The big debate

[jonyee]

Should Government's be doing more to encourage the use of bio-fuels? Well both sides of the argument can be heard. In the pro-camp it can be argued:

1) Government sponsorship of new technology can benefit all and the environment
2) New technologies have historically received Government sponsorship so why should bio-fuels be any different (e.g. electric cars)
3) Investment in new bio-fuel technology can increase energy independance
4) National governments can encourage development and technological leadership for something with global appeal

The negative camp would argue:

1) Market forces should determine whether investment is made into a particular technology. Government intervention acts as an unnatural force leading to a distorted market which may not be sustainable without on-going support
2) Many argue that the increased use of bio-fuels has resulted in recent increases in commodity prices, driving many into poverty
3) The cost of producing bio-fuels (both financially and in terms of CO2 emissions) is possibly as much as its gain

Hearing the two sides of the argument, I tend towards the negative camp. This is not because I think we don't need bio-fuels, I think that bio-fuels will add all important diversity to a country's energy mix, only I argue against Government intervention in such matters.

Any market should be sustainable on a standalone basis and not artifically supported by Governments. For example, if the Government sponsored the technology, either through its use or development, sub-par technology may be used as under Governemtn support it is sustainable. Remove that support and it can be disuptive. However, if that support was not there in the first place, then technology will be allowed to develop to a time when it becomes sustainable in itself.

We have seen many parties develop the use of this technology. Most notablly the airlines. I look forward to seeing this technology being used but only if sustainable and with its environment credentials fully verified.

Jon

[chrispyduck]

I personally think government’s greed is to blame for most of the world’s problems. Call me cynical but I find that people want to gain more money, rather than help with more pressing needs.

I am a 1st year Environmental student and had to join this debate to voice my opinion. Annual worldwide military expenditure is over $1000 billion! I am unsure what the figures are for money put into health and education worldwide, but I am certain it is less. Why are governments putting so much money into this? They would not do it for the hell of it- land or a natural commodity (oil most probably) seems the only thing worth doing to spend this money.

Surely at a time when most people (and not forgetting the environment too) around the world are feeling the 'pinch' one way or another, I would of thought we could all live in harmony and work together to resolve the global warming issuse- biofuels are of course another way to reduce the global warming trend. This money could be put towards far better uses: educate people about the world, develop and invest in 'greener' technologies with the help of scientists who possibly have been educated with this money. I agree with both articles in the paper, we do need them but in a limited quantity running alongside a good proportion of renewable energy.

It is not only governments who should be blamed. Isn't it strange how as we all pay more for petrol, gas, food etc, that the people at the top seem to be getting richer and having increased profits? Like British Gas recently or instance. Fair play to them for doing so, but whatever 'green' policies companies may have, it means nothing if they cannot share the wealth- like buying an area of rainforest for example. Most companies will aim for profit, so if this means using cheaper palm oil imported (palm oil is mostly used for food- not biodiesel) or more expensive local sunflower oil which will they choose? More expensive locally grown beef or cheaper beef from reared cattle ranches from the result of rainforest cut down? Next time you are in the supermarket, look for the cheapest packet of beef going. If it says it is a product of Brazil then you know where that meat has come from with the added airmiles! I'd rather have that land used for growing renewable fuel rather than a 'one-off' area for feeding cattle, which is useless after a few years, so another area of rainforest is cut down. Biofuels may be bad in some ways but we also need to focus on other issues which collectively make this bad situation 'really bad'.

Sorry if this hasn't been mainly focused on biofuels, however we can't do anything effectively if everyone doesn't co-operate. If we work together logically, internationally and use each others' strengths I think it is possible to do almost anything.

[thatthing]

Who is ready to give away their car and not buy any new clothes until the old are completely worn-out? Or in other words give away at least half of the living standard.
There is not going to be world-wide harmony in environmental-friendliness. Poor people in India, China, etc. want to have the same living standard as WEurope and US. Clearly, it is not possible. If everybody would consume as much energy as avarage in US, the world would end tomorrow.
That explains the military expenditures...

[thatirishfella]

Brazil produces a huge amount of biofuels and yet this situation does relatively little to combat the crippling crime and poverty rates in the nation. Presumably they do it becuase it is helpful in some way to their economy and the environment - even if it is not immediately beneficial to the poor.

[jonyee]

I don't think bio-fuels are the answer to all of these problems. It was probably developed to help the farmers and to improve energy independence

[thatirishfella]

Yes, the farmers do well, but for people in the slums, the only way for them to make good money would be if they started to sell all the untended waste they live around (if some of them haven't already done so) to help make more biofuels. This would be good for the environment, but not for the people.

My point is that a government that creates proper sources of employment is better and more admirable than an ecocentric one.

[HansV]

I fully agree, governments should tread very carefully.

If you look at Solar energy in Germany you can see how easily money can be wasted. The German government wanted to be seen to be progressive when the coal mines were closing and decided to sponsor solar energy. This was done for ideological reasons rather than based on cost benefit calculations, as should be obvious when you think about the geograhical latitude of Germany.

The feed-in tariff applicable in Germany (the price at which a household can sell back its solar energy to the grid) is set at such a level that it is equivalent to a CO2 price of about USD 900/tonne when the open market price of CO2 is USD 30/t. That means that for each tonne of CO2 saved by having a solar panel on a German roof, 30 tonnes of CO2 could have been saved at the margin (by spending on long-life light bulbs or insulating houses better or helping African villagers getting efficient stoves).

It is very easy for a government to set its subsidies at the wrong level and thereby waste its scarce financial resources for global warming mitigation and thus push away further the day that we resolve this issue.

What governments should do, rather than subsidise the use of renewables (solar, wind or biofuels), is to stimulate research and ensure a framework exists where the economics of CO2 emissions are borne by the emitter. A successor to Kyoto would be the vehicle for that. Also, governments should accept that global warming is global and that it is therefore paramount that the money is applied wherever it has the greatest 'bang for the buck' rather that try to satisfy parochial national interests (both commercial and political).

[jonyee]

Interestingly, I understand that 40% of conventional power is required as back up for every unit of wind power. Therefore, it's also important to consider the back up technologies and ensure that they are efficient and 'clean'' as well