Despite evidence of the harmful effects of biofuel expansion, the British and European Governments are pushing ahead with legislation to increase biofuel use particularly in transport. I was sufficiently agitated by this development to instigate discussion with my MP and MEP.The correspondence began with a standard letter produced by the biofuelwatch ‘take action’ page. I was impressed that my MEP wrote back and so took the opportunity to engage in more personal dialogs in the form of the following text:

* * * * *

Dear Richard Corbett, many thanks for taking the time to reply to me on the subject of biofuels and the RTFO.

Despite your assurances I am concerned that the British and European Parliaments are mistaken in promoting biofuels as a measure to reduce CO2 emissions. Legislation designed to increase biofuel use in transport seems designed to ease our conscience whilst allowing us to continue with business as usual.

I am working on conservation related projects in Malaysia at the moment and am seeing first hand the effect that rising demand for biofuel feedstock is having on land use policies here. We know that growing biofuels is less effective at reducing CO2 than conserving or replanting rainforest Science 17th August 2007) so why is Britain and Europe promoting CO2 reduction policies that create an economic incentive to clear more rainforest?

These policies are also having a negative effect on the environment at home in Europe, where our set-aside land has been an early casualty. If as Peter Kendall (president of the National Farmers’ Union) has suggested, we plant all Britain’s set-aside with Oil See Rape for biofuels, we risk compromising land that is a last refuge for biodiversity and provides valuable eco-system services such as flood mitigation.

I hope that you can see how obvious this policy mistake is and help to argue for meaningful reductions in transport emissions through policies which will reduce the overall volume of transport. Examples which I support are congestion charging and high fuel efficiency targets.

Doubtless detractors will point at the economic cost of these measures but we need to face up to the fact that tackling climate change is going to cost us. However as The Stern Report has convincingly concluded; the cost of tackling it will not be nearly as high as the cost of not tackling it.

Yours Sincerely

Ian Hall

* * * * *

Dear Ian Hall,

thank you for your well-put arguments. In my view, it reinforces the case for being very careful with biofuel but not for ruling it out entirely.

Best wishes,

Richard Corbett MEP
Labour Member of the European Parliament for Yorkshire and Humber

* * * * *

Related Posts