5 Million hectares of land, according to different estimates of the net land use change impact. The EU has sufficient amount of land previously used for crop production and now no longer in arable use to cover the land needed, even if all the biofuels consumed were to be produced in Europe. Also in other parts of the world, there are alternatives to fresh deforestation. In Indonesia, there are an estimated 3 – 12 Million hectare of land that has been deforested in the past and left to become wasteland. It makes sense to bring this land into use.

LINKS:

Greenpeace
EU Commision press release
Renewables Directive (2009/28/EC)

[Questioning_Climate]

The EU is run by lunatics so all you can expect is for them to create more lunacy, in their own image. Biofuels can never be a global solution, however they might be useful in certain situations. Possibly the most important point is that they are not necessarily 'clean' or 'green'. That is merely assertion from the propagandists. All energy sources have an impact on the environment.

With regard biofuels, probably the main issue is fuel versus food production. Of course this rapidly leads to rich/poor arguments and eventually to over-population, but let's try to stear away from that.

An interesting aspect of the EU agriculture laws - unless it has changed in the last few years - is that there are subsidies for farmers to grow nothing; to set aside fields and other areas for nature. Many farmers in the UK found it more cost effective to use this scheme instead of growing food.

[MostlyHarmless]

And I thought "biochar" was some eco-friendly kind of green tea......