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
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
