New study to force ministers to review climate change plan.
Official review admits biofuel role in food crisis.
Britain and Europe will be forced to fundamentally rethink a central part of their environment strategy after a government report found that the rush to develop biofuels has played a "significant" role in the dramatic rise in global food prices, which has left 100 million more people without enough to eat.
The Gallagher report, due to be published next week, will trigger a review of British and EU targets for the use of plant-derived fuels in place of petrol and diesel, the Guardian has learned.
The study marks a dramatic reversal in the role of biofuels in the fight against global warming. As recently as last year, corn ethanol and biodiesel derived from vegetable oil were widely seen as important weapons in that fight - and a central plank of Gordon Brown's green strategy. Now even their environmental benefits are in question.
A panel of government experts, chaired by Professor Ed Gallagher, head of the Renewable Fuels Agency, has said that far more research is needed into the indirect impact of biofuels on land use and food production before the government sets targets for their use in transport.
The first such target is already in place. Since April, all petrol and diesel in Britain has had to contain 2.5% of biofuels, a stepping stone towards a 2010 target of 5%. The EU is contemplating a 10% target by 2020. The new report means all those goals will have to be reconsidered.
A government official familiar with the Gallagher review said: "Simply setting a target without stipulating what kind of biofuel is to be used in what circumstances can have all sorts of unintended consequences."
Another official said: "The review has thrown up the likelihood of significant impacts. UK and EU targets will have to be addressed."
The report says there is a place for biofuels, both as an alternative to fossil fuels and as a source of income for poor farmers with marginal lands. But it says a distinction must be drawn between "first-generation" biofuels, which use food crops such as corn, rapeseed, palm and soya, and experimental "second-generation" fuels based on fibrous non-food plants which could theoretically be grown without displacing other crops and raising food prices. Criteria to guide fuel policy would consequently have to be drawn up.
It was unclear yesterday whether Britain had left it too late to influence EU biofuel targets, after the government failed to raise objections in a succession of votes in European environment and industry committees. British officials believe the issue can still be revisited in Brussels.
The transport secretary, Ruth Kelly, ordered the review in February, at the height of the food price crisis, but the panel only began work in March and was asked to deliver its conclusions three months later. "There was so little time, I expected it would just be a review of the literature, but it has gone much further than I expected. It has substantive things to say," said a government official involved in drafting the report.
The role of biofuels, which pits concerns over climate change against the need for food security for vulnerable populations, was the most controversial issue at a summit on the food crisis earlier this month in Rome. The US and Brazil, both large-scale biofuel producers, argued fiercely against any hint of criticism of their cultivation in the conference's final statement, which called only for "in-depth studies".
An American claim that biofuels contributed less than 3% to food price rises was widely derided. The IMF estimates their impact as 20-30%, and other estimates are even higher. Over a third of US corn is used to produce ethanol, while about half of EU vegetable oils go towards the production of biodiesel.
After the Rome summit, a British government team involved in the Gallagher review visited the UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) to consult specialists who had drawn up UN recommendations on biofuel use. They emerged saying their views were "identical". The FAO recommendations advised against a moratorium on biofuel use or the continuation of "business as usual" under existing policies, calling instead for a set of international standards to ensure plant-derived ethanol and biodiesel did not harm the food supply. Keith Wiebe, a senior agricultural economist at the FAO, said: "There is a push towards the development of these liquid biofuels that is in advance of our understanding of their impact. We need to know more about those impacts, before pushing too hard."
The UN's World Food Programme has called the food crisis a "silent tsunami" which is pushing more than 100 million people worldwide into hunger.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/19/climatechange.biofuels
INFOWARS.com
PrisonPlanet.com
PrisonPlanet.TV
WeAreChange.org
WeAreChangeOhio.org
Loading...
After initializing and parametrizing hundreds of unknown factors,inserting divergent proxy data and ignoring any difficult natural forcing factors,we ran hundreds of simulations until we obtained the results we wanted–an ensemble of meaningless projected results,which we then averaged.We utilized the liberally unprincipled component method to homogenize and sensitize this to produce a new hockey stick,which gave a very robust prediction (95% probability) that we are totally screwing ALL of you
1000frolly 5 days ago
basically what we do, is let every corporation compete with one another, but theres no government to tell them what to supply next. Its the company that launches the most commercials that gets there interest.
Regardless if mankind needed their services.
Armigo91 7 months ago
by corporations. I certainly agree that privatising a sector in our economy is a good thing. Only if a government specifically invest in 1 branch and then the other.
Anno 2011, we have dozen of corporations. One corporations (the richest) drills oil, and keeps doing so, and trade their shares for company interest.
The other company wants green energy, but has no private sector to battle with with other big green energy companys. Because there arent that many compared to gas/oil energy plants.
Armigo91 7 months ago
@supermarc26
For climate change I have only 1 advice, listen to george carlin.
Because your dead on right. Even if climate change is altered severely by our cause to nature then compared to the climate change without our pressence it doesnt matter.
We are the cause of the climat change, so even if climat change is a problem we first have to understand the biology and the psychology, and the happyness of mankind before anybody would seriously attempt on solving this.
Also the world is run
Armigo91 7 months ago
Oil will run out, in fact, Oil is already running out. there are 2 major oil fields in the world. If the united states didnt invade the middle east for oil, they would already be out of oil and face their depression as was doomed upon them.
That doesnt mean the oil isnt there. Its just to deep for even the most high tech drilling platforms to get it out of the ground.
Armigo91 7 months ago
people.
Do they survive mass starvation if they both physically and psychologically inadequate to be independant.
The reason the USA will have a mass starvation is because it has trillions of debt and no room to solve it in budget.
And all its citizens rely on oil, on energy, on wall mart, on public services. And without those services, they really are not up to face famine and nature.
Armigo91 7 months ago
will cause the USA, to stall multiplied to the debt they used to create their country with.
In other words, its rightfully obvious why people are confused to see big fatass, uneducated people to run the world super power. Cause the world superpower isnt powerfull, they just used methods to create periodical wealth.
Due to this unrealism, americans arent very tightly glued to nature, or being non dependant.
Many americans arent for that reason of betrayal.
30% of americans represent these dumb
Armigo91 7 months ago
The united states always was in a great depression, they just made it look like the opposite for 7decades.
in 1933, the united states left behind their economic depression. HOw? because that same year the federal reserve was created and printed money right away.
So if they already were in a depression in the 1930s, and the reason for solving the depression was printing money,
they in fact multiplied the severity of poverty, its just that the inflation thats been pumped into the system already
Armigo91 7 months ago
This is actually horseshit. Oil prices and the increase in high-calorie intake in formerly lower-calorie regions are the reason food prices are going up. Has nothing to do with alcohol fuels. The data does not support a word he just said.
Reticuli 7 months ago
stUpid.. how bout legalizing weed!
CEFD11777 1 year ago