"EU DISCOVERING BIOFUELS ARE NO SOLUTION!!"

Yup........Biofuels take More Energy and Pollute More to Produce than

they're worth........Donchaknow.............

http://tinyurl.com/2wsyrh

"26 January 2008

Storm breaking on the rush to biofuels

ANDREW BOSWELL

On Monday, a committee of MPs, the Environmental Audit Committee

(EAC), published a hard hitting report called 'Are Biofuels

Sustainable?'. Their answer for current biofuels was a resounding

'No!'.

This may seem strange when biofuels have been promoted by government

and industry in recent years as a way to help in the battle against

climate change. Indeed, many people initially thought it sounded a

good idea to substitute some petrol or diesel with a fuel processed

from a crop as plants absorb carbon dioxide when they grow, and so

biofuels should save carbon emissions.

However, it soon became apparent it is not this simple, and that

biofuel growing and processing can have many negative impacts. This

column first predicted four years ago that these problems had not been

properly analysed, and a storm was brewing as Europe rushed to

biofuels.

This storm finally broke on Monday with the MPs' report calling for a

delay, or moratorium, on the Governments biofuel targets because some

biofuels emit more greenhouse gases than fossil fuels, and carbon

sinks and rainforests are being destroyed in order to grow crops. The

report states that current UK and EU policy is misguided.

Concerns belatedly started to reach the top of the EU last week when

Environment Commissioner, Stavros Dimas, admitted that they 'had not

foreseen all the problems' that EU biofuels policy would cause. And

just the previous week, Louis Michel, the EU Development Commissioner

stated that he agreed that governments should impose an international

moratorium on increasing biofuel targets because of the impact that

growing crops for fuel has on food security in the poorest countries

(see http://www.oneworldcolumn.org/180.html ).

Despite this split at the top, the Commission went ahead this

Wednesday and published its draft EU Renewable Energy Directive that

calls for at least 10% of biofuels at the pump by 2020 - a V-sign to

the UK MPs and numerous other recent warnings on the environmental and

social damage. This also shows a total disrespect to a wide coalition

of civil society groups from South, representing those suffering most

from the policy, who have consistently called, for over a year, for

the target to be scrapped.

Democratic process was hard to spot here when UK biofuel targets,

forcing all UK motorists to buy biofuels from April 15th, were set

last October. Now biofuel issues are socially and scientifically

complex, and involve complicated data about greenhouse gas balances,

land displacement, food security, human rights. It is not possible

even for those closest to the debate to keep up with everything. So

you would think that MPs who have to decide on the targets for the

policy would be well briefed and have plenty of warning. Think again!

17 MPs on a special House of Commons committee called a Delegations

Committee made the decision after being chosen by an arcane procedure

in the previous week that did not include informing the MPs

themselves. I was surprised when I emailed the committee chair on the

Saturday and he responded that it was the first he knew that he was

chairing it.

Subsequently, I spoke to several MPs prior to their debate on the

following Tuesday. It was clear they felt inadequately prepared, one

telling me that they only found out that they were on the Committee at

8pm on the Monday night. By law, councillors have to receive committee

papers at least 5 working days ahead. It beggars belief that MPs were

expected to make important decisions on such an intricate issue with,

effectively, no notice.

The MPs felt rushed and Westminster cracks appeared when no opposition

party MPs voted for the targets: it only passed as Labour MPs, some

grudgingly, toed the Government line. This unease has turned to revolt

with this week's report.

It is, of further concern, that the targets were passed after Junior

Transport minister, Jim Fitzpatrick told the October Committee that he

had "demonstrated that that is not the case" that biofuels development

could lead to starvation and poverty. Yet he had been sent evidence

that contradicted his amazing claim - evidence that emerged from many

sources during 2007 including the WTO, OECD, and the UN. Later on 27th

November when giving evidence to the EAC, he had apparently changed

his mind as he told the EAC that 'the Government is concerned about

the issue of food security'.

After this week's report, it is now time that Mr Fitzpatrick and his

boss Ruth Kelly came clean. They must respond to the EAC report and

abandon their targets to force motorists to consume rainforest

destruction, starvation and climate chaos from April Biofools Day

(April 15th)."

OH NO....Stop your slowest brain Yak....

<theloneranger100@aol.com> wrote in message

news:7e45987a-e40b-4d6a-b2f1-a920898dc452@q21g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...

> Yup........Biofuels take More Energy and Pollute More to Produce than

> they're worth........Donchaknow.............

>

> http://tinyurl.com/2wsyrh

>

> "26 January 2008

> Storm breaking on the rush to biofuels

>

> ANDREW BOSWELL

>

> On Monday, a committee of MPs, the Environmental Audit Committee

> (EAC), published a hard hitting report called 'Are Biofuels

> Sustainable?'. Their answer for current biofuels was a resounding

> 'No!'.

>

> This may seem strange when biofuels have been promoted by government

> and industry in recent years as a way to help in the battle against

> climate change. Indeed, many people initially thought it sounded a

> good idea to substitute some petrol or diesel with a fuel processed

> from a crop as plants absorb carbon dioxide when they grow, and so

> biofuels should save carbon emissions.

>

> However, it soon became apparent it is not this simple, and that

> biofuel growing and processing can have many negative impacts. This

> column first predicted four years ago that these problems had not been

> properly analysed, and a storm was brewing as Europe rushed to

> biofuels.

>

> This storm finally broke on Monday with the MPs' report calling for a

> delay, or moratorium, on the Governments biofuel targets because some

> biofuels emit more greenhouse gases than fossil fuels, and carbon

> sinks and rainforests are being destroyed in order to grow crops. The

> report states that current UK and EU policy is misguided.

>

> Concerns belatedly started to reach the top of the EU last week when

> Environment Commissioner, Stavros Dimas, admitted that they 'had not

> foreseen all the problems' that EU biofuels policy would cause. And

> just the previous week, Louis Michel, the EU Development Commissioner

> stated that he agreed that governments should impose an international

> moratorium on increasing biofuel targets because of the impact that

> growing crops for fuel has on food security in the poorest countries

> (see http://www.oneworldcolumn.org/180.html ).

>

> Despite this split at the top, the Commission went ahead this

> Wednesday and published its draft EU Renewable Energy Directive that

> calls for at least 10% of biofuels at the pump by 2020 - a V-sign to

> the UK MPs and numerous other recent warnings on the environmental and

> social damage. This also shows a total disrespect to a wide coalition

> of civil society groups from South, representing those suffering most

> from the policy, who have consistently called, for over a year, for

> the target to be scrapped.

>

> Democratic process was hard to spot here when UK biofuel targets,

> forcing all UK motorists to buy biofuels from April 15th, were set

> last October. Now biofuel issues are socially and scientifically

> complex, and involve complicated data about greenhouse gas balances,

> land displacement, food security, human rights. It is not possible

> even for those closest to the debate to keep up with everything. So

> you would think that MPs who have to decide on the targets for the

> policy would be well briefed and have plenty of warning. Think again!

>

> 17 MPs on a special House of Commons committee called a Delegations

> Committee made the decision after being chosen by an arcane procedure

> in the previous week that did not include informing the MPs

> themselves. I was surprised when I emailed the committee chair on the

> Saturday and he responded that it was the first he knew that he was

> chairing it.

>

> Subsequently, I spoke to several MPs prior to their debate on the

> following Tuesday. It was clear they felt inadequately prepared, one

> telling me that they only found out that they were on the Committee at

> 8pm on the Monday night. By law, councillors have to receive committee

> papers at least 5 working days ahead. It beggars belief that MPs were

> expected to make important decisions on such an intricate issue with,

> effectively, no notice.

>

> The MPs felt rushed and Westminster cracks appeared when no opposition

> party MPs voted for the targets: it only passed as Labour MPs, some

> grudgingly, toed the Government line. This unease has turned to revolt

> with this week's report.

>

> It is, of further concern, that the targets were passed after Junior

> Transport minister, Jim Fitzpatrick told the October Committee that he

> had "demonstrated that that is not the case" that biofuels development

> could lead to starvation and poverty. Yet he had been sent evidence

> that contradicted his amazing claim - evidence that emerged from many

> sources during 2007 including the WTO, OECD, and the UN. Later on 27th

> November when giving evidence to the EAC, he had apparently changed

> his mind as he told the EAC that 'the Government is concerned about

> the issue of food security'.

>

> After this week's report, it is now time that Mr Fitzpatrick and his

> boss Ruth Kelly came clean. They must respond to the EAC report and

> abandon their targets to force motorists to consume rainforest

> destruction, starvation and climate chaos from April Biofools Day

> (April 15th)."

OH NO....Stop your slowest brain Yak....