I write this on the day the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation (RTFO) becomes law. Fuel sold at roadside pumps must now contain 2.5% biofuel, by 2010 that must be 5%. The move was dreamt up by environmental enthusiasts to tackle the "climate change emergency" and, at first, many green groups supported it. Although tailpipe emissions of CO2 from biofuel are around the same as those for petrol, it is a renewable fuel that takes CO2 from the atmosphere as it grows. Politicians were enthusiastic, though it must be suspected less to cut emissions than to give us greater energy security through growing our own supplies.
But then the consequences of this enthusiasm became clear and politicians and environmental groups began to panic. A year ago, people realised that the Orangutan, the cuddly icon of the natural world, was being driven to extinction by forest clearance for food and biofuels. Rain forests are being burnt, spewing CO2 up into the atmosphere, negating any saving from the biofuels that are planted. Some recent studies even suggest that biofuel from crops like maize takes 30% more energy to make than the finished fuel produces. And crops are being diverted to make energy as the world's population swells, resulting in rapidly rising prices for foodstuffs. The price of our energy security is proving to be hunger, and as food riots spread, political instability is inevitably following.
Our government is beginning to have second thoughts but is adopting a wait and see approach. The European Union is defiant and says there is no question of suspending the impending Europe-wide biofuels target. Far be it for a sense of humanity and concern for the natural world to impede another regulation from Brussels. But separating the wheat from the chaff in the energy debate is not straightforward. Promoters of new schemes are talking up the benefits and closing their eyes to adverse environmental and social costs. Protestors against proposals seek out the undesirable consequences, but too often exaggerate them.
By the time you read this, a decision will have been made on the biomass plant at Bishops Castle, where claim and counter claim have reached fever pitch. Frankly, the claims on billboards outside Harry Tuffins that the plant will cause cancer do not pass muster. This does not mean we should be unconcerned. The plant is likely to burn short rotation coppice willow and elephant grass that will be grown on local fields. These monocultures will industrialise parts of the gentle Shropshire landscapes that we and the tourists love. Bioenergy crops provide little sustenance for wild plants and ground nesting birds, and their monotonous acres make for boring walking. South Shropshire could be a less attractive destination and place to live as a result.
There are other problems with the biomass proposal and overall it fails "to show any environmental and social impacts have been minimised", a key requirement of the government's renewable energy planning rules. The planning application should be rejected. But local authorities are keen to be seen to be green and government rules make it hard to reject anything these days, so no one should be surprised if the application sails through without any real analysis of the consequences. It was the lack of analysis of consequences that got us into the biofuel mess, where people go hungry and the natural world is decimated so that we can keep our gas-guzzlers on the road.
Andy Boddington
Published in the Clun Chronicle, May 2008