From Jim Roland
Nicholas Stern calls for support for the development and “scaling-up” of second-generation biofuels, “which do not directly affect food production” (24 January, p 26). Assuming such biofuels were only made from crop and forestry wastes and sundry biomass crops, this is in most cases a gross misuse of woody biomass compared with direct burning, for example, as a substitute for coal.
Doing this usually abates far more emissions and does so more cost-effectively. Most second-generation biofuels would stand no chance in the free carbon market that he advocates, even less than would most of the first-generation biofuels.
Has Stern read the OECD’s 2008 Economic Assessment of Biofuel Support Policies?
The human and ecological harm now arising through the exploitation of marginal lands for biofuels could make last century’s World Bank-funded dams look like millponds.
Advertisement
We could rig subsidies in favour of “second-generation” biofuels – and hope to lessen the damaging externalities – or we can abolish mandated levels of biofuel use altogether for the common good of the environment, the poor and the economy.
London, UK
