Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Warning over 'disastrous' green fuel production policy

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.

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: 05 January 2008
RISING production of biofuels is driving up food prices, one of the government's top scientific advisers warned yesterday.
Professor Robert Watson also claimed the trend was distorting government budgets and prompting deforestation in south-east Asia.

He said: "The way we are currently producing biofuels is not the way to go."

Prof Watson, who serves as chief scien
tific adviser to the Department for Environment and Rural Affairs, has previously worked in a similar role for the World Bank and in senior posts at the White House and with Nasa.

He told the Oxford Farming Conference yesterday that biofuel production from sugar cane in Brazil might be one of the only sustainable current methods.

He added that aggressive research and development was needed and it was possible that better technologies could be commercially viable within a decade.

Crispin Tickell, director of the Policy Foresight Programme at Oxford University's James Martin institute of science and civilisation, said US ethanol policy had been "disastrous".

Mr Tickell said more attention needed to be paid to renewable energy sources such as solar and geothermal.

"Biofuels have a role to play but only as one of a number of technologies," he told the conference.

Prof Watson said climate change in the short term was favourable for UK agriculture, lengthening the growing season, but overall would be detrimental.

"A changing climate overall is likely to be negative for the agricultural sector and demands a significant amount of adaptation," he said.

Some have cited genetically modified crops, such as new drought-resistant crop varieties, as key to adapting.

"Clearly it has potential but we need to look at it on a case-by- case basis," Prof Watson said.

He also suggested farmers needed to be paid for environmental services such as capturing carbon or helping produce fresh water supplies.

"Agriculture is more than production," he said.

Mr Tickell said there also needed to be greater focus on human diets involving more plants and less meat.

"We need to look at the healthy diet, which we have tended to abandon," he added.



The full article contains 350 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 04 January 2008 8:57 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Biotechnology
 
1

Unimpressed one,

05/01/2008 19:53:17
Typical f*ckup by the greens and the half-witted Tickell who was instrumental in promoted the flawed concept of 'global warming'. Every time, the greens pronounce on anything, they shoot themselves in the foot. Global warming - unproven to be caused by humans but the eco-bams want to cover our countryside with useless windmills and use food crops as fuels. Outcome - no solution to the non-existant problem, but our open spaces are littered with examples of industrial vandalism (which also have the potential to decimate raptor populations), increasing the rate of tropical forest destruction and contributing to world hunger. Christ, this level of stupidity and hypocrisy is completely astounding, even for the brain-dead greens!
2

The Strategist,

05/01/2008 22:11:07
"aggressive research and development was needed"

Yes but it won't happen in the UK.. The Treasury wants everyone else to develop the technology so we can just buy what we want when we need it and the financial institutions aren't very interested anyway.

3

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 05/01/2008 23:15:13
#1 Unimpressed one

Don't let a few facts get in the way of a good rant, Unimpressed, but it was George Bush and the Republican party in the US, not normally regarded as a bastion of green thinking, that pushed the damaging biofuels policy.

It is Tickel, along with many other green thinkers, who is opposing it.
4

Unimpressed one,

06/01/2008 09:27:01
#3, So biofuels were not dreamt up by the eco-loonies in response to AGW? Tickell didn't bang on about GW under Margaret Thatcher?
5

truthsleuth,

South of the Border 06/01/2008 10:57:34
#4 Unimpressed one,
Your contributions to this issue and the news article show the rantings of someone who completely ignores the facts when expressing their opinion. Still this is usual for the Petrol Head brigade.

The unpalatable facts are that Accelerated Climate Change is with us.
The only question is how do we reduce it or its effects.

The ONLY thing humans can do is reduce their impact.
Home use and transport are the biggest users of energy.
Of these I would choose to reduce my energy consumtion on transport by use car and aeroplane less and public transport especially electified rail in its place.
It has always been known that use of bio fuels was a mistaken way out of the problem But the motoring lobbies and weak government jumped at it. George Bush whose political funding comes from the motoring, aviation and agricultural interests backed it (of course).
The result land used for food production is turned over to fuel production and de forestation of the rain forests followed at an increasing pace.
The deniers, air brains and petrol heads (usaually one and the same) welcomed the perception of a Government that aimed to reduce pollution, CO2 production, congestion in the air and on the roads by removing the fuel tax accelerator expanding airports and building more roads.
The result increased demand for oil, result increased oil prices increased demand for bio fuels increased deforestation, increased demand for agricultural land increased food prices.
You have the choice AFFORDABLE FOOD or AFFORDABLE FUEL.
6

tomfrom66,

Thornton Cleveleys 06/01/2008 15:30:44
#1 Unimpressed one

Sadly, your grandchildren will be very unimpressed with that type of blog. They will wonder why this generation went shopping, ran up loads of debt, and bathed themselves in escapist TV, when the evidence was readily available but corrupt politicians had sold out to corporate-capital, and built more coal-fired power stations.
7

Unimpressed one,

06/01/2008 16:23:52
#4, #6, must be a wonderful and warm feeling to be so convinced that you are right concerning GW given there is STILL no proof that humanity is the cause. Hope you live long enough to eat your words when the new 'consensus' is that the sun is the cause of our 'problem'. Meanwhile, please don't insult everyone's intelligence by saying that the biofuels idea was instigated up by the car lobby. It's yet another misguided green c*ck-up, but then it's the norm for eco-loonie brigade who find the concept of logical thinking somewhat beyond their limited intellects.
8

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 06/01/2008 21:20:52
AHh, unimpressed one persists in not reading the reams of stuff that various posters have put up. Either that, or they are incapable of understanding them.

Biofuels was originally a minority green idea. Unfortunately at some point in the last decade the multinationals decided they could make a fortune out of it and started pressurising people, with the help of some misguided greens. The biggest winners out of the biofuels so far have been people like Archers Daniels Midlands, from subsidies and the consumer.

Other greenies like George Monbiot pointed out the dangers of biofuels over 3 years ago:
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2004/11/23/feeding-cars-not-people/

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


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.