Hi all,

Thanks to everyone who has joined the buzz of interest in this so far. As per my email of 16 October, I believe there is still time, and a way, to persuade the Government to stop the Council of Europe ratifying rising EU biofuel targets.

If you haven't already, please take 2 minutes to send the following email to your MP quickly - in most cases you can find his or her email address at http://www.parliament.uk/directories/hciolists/alcm.cfm - NB please go to their webpage for their email address, rather than using the standard emailing form.

I have shortened the suggested email and slightly updated it, from previous version.

Please only send to your own MP (unless writing to ministers, shadow ministers etc in that official capacity, if you indicate this at the top of a letter to them). Please feel free to personalise the email.

And please forward this to others!

Love and peace,

Jim



** make sure you insert:
- your MP's name at the top
- your name and address as indicated at the end, so it can be seen you are a constituent of the MP **



Suggested subject line: Please call urgently for review of economics of biofuels


Dear ..... MP,

Please will you call urgently on the UK Government to lead a review of the economics of biofuels, and considering the new evidence needing review, not to ratify EU biofuel targets now?

On 11-12 December, the Council of Europe is due to ratify EU legislation of its resolution in March 2007 to ensure mandatory 10% 'renewable' vehicle fuel penetration by 2020, most of which is expected to come from biofuels (part of the Renewable Energy Directive).

I am concerned that since March 2007, several studies have concluded that biofuel support policies are placing an inordinately high cost on our economies, for low/doubtful CO2 gains.  In particular:

-    An OECD report this July (http://tinyurl.com/69uzhq, view full report: http://tinyurl.com/3t9wdr) advised that OECD biofuel incentives were costing an exorbitant $ 960-1700 per tonne CO2-eq abated, even before the indirect land-use emissions are added (p98), and further, in 2007 biofuels used up 8% of world coarse grain production and 9% of world vegetable oil production, yet these sources only delivered appx. 1.2% of total world transport fuel energy!

-    A report by the JRC (EU Joint Research Centre) this March (http://tinyurl.com/688cog) advised:

that 'the costs of EU biofuels outweigh the benefits', in particular that achieving a 6.9% penetration of biofuels by 2020 was likely to cost the EU a net € 33 - 65 billion from 2007-2020 with 80% probability - even after potential benefits in CO2 savings and security of oil supply are counted;

that EU use of biofuels is currently likely to worsen CO2 emissions in the case of 'first generation' biofuels, even if we are choosy about where our biodiesel is sourced (p10);

that 'second generation' biofuels are likely to be considerably more expensive than 'first generation' biofuels even by 2020, and conflict with better ways to use biomass for CO2 abatement, so again potentially worsen CO2 emissions.

-    OECD food aid to the South has had to increase, both because more people have become hungry, and the unit cost of food to feed them has risen.

The above economic issues and findings were not covered by the Gallagher review of the indirect effects of biofuels. The Gallagher report briefly mentioned that higher food prices would worsen some national trade balances, but didn't say if this would amount to £ billions for the UK or EU, even what kind of £ quantity it would be.

So, please will you without delay:

(i) Ask what has been done to digest the above economic findings of the OECD and JRC, and the economics of increased food aid needed, and

(ii) Call for the UK to lead a review of the economics of the proposed EU 'biofuel'/vehicle targets, as well as the EU 2010 Biofuel Directive, with the authorship of respected economists, that compares with other abatement options, and, considering the new evidence needing review, not to ratify EU biofuel targets now?

Surely our economic troubles are bad enough as it is? The UK and EU governments should evaluate what the economic cost of the current EU biofuel target proposal actually is, using the latest food and oil price data, and not just risk blundering into causing further, unnecessary harm to the economy. The JRC report above concludes:

'The decision to specifically target GHG reductions in the transport sector reduces the benefits which could be achieved in other ways with the same EU resources'.

It pointed out that using biomass to replace coal, or make materials, abated emissions more cost-effectively. So, with money saved we could fund more true renewables, like solar, wind or wave energy, which often achieve 90% or more CO2 savings over a 30-year period, and require orders of magnitude less land to deliver energy than biofuels. Or promote fuel-efficiency measures that are even more cost-effective.

The OECD report above notes: 'Despite the rapid and substantial increase in crude oil prices… the cost disadvantage of biofuels has widened in the past two years as agricultural commodity prices soared and thereby feedstock costs increased'.


Increasing inequality and poverty?

The above analyses didn't evaluate the effect on inequality and poverty of higher food prices. These have turned many arable farmers into multi-millionaires, in turn benefiting some of their equipment and service suppliers, but this is at the expense of almost everyone else, in higher shopping bills (The Times, http://tinyurl.com/6ojraw). We can't afford to award every teacher, clinician or civil servant a multi-million pound bonus, so why do arable farmers deserve suddenly to be enriched like this, at most other peoples' expense? A government review of biofuel economics should also report on this.


Deforestation effects: more costly than the banking crisis?

The lead economist in a major EU-commissioned study 'The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity' (TEEB) has told BBC News (10/10/08): 'whereas Wall Street by various estimates has to date lost, within the financial sector, $1-$1.5 trillion [out of $2.8 trillion worldwide - Bank of England], at today's rate we are losing natural capital [from deforestation] at least between $2-$5 trillion every year.'

Amazon deforestation in Brazil has increased by 228% (i.e. the rate has more than tripled) since a year ago, largely driven by rising food prices, reversing past improvements (The Guardian, 30/9/08). The IMF (8/4/08) noted 'Almost half the increase in consumption of major food crops in 2007 was related to biofuels'.


Can long-term hunger be 'sustainable'?

The March 2007 Council of Europe resolution noted that the 'binding character' of the 10% biofuel target was appropriate 'subject to production being sustainable'. Since then, according to the FAO (18/9/08), food prices rose 52% to 2008 from 2007, whereas the number of hungry had already risen by 75 million to 2007 from 2003-05. This 'silent tsunami', as described by a World Food Programme spokesperson, is jeopardising Millennium Development Goals.

This year, small farmer harvests in the global South have been reduced by price hikes in mineral fertilizers, caused in part by demand from biofuel expansion (The Guardian, 12/8/08). This use is depleting the world's mineral phosphorus reserves faster, meaning an even harder future food shock for the world (The Times, 26/6/08).

Recent food price rises also have led to food unrest in many countries including Egypt, Pakistan, India and Yemen, thereby accentuating new geo-political threats, for very small oil savings (see OECD figures above).


Yours sincerely,




[...insert name...]
[...insert address...]

 

---

Click here for FREE customisable desktop wallpapers. Get them Now!