More criticism for biofuel subsidies

The £550m that the government spends annually on biofuel subsidies would be better spent trying to stop the destruction of rainforests and peat land, the think tank Policy Exchange has said.

Despite an assurance by transport secretary Ruth Kelly that Britain would slow its adoption of biofuels because there were “increasing questions” about them, under legislation driven by an EU directive, by 2010, 5 per cent of all ethanol and diesel sold in Britain will come from crops including corn, sugarcane and rapeseed.

The Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation (RTFO) is designed to cut up to three million tons of CO₂ emissions each year, but Policy Exchange said investing in the protection of peat land or rainforests could result in a “50 times greater amount of avoided emission” because trees and peat land remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

The ETA believes a distinction must be drawn between first-generation biofuels, which use food crops such as corn, rapeseed, palm and soya, and the currently experimental second-generation fuels based on fibrous non-food plants which could be grown without displacing other crops and raising food prices.

A spokesperson for the Environmental Transport Association (ETA) said: “Tax the producers of carbon dioxide and other climate change gases, and changes will occur faster than if government tries to second guess future technologies and personal taste. Biofuel could be a false dawn but in a future guise it could be great – just tax what we know to be bad and the good will flow from the results.

The impact of deforestation

Related article:
Biofuel targets will stay

What is the ETA?

The ETA is a not-for-profit ethical organisation providing motorists and cyclists with carbon-neutral breakdown cover and insurance products. As well as encouraging responsible driving to reduce carbon, the ETA campaigns for sustainable transport.