Bio-energy debate too complex for quick fix politics
June 16, 2008
Some of the dilemma’s:
The demand for bio-fuel may not influence food prices on the short term (although this is debatable), but there is uncertainty on the longer term. Predicting the future is difficult, also for this.
There are many different crops that cán be used for (1st generation) bio-energy; but for some it is quite absurd to do so. Either economically, or environmentally they are unsuitable. Generic definitions are unfit in the bio-energy decision making process, specific attention for the sourcing of various types and crops is needed. It should be avoided that (certain forms of) bio-energy only supports “feeling good”, instead of “doing good”.
In The Netherlands criteria have been crafted to secure environmental and social standards (“Cramer criteria). These include greenhouse gas balance, biodiversity, competition with food, welfare etc. However, while these do well on paper, there is no infrastructure to assure that these criteria are being lived.
Normally I am hesitant to promote the precautionary principle. Indeed we would still live in stone age conditions if this principle would have guided the evolution of mankind. However in the case of bio-fuels I think it would be wise to take a break. A ruined rain forest is not easy to repair. And the mere suggestion of competition of the fuel dollar of the rich with food dollar of the poor should be avoided. There are better energy alternatives on the short term that do not imply this long term damage.
Second and third generation bio-energy seem to be more promising. Therefore it is wise to continue exploring opportunities and support innovation. But wouldn’t it be better to postpone mandatory blending obligations until the benefits of bio-fuels are more obvious than they are today?
Share this article with :
Comments on this blog
There are no comments on this blog