The energy debate needs to be rational - not shrill soundbites

There are good and bad biofuels, so a moratorium could make climate change worse
Peter Cotgreave
The Guardian,
Wednesday July 16, 2008

The debate on energy issues is currently too often characterised by hype, pitching every technology as either a magic bullet or a catastrophe. Biofuels are a classic case in point, as shown by a recent Guardian article (Secret report: biofuels caused food crisis, July 4).
The article opens with the claim that "biofuels have forced global food prices up by 75%". Biofuels may have played a part in rising food prices but, as the story also mentioned, estimates of the price increase caused by biofuels vary from 3% to 75%. Assessing the impact is a complicated issue made even more complex by the diversity of products that fall under the biofuels banner.
It is this diversity of biofuels that makes it foolish to decry the technology and call for blanket moratoriums on the use of these potentially green fuels. We should be looking to see what industry practices are causing problems and seek to replace them with the good practice that is also common.
The article outlined the argument of an unpublished World Bank report that "production of biofuels has distorted food markets". This should surely have stated that the production of some biofuels has distorted the market. Robert Bailey, of Oxfam, is quoted as saying: "It is imperative that we have the full picture" - and he is right. Each source of biofuel needs to be independently assessed for its benefits and its negative impacts.
As the article rightly points out, we are at a "critical point in the world's negotiations on biofuels policy". That is why the complexity of these issues should defy the shrill soundbite campaigning that has come to characterise much of the debate on energy.
The article refers to "intense lobbying from campaigners calling for a moratorium on the use of plant-derived fuels". Sadly this is all too often based on cherry-picking evidence - we actually need rational decision-making based on all the evidence. The Royal Society published a report earlier this year that, like the Gallagher review for the Renewable Fuels Agency published last week and any comprehensive review of biofuels, concluded that biofuels have real potential; but we must ensure the investment is put into the most efficient and sustainable types. Failing to do this will create more problems than they solve.
Since the article was published, the British government and Europe have suggested adjusting biofuels targets to allow time to gain a greater understanding of their impact. They have recognised the problems but have not forgotten the fact that there are examples of "good" biofuels that can play an immediate part in tackling climate change.
The UK and EU should not scrap biofuels targets but seek to ensure that these are met through the use of sustainable crops that do not take food from people's mouths. They must be part of a sensible debate about energy that looks at all technologies. This debate must include energy efficiency and the need to meet energy demand and tackle climate change while not creating other serious problems.
· Peter Cotgreave is director of public affairs at the Royal Society
publicaffairs@royalsociety.org