Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Saturday, 17th May 2008 Change Date

Free A to Z of Scotland's Munros

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Brown sounds retreat on biofuels



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 23 April 2008
IT WAS seen as a radical solution to tackle climate change by reducing harmful gases from car exhausts, while sheltering motorists from soaring petrol prices.
But now questions about the wider environmental damage caused by converting farmers' fields to grow crops for biofuels have prompted a major government rethink.

Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister, said yesterday that the UK would reconsider how far
it was prepared to sign up to proposals for a tenfold increase in the use of biofuels by 2020, in response to fears this was causing a "world crisis" in the cost of food.

The doubling in price of rice and wheat has sparked riots in Egypt and Haiti, and led to a World Bank warning that 100 million people could be pushed deeper into poverty. And it emerged yesterday that price surges have seen grocery bills in the UK rise by around £15 a week in a year.

Since Tuesday of last week, 2.5 per cent of the petrol and diesel sold at the pumps in Britain has been bioethanol or biodiesel. Under European Union targets, this is due to increase to 5 per cent by 2010, and 10 per cent by 2020.

The UK's 5 per cent target is only half that on the Continent – and now Mr Brown has bowed to new scientific fears that biofuels may be doing more harm than good.

Total biofuel consumption in the UK is likely to be about 1.2 billion litres this year and 2.5 billion litres in 2010. Five years ago, it was only 19 million litres.

Yesterday, ahead of a Downing Street summit on the world food crisis, the Prime Minister said: "Now we know that biofuels, intended to promote energy independence and combat climate change, are frequently energy inefficient.

"We need to look closely at the impact on food prices and the environment of different production methods and to ensure we are more selective in our support.

"If the UK review shows that we need to change our approach, we will also push for change in EU biofuels targets."

Campaigners welcomed Mr Brown's prioritisation on feeding the world's hungry and recognising the environmental damage done in claiming virgin land for crop growth.

But enthusiasts for biofuels, such as the National Farmers' Union, say UK regulations mean all crops that are grown for fuel, such as oilseed rape, are sustainable – and have the added benefit of also being used as animal feed.

The government position will become clearer in June when a review will outline the "indirect effects" of biofuels.

But Friends of the Earth urged the Prime Minister to be bold and abandon the EU targets. Vicky Hird, its food campaigner, said: "Gordon Brown is right to be concerned about the impact of biofuels on food prices and the environment. Evidence is growing that they cause more harm than good. Food production must be revolutionised to prevent a global catastrophe.

"We must stop putting the profits of agri-business ahead of the welfare of millions of poor people around the world."

Norman Baker, the Liberal Democrats' transport spokesman, told The Scotsman: "It's quite clear the government has realised there is a problem.

"Biofuel isn't the answer. Biofuel, at best, was only ever a bridge. The answer, ultimately, is electric vehicles with renewable energy generation.

"Biofuels are displacing food production and, in some cases, the carbon consequences of biofuels are no better than the substances that they are replacing."

Garry Staunton, technology director at the Carbon Trust, said: "It's wrong at many levels to say we ought to grow crops to drive our cars, rather than to feed people. But for many years now, the planet has produced more food than it has consumed. Turning that surplus into fuel can now be achieved.

"But we are moving from converting surplus food into fuel, into a situation where there is direct competition."

Phil Bloomer, Oxfam's policy and campaigns director, said: "Setting mandatory targets for biofuels before we are aware of their full impact is madness. Not only are biofuels pushing up food prices, but they are also linked to human-rights abuses."

A Department for Transport spokeswoman said: "What the Prime Minister said wasn't about putting the brakes on biofuels. It was about making sure the biofuels we support in the UK are truly sustainable."

Global crisis sees staples rise by up to 130%

THE world food crisis has plunged dozens of countries into starvation and sparked riots across the globe.

The price of wheat has risen by 130 per cent in a year, and rice has shot up by 74 per cent. Millions of the world's poorest people are now facing starvation.

Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister, yesterday called for international action. Writing on the Downing Street website, he said: "The World Health Organisation views hunger as the No 1 threat to public health across the world, responsible for a third of child deaths. Tackling hunger is a moral challenge to each of us."

The UK government is to provide £30 million to help the 840 million people estimated to be suffering chronic hunger, while the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation says the food crisis has hit 36 countries.

Earlier this month, the World Bank announced emergency measures, including a doubling of loans to African farmers.

Economic growth has created a desire for more meat in China and India, so more corn is needed to feed livestock – again forcing the price up. Meanwhile, the soaring cost of oil has increased the price of food processing and transport. Added to this, climate change is resulting in floods and droughts that are destroying harvests. Last year, Australia suffered its worst drought for over a century.

Downing Street is hosting a meeting today involving scientists, supermarkets, farmers and aid agencies. Their aim is to come up with a plan that can be presented to the EU, G8 and UN.

Why the rush? Politics takes precedence as usual

A DESIRE to end dependence on dwindling stocks of oil from conflict zones has sparked the rush towards biofuels as much as environmental motives, according to experts.

Two years ago, George Bush, the US president, gave a State of the Union speech that declared the United States was "addicted to oil". He called for 75 per cent of imported oil to be replaced by 2025 by alternative sources of energy, including biofuels.

Professor Chris Rhodes, an environmental consultant, thinks Mr Bush was motivated by a desire to end the US's dependence on oil stocks from countries in the Middle East and other unstable areas.

Biofuels offered a way to sever the dependency and at the same time be seen to tackle climate change.

"However, if you grow crops for biofuel on land for food, you run out of land," Prof Rhodes said. "There's only so much arable land available."

Anthony Day, an author and climate-change expert, agrees and believes that in their rush towards biofuels, governments did not consider the consequences.

Struan Stevenson, a Scotland MEP, said: "It's clear now that the race towards biofuels has led to vast areas of rain forest being burned.

"We are destroying the air-conditioning system of the world."

Jenny Haworth

UK shopping bills up by £800 in just a year

FOOD bills for the average family in Britain have risen by £800 in a year, as the highest rate of food inflation for a generation drives up supermarket prices, it emerged yesterday.

A basket of 24 common items such as teabags and pasta sauce costs 15 per cent more than it did 12 months ago, according to a survey.

The supermarket price survey found that six pints of semi-skimmed milk are now 28p dearer – a rise from £1.68 to £1.96 – at Tesco, Asda and Sainsbury's.

The cost of a thick white loaf has gone up by more than 20 per cent, from 54p to 65p, at both Tesco and Asda.

Customers are paying nearly 50 per cent more for a dozen medium free-range eggs at the top three supermarkets, according to MySupermarket.co.uk – from £1.75 to £2.58.

A packet of fusilli pasta at all three has nearly doubled from 37p to 67p, the survey found.

Also in the basket of goods were cheese, potatoes, bolognese sauce and cornflakes.

The figures show inflation is costing a family spending around £100 a week on groceries an extra £15 a week, or £780 more over a year, reports said.

Demand for basic agricultural goods has led to huge increases in global grain prices in recent months. Those costs then pass on down the "food chain" to meat and dairy products as farmers pay more to feed livestock.

Johnny Stern, managing director of MySupermarket.co.uk, said: "The conclusion is that supermarkets are passing on a sizeable amount of the increased costs. The average customer cares about the products they need to put in their basket every week that they don't have any choice about."

John Bason, finance director of Associated British Foods, one of Britain's biggest food producers, said that wheat prices had doubled in a year and supermarkets would have to raise the price of bread again.

The figures are likely to increase pressure on the ministers over the government's official inflation level. Critics say that it fails to reflect the pain felt by shoppers.

Consumers are also being hit by rises in world oil prices. On Wall Street yesterday, crude prices hit record highs.

Higher food and fuel prices mean the Bank of England has less room to manoeuvre when it comes to cutting interest rates, say analysts.

Vince Cable, the Liberal Democrats' Treasury spokesman, said: "Rising food bills will hit families already struggling to keep their heads above water following big rises to many utility bills.

"The government must show more urgency in ensuring the current world talks on agricultural trade no longer drift hopelessly because of a lack of political will," he said.





The full article contains 1665 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

 
1

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 23/04/2008 00:26:45
'Rain-Forrest',? its not a 'Rain-Forrest' that that guy is cutting down in the picture,

But if this is the 'gist' as it must be, hence the picture,

Gordon Brown has NO Chance in changing the Guy with the dodgy hat and mask, intentions, Does He,?
2

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 23/04/2008 00:34:41
Infact Gordon Brown, better watch his own,..'heed'..,
With that enormous blade waving about! :-)
3

truthsleuth,

23/04/2008 01:05:53
Could not care whether GB loses his head or not this is a most serious issue whether you believe in Accelerated Climate Change or not.
At least GB has recognised the problem (caused by his predecessor) though whether for the right reasons or not will never be known.

Bio Fuels (for Bio Fools) were always suspect as a solution and were used as a 'get out card' for fuel oil based transport even then the petrolheads did not recognise it as such their minds being so fugged by having their heads stuck up their exhaust pipes.

The best way of reducing CO2 production was and is through the price of fuel but governments are so afraid of the 'mindless ones'.
Current increasaes in petrol costs are in effect a heaven sent methoid of
Reducing car use
Reducing road haulage
therefore
reducing congestion
reducing accidents
reducing consumption of limited resoources.

The problem is will GB &Co recognise the opportunity presented and take advantage of it

I doubt it
Petrolheads will of course also gain as congestion will reduce and they will be able to find a parking space.
Whether they will realise the opportunity to save on petrol consumption by reducing their speed and driving more thoughtfully is open for debate as is of couse the optimum saving by leaving their car at home.

4

Statsman,

Edinburgh 23/04/2008 01:15:40
3 truthsleuth

What is a "petrolhead"? Anyone that dares to drive anywhere occasionally?

Why don't you just admit that you are a communist that hates personal freedom?
5

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 23/04/2008 01:27:36
truthsleuth @#3,

The whole issue is about,..'Scaremongering' like the year 2000 and much, much more if you look back history!

'Scaremongering' makes the Person very Popular an Rich, we all fall for it!

As for,..'Global-Warming' and the likes, if you knew about these things, you would see there has been Plenty of changes in that department since our planet started, like the 'ice-age' for example!

Yes we caused that did we not,?

It is all a 'Nonsense' and the best way to gain popularity,

'Scare the People'!
6

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 23/04/2008 01:38:15
NONSESNSE UTTER Unalduterated NONSENSE!
7

Cammy,

Edinburgh 23/04/2008 01:54:39
Just for clarity, the picture above is of farmers cutting down palm plants that are used to make bio-fuel.

The rain forests are being increasingly cut down to provide the land required to plant palms. The logic is just about as stupid as you can get. Trees removing CO2 are destroyed, and then the transport and processing pollution of palm oil actually increases the world CO2 problem.

The only reason this "solution" was created was to try and reduce the demand for overseas oil. We could all easily reduce our energy requirements without any real major changes in our life styles. Just making a few smart choices will make a difference.

Unfortunately some selfish and ignorant people (examples above) are not thinking of the future of their children. Perhaps that's because they haven't had them yet.

If they already do have them, then we really do have problems with parents today.
8

eddie didimus,

choking in edinburgh 23/04/2008 02:09:44
Truthsleuth - glad to see that someone isn't sticking their head in the sand.

We (the human race) are intent on raping this planet dry of all its resources - fully focussed on our commodity orientated lifestyles as we squeeze our big fat carcases into our big fat 4x4s and squeeze through the Mcdonalds drive through.

Stop sticking your heads in the sand and take some responsibility - walk, get rid of your car, or at least just stop buying a new one every year -give something back!

Alternatively, just put it down to scaremongering - it's a lot easier.



9

Pilrig.,

Livingston 23/04/2008 06:12:28
3& 8 - office wallah cyclists who live and work in central Edinburgh, and of course they never go on holiday abroad .....
10

Pender Paul,

Pender Island 23/04/2008 06:24:39
Gordon Brown could have saved himself a lot of grief if only he'd asked me first! Of course bio-fuels won't provide a long term solution and who can be surprised at the agri-traders in their unceasing lust for gold driving up the price of all grains. Free enterprise in the form of the Seven Sisters has ensured enslavement of the masses to the automobile and attacks on public transit. On this side of the globe, and despite billions being spent, our public transit system is but a 10th of what it was fifty years ago. The awful truth is that the world can support only about a sixth of its present population, but the politicians don't want to tackle that one. Anything but strict population control is a band-aid.
11

Rulesbutnotrulers,

Federation, not separation 23/04/2008 07:29:37
Not all bio fuels are bad. Scottish rape oil hasn't (yet) replaced food crops. Wood alcohol from scrap timber is fine. Oil entailing clear fells of virgin lands and habitat destruction is bad.

However if Mexicans are starving because US corn now makes petrol, the answer is simple: Mexico must (as must we all) become food-self reliant, and swap its oil for corn flour.

Of course, the sooner we wean ourselves off such fuels the better.

We could also reduce our populations voluntarily before nature does this for us. (see Malthus).
12

Louis Catorze,

23/04/2008 07:47:41
#3...you perfect are you?

Using a bike powered generator for the electricity for your computer?

The computer that will no doubt not be made of oil-based plastic?


Hypocrite.
13

Unimpressed one,

23/04/2008 08:10:11
See many posters of the green persuasion are trying to deflect critism of the biofuel policy from one of 'tackling climate change' to being a solution to dependency of imported oil. Bottom line is if it wasn't for the stupidity of trying to solve the non-existent problem of 'climate change' in the first place, none of this would have happened. But this is typical greenie thinking. They did they same by banning DDT and look how many millions that lunatic decision killed. The same goes for windmills, anti-nuclear power, anti GMO....
14

itsmeisntit,

here 23/04/2008 08:22:02
#10 Pender Paul,Pender Island 23/04/2008 06:24:39

Excellent point paul ,the population is the problem , not this drive.Considering a good % of the worlds inhabitants are totally pointless & contribute nothing , something needs to be done about this - NOT more fuel/ foods productions its cut back time, people not plantlife....
15

talius,

DUNDEE 23/04/2008 08:22:07
food shortages last year wer caused by, bad harvests in France germany and England due to too much rain at harvest time, bad harvests in Ukraine Russia, Hungary Romania Bulgaria by too dry a summet, frosts in Argentina as cereal crops came into flower and drought in Australia. Do not blame biofuels. USA exported more corn last year in spite of producing more biofuel.
5% of the cost of a box of cornflakes is corn. The rest is marketing packaging and the supermarkets profit.
UK government were missing their targets on biofuel and this is a wonderful excuse to cop put. Ch1ef scientists who pander to the targets of their political masters and not to solving climate change should be ashamed of themselves and resign.
16

SimonW,

Edinburgh 23/04/2008 08:30:03
#12 It's fannies like you that are the problem.

You seem to think that unless you can live a perfectly 100% pure life then you might as well not bother.

We don't need carbon emissions to reduce 100% but we do need to reduce them.

Mony a mickle maks a muckle.

Change a light bulb or two, leave the car at home occasionally. Don't feel you've got to move into a mud hut and stop consuming anything, and unless you do you're a hypocrite.
17

Rulesbutnotrulers,

Federation, not separation 23/04/2008 08:35:33
Anyone else notice the Google ad attached to this story (well, it is on my screen), which is that Colorado and Alberta have more untapped oil than the entire Arab oil fields? It's shale oil, like West Lothian used to produce (and whose shale oil bings could be used to infill a Forth causeway instead of that overpriced and very limited new bridge).
18

johnwg711,

London 23/04/2008 09:07:28
It is a backward step to make biofuel from food crops or to displace food crops for biofuel crops. Biofuel, to be properly sustainable, should only be made from waste - which is perfectly possible.
19

11+failed,

the pans 23/04/2008 09:13:01
Bio fuels were just another blind alley we were being forced into by governments trying to placate the green brigade. As usual it was poorly thought through and the unintended consequensies were more damaging than the basic "problem"
20

The Strategist,

23/04/2008 09:17:20
If you wanted to replace 10% of Europe's fuel with bio-alternatives you'd need an area the size of Germany to grow the crops on.

21

Evan Owen,

Snowdonia 23/04/2008 09:17:57
How much "climate changing gas" did a T Rex produce? Enough to wipe him and his massive friends out?

That's the solution then, we allow ourselves to become extinct by ruining the planet.

Now let's stop bitching about a few watts here and a gallon there.
22

rare indeed,

Padded cell 23/04/2008 09:21:12
3 Have you thought about what the increase in fuel prices will do to the prics of houses inn cities? Many of the people travelling into cities by car now are forced to live out in the dormitory towns due to the fact that they can not afford to buy a house in the city. By increasing the cost of transport, public transport cost would increase also, the less well off in society are faced with another financial burden reducing even further their chances of locating near where they work.
23

Thomas the Tank,

Edinburgh 23/04/2008 09:28:30
#19 - spot on. Our Idiot Politicians just don't understand the 'Law of Unintended Consequences' as they charge around blindly, desperate to be Seen To Be Doing Something. An Embra Cooncillor once admitted to me doing exactly that. Biggest problem is that so few politicians - and the noisy green loonies they try to appease - have any kind of scientific background.
24

shivago8,

livingston 23/04/2008 10:27:08
Broon needs to retreat back to Queensferry,shut his door and gaze at the wonderful view over the bridges.
Maybe take that privilege away from him for the damage that he has inflicted on Auld Scotia
25

danielrober,

23/04/2008 10:35:14
Well done Prime Minister Brown and well done for the hard greens (Greenpeace and FOE).

The use of bio-fuels is one of the great sucesses of the 1990's and 2000's. This sucess was been started by the EU and the UK government. It has at last increased the pice of grain so subsidies can be dropped, investing money elsewhere.

Additionally millions of farming jobs around the world are been created to supply this fuel. At last a cash crop that can be supplied in quantities that will make a difference.
26

Farmernot,

oan ma traictor 23/04/2008 10:37:15
Its basic economic sense for goodness sake.....supply v demand drives pricing of all crops....replace food crops with biofuel crops and you create a shortage.

Seems to me that it was fine for all the "green" types to wax lyrical about fuel from crops without seeing the full picture....and now they backtrack. Small wonder that our politicians only look towards a "spin" agenda.
27

Prof,

23/04/2008 10:49:34
At one time Oxfam was a charity bringing much needed relief during famine. Now it has descended into a political pressure group allied with Greenpeace and FOE and increasingly the RSPB.
Seems a strange way to use peoples donations.
28

Allan(handofgod137),

23/04/2008 10:56:02
Time the countries whining about food shortages did something about their overpopulation problem.
29

AllyFraeEmbra,

Near the Castle 23/04/2008 11:11:37
#28 Allan - Difficult when the (more wealth than most of the combined Third World) Catholic Church still won't condone contraception.
30

AllyFraeEmbra,

Near the Castle 23/04/2008 11:13:42
#17 Morning Rules - only you could use a thread of the use of bio-fuels as an opportunity to flog your dead horse of a causeway. Nice tangent, dead idea.
31

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 23/04/2008 11:18:32
A return to form for you, truthsluth.

As far as you are concerned, the price of road fuel only affects those "petrolheads" who drive their private cars---heaven help them if they should actually enjoy doing so.

In fact, it affects EVERYTHING. Exorbitant fuel prices are one of the main factors influencing the constant rise in prices in other areas.

The price of road fuel in this country should be HALVED IMMEDIATELY.

The government has had ENORMOUS windfalls in extra duty because of the recent oil price rises and it is about time they gave it all back to us.

Regarding the article itself, is it really a surprise that Brown is listening to, and taking advice from all the crackpots and loonies? Isn't that what he has done all the time? Isn't it what this incompetant bunch of fools have based their policies on for the past 11 years?

It is about time we got rid of them, got a proper TORY government into power and relegated all the interfering, busibody, uneducated morons to where they belong---the butt of jokes.
32

Margaret L,

Edinburgh 23/04/2008 11:18:46
Green person playing chess - "I think I'll move my queen there.... ah so you've taken it with your pawn. I didn't see that coming."
33

PJ,

Edinburgh 23/04/2008 12:29:34
It was watching Sky news last week, in a study it mentioned that any benefits from the use of Bio-fuels won’t be felt for 843 years. It was also mentioned buying bio-fuel for your car could be more devastating to the planet than traditional fossil fuels, filling up with bio diesel containing palm oil is helping to destroy the Borneo's rainforests - one of the greenest places on Earth. The UN says the entire rainforest will be gone in 15 years, and the native wild orang-utan extinct in just 10 years so all this saving the planet tree-hugging is doing more harm than good.

Food riots in Haiti, Egypt, Cameroon, Peru, Guinea and Mauritania. The threat of malnutrition on a massive scale is looming and all because some tree huggers think maize, sugar cane, or other plant matter for bio fuels is far more important than feeding starving people. The grain required to fill the petrol tank of a family car with ethanol for instance is sufficient to feed one person per year. Assuming the petrol tank is refilled every two weeks, the amount of grain required would feed a hungry African village for a year.

But hey they are only starving, an entire village a year and sticking their in sand thinking that they are saving the world driving around with there bio-fuels. What hope is there for their children’s future

Regardless of how effective sugar cane is for producing ethanol, its benefits quickly diminish if carbon-rich tropical forests are being razed to make the sugar cane fields, thereby causing vast greenhouse-gas emission increases. In a study of 26 bio-fuels the Swiss method showed that 21 fuels reduced greenhouse-gas emissions by more than 30% compared with petrol when burned. But almost half of the bio-fuels, a total of 12, had greater total environmental impacts than fossil fuels. bio-fuel technology had been oversold by industry and politicians. It's clear that what governments and industry are trying to do they are trying to find a neat, drop-in solution that a
34

PJ,

Edinburgh 23/04/2008 12:30:31
continued...

that allows people to continue business as usual.

If you're looking at the emissions from the transport sector, the first thing you need to look at is fuel efficiency and massively increasing it. That needs to come before you even get to the point of discussing which bio-fuels might be good or bad.

35

G,

dudney 23/04/2008 12:49:06
As usual, the scientists are way ahead of the politicians. They have known from the start that growing food crops like sugar, maize and oilseed would not be greener than using petrochemical fuels and there was a well founded cynicism about how this would affect food prices...however scientists need funding and if biofuels was what the govts wanted that is what they got...However, petrochemcials are finite and biofuels still have great potential
2 or 3rd generation biofuels could use waste food, grass clippings or paper waste to make fuels - lets not make as big a mistake by throwing out all biofuel work because the food=based biofuels ahve proven not to be valid
36

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 23/04/2008 12:54:19
You make some valid points but consider this.

There would be more than enough food for the people you mentioned, taken just from the supplies that are currently WASTED and there would still be some left over after that.

The issue is not the food itself, but the transportation and distribution of it. Not to mention the significant problems of political unrest in many of these areas and lack of usable infrastucture.

The situation is far more complex than it is being made out to be by these campaigners. Unfortunately, everything seems to be dumbed down nowadays and the governments are perfectly happy to make decisions based upon a fraction of the facts, coupled with gross over-emphasis of minor factors.
37

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 23/04/2008 12:54:48
#36 was directed at PJ
38

,

23/04/2008 13:13:19
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
39

,

23/04/2008 13:13:51
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
40

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 23/04/2008 13:21:47
To anyone with a modicum of common sense, this was completely foreseeable. Brown blows with the prevailing wind it seems.....
41

Buckpool Loon,

Cheshire 23/04/2008 13:29:44
The burgeoning world population is the fundamental cause of the problem.

However the snake-oil Soros's of this world just see it in their own uniquely amoral way as a chance to profit in the commodities market.

These people are fundamentaly sociopaths. Completely untroubled by any social or humanitatian principles they are the most effective terrorist of the 21st century.

With enough funds under their control to potentialy bankrupts small nations and create crises in the larger nations, they produce nothing but manipulated profits for a small and equally sociopathic band of investors.

If there is to be any sociably acceptable solution to the world's problems, these people must be brought under control, and quickly. They are a malignent tumour on the face of this earth.
42

Displaced Scot,

UK 23/04/2008 13:36:29
No British farmer will be converting fields to grow Bio-fuels. Why because he growing the crops used for Bio-fuels already. Cereals Oilseed Rape and Sugar beet have been grown in both England and Scotland for a long time. What is not explained by your average journalist is that there are bi-products from these crops when they are used for fuel. These bi-products will end up in the food chain as animal feed.

Yes the clearing of rain Forest in south east Asia to grow Palm Oil is a problem, but British farmers are not to blame for that. British arable farmers grow commodity crops which are sold on the market, and if that market pays more for Bio-fuels so be it, as it will only be a small proportion. Remember arable farmers were required to put up to 10% of their arable area into Set-Aside and grow nothing, although there were many who grew industrial crops which did not enter the food chain. That has all gone now.

The British public has had falling food prices for many years, in fact the cost of the average weekly food shop was lower until recently, than it had been over the previous fifty years. What you are seeing now is a price correction caused by factors, other than Bio-fuels, which others have explained already.
43

PJ,

Edinburgh 23/04/2008 13:43:43
#36

Half the problem is people come out with these bright ideas without thinking of future consequences, or knock on effect of their actions. As they say to every action there is always opposed an equal reaction.

They live by the Homer Simpson school of thought that says “Oh, look at me! I'm making people happy! I'm the Magical Man from Happy-Land, in a gumdrop house on Lollipop Lane!” By that I mean, we are saving the planet hang everyone else.

It is sort of like the scenario of the switch to energy-saving light bulbs which are also said to be putting thousands at risk of painful skin reactions, health charities have warned fluorescent bulbs can exacerbate skin rashes in people with photosensitive skin conditions. It has been estimated about 100,000 people in the UK alone with these skin conditions will be affected, so Government and tree huggers alike are putting these people lives and health at risk especially as they are often trapped indoors because they can't venture out in natural sunlight. So what will happen to them as they are planning to prevent the sale of conventional bulbs by 2011, to cut carbon dioxide emissions.

New energy-saving bulbs produce a more intense light which can cause eruptions of existing skin problems, like eczema, and even lead to skin cancer not to mention exacerbate dizziness and discomfort to people with epilepsy in total that would effect 340,000 people. This would of course contradict many other policies of the government, including Disability Equality Duty, which came into force on 4 December 2006, and the Green Paper on Welfare Reform published in January 2006. But hey it is not of their concern so why worry, they don't suffer from it.
44

SeriouslyAmused,

Ayr 23/04/2008 13:44:21
On inflation, truly we are seeing now that the 'official' figures bear no reality to the everyday costs of living. Can we therefore please start seeing the media report the 'official' inflation figures as the Orwellian lies they really are - and with the utter contempt deserved.

Everyone knows the UK Govt is trying to con people into doubting their personal experience of (hugely) rising fuel, utility, housing and food costs. Why isn't this being challenged?
45

cgrant,

tyler 23/04/2008 14:12:30
I can not fortell the future, but I can read.
Revelation 6:6: "Then I heard a voice among the four living creatures, saying, "a quart of wheat for a day's wages, and three courts of barley for a day's wages, and do not damage the oil and the wine!"

This simply means that the poor will starve, but the rich will still have everything they disire.

The powers have truely become a one world government, though the people have not realized it. Instead of letting the market balance supply and demand, we have a "select few" making bad decisions for us. These decisions will always favor the "rich", and if a few million "poor" starve they say it is for the greater good. Some of you have stupidly remarked that killing 5/6ths or 2/3rds of the human population would be good for the planet. What if you are one of the unlucky majority that you think need killing off?

As to the One World Gov. remark just watch the news. Everytime one set of politicians takes up a cause, Such as "Global Warming", all of them jump into lock step. Isn't this kind of Orwellian?
Personaly, I am sorry that a "less that a genious" ex. vice president from the USA can make a statement and all of Scotland seems to jump on the bandwagaon with him. Scots are smarter than that.
46

A Scot in America,

23/04/2008 14:40:55
cgrant #45
Just keep your head in the sand and everything will be OK.......................until you drown in the rising sea levels.
47

OmahaSeamus,

Omaha, U S A 23/04/2008 15:58:56
In the USA it's about politics.

Increasing grain prices gets you the farm vote.
The use of ethanol in fuel is so inefficient the federal government has to subsidise it $.50 per gallon.

Starving people in Africa don't vote.

Orang-utans don't vote either.

I used to be proud to be an American.
48

Phil the Flooter,

Perthshire 23/04/2008 16:06:55
Oh.. I though the headline read

'Brown sounds retreat on brothels..'

Must get glasses.
49

pwd,

Hawick 23/04/2008 17:22:52
Next to be rethought must be the 3million houses proposed over the next few years. For a dozen obvious reasons we (the British) are going to need every square foot of productive land we can get our hands on. There must be a complete moratorium on any building which irreversibly takes away farming land.
50

Pilrig.,

Livingston 23/04/2008 17:34:45
How many of thsie goin on about overpopulation have mair than one kid ? If so, yer a hypocrite.
And of course they're duty bound by their argument to commit suicide.
51

The Strategist,

23/04/2008 21:16:32
Burn coal and collect the CO2... Then stick hundreds of wind turbines offshore and use the electricity to run electrolysers to produce H2 from water.

Take the CO2 and H2 and mix them in a big blender...

Bingo ... you have methanol which is a very old fuel but still used by the American Champ Car racing series because of its high octane rating.



52

bumpkin,

23/04/2008 22:55:16
The sudden demonisation of biofuels has been orchestrated by the RSPB,natural england, SNH etc, who dont like all the set aside being ploughed, and losing their nice £35k jobs.
The greenie gravy train has hit the buffers, and they dont like it.
Rainforest all over the world has been getting cleared for palm oil plantations for years, before the word biofuels was thought of.
Dependance on biofuels is inevitable, as the oil runs out.
Misinformation is everywhere. A ton of barley will yield 220 litres of pure ethanol, and 700kg of animal feed.
In 1810, wheat cost four pounds of gold per ton, or about one years wages, for 2yrs food.
With gold at $1000/oz, that is £32,000 pounds per ton, just above the average wage today.
I think you could say that wheat today at £160/ton is not expensive.
£160 represents about 2 days wages, for 2 yrs food.
The third world is starving mainly due to corrupt or incompetent regimes, ie zimbabwe.
Inapropriate food aid and cheap imports have bankrupted local farmers, causing shortages now.
53

Crewedaddy,

Cheshire 23/04/2008 23:36:11
We are agreed that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with growing any kind of biofuel as long as there is a genuine net benefit and rainforest isn't cut down in order to do it. Fair enough then, there are huge swathes of Afghanistan responsible for pernicious social evils ranging from petty larceny through to full scale war, the prosecution of which must be wasting a vast amount of money and energy. Grow biofuels in the poppy fields.
54

Richardinho,

23/04/2008 23:39:06
It is funny how quiet all the anti wind farm campaigners who said we could rely on bio-fuels instead are about it now.
55

Graeme M,

Australia 24/04/2008 08:44:29
You know, not to wanting to sound too soleful, the thing that worries me is the truthful fact the man shall be charged exorbitant prices for anything in the future, be it gas, or bio fuels. We are all wishing for better things, but its a case of putting on one's tin helmet and diving into the ditch.Battery car that get's charged at the house, up goes the electricity bill. And so it would go on. Our state government were actually going to charge us a tax on our own water out of our own rain water tanks. How would you be with that sort of theft?...It only lasted 24 hours, then they retracted it due to the row it caused. But never mind, they trebled the car speeding fines to make up for it. Believe me, one can win!...
56

Jayson Walker,

West Coast USA 28/04/2008 19:58:47
#51, methanol is a VERY TOXIC substance that, according to warnings on products that contain it "cannot be made non-toxic"! As much fuel as they spill "accidentally" into the environment, and given kids proclivity to taste things, I vote NAY on your idea. Besides, h2 is a fuel in its own right and its only combustion by-product is water (H2o). If you want to use the CO2, make carbonic acid with it. Case closed.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Features

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.