Biofuels criticism ignores wider picture

A scientific study reported widely around the world over the past week concludes that forests are much better than biofuel crops for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and fighting global warming. The authors, British researchers Renton Righelato and Dominick Spracklen, argue that “if your primary concern is reducing carbon dioxide emissions, growing biofuels is not the best way to do it”.

We contend, however, that any debate over the merits of biofuels versus reforestation or any other land use must take into account a lot more than the straight carbon impact – even when climate change is the major concern. There are a host of social and other environmental considerations that just can’t be separated out, just a few of which are outlined below.
There is little doubt that the rush toward biofuel production has caused some existing forest area to be chopped down to clear the way for ethanol and biodiesel crops. This problem clearly has to be tackled. The UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) chief Jacques Diouf committed just last week to pursuing an international biofuels treaty to ensure that native forests and food crops aren’t the losers in the rise of the industry. Let’s hope it succeeds.

This leads to the second point over whether producing biofuels is worthwhile at all. The answer should take into account more than simply comparing the net carbon impact. A wider examination of all the environmental and social factors weighing on the question would have to conclude that whether reforestation or biofuels is the right land use for a particular area will also depend very much on the local conditions and the national setting the land and its people are in. Diouf underlined the FAO’s belief that biofuel production holds great potential to reduce hunger and poverty in poor countries – if done sustainably and world trade reform is undertaken.

Carbon Positive