Matthew Lynn says the push for biofuels makes governments look greener – but the environmental benefit is uncertain and the impact on food prices has been disastrous
In late July, some of the largest agri-business companies in the world joined forces to create a new lobbying organisation dedicated to promoting the use of biofuels. Grouping Monsanto, DuPont and the farm equipment manufacturer John Deere, the Alliance for Abundant Food and Energy promised to put all the lobbying and PR muscle of some of the world’s most sophisticated corporations into making the case that instead of filling up our cars with oil from the Arabian desert we should be using fuel made from the plentiful crops of the midwestern United States instead.
‘I think the only path forward is one that meets both food and energy security demands,’ declared Monsanto’s chief technology officer Robert Fraley. ‘I think we can add a component of science and technological perspective to the discussion.’
Well, maybe. The trouble is the mere presence of companies such as Monsanto and DuPont, along with their small armies of BlackBerry-wielding corporate spin doctors, will only confirm the worst fears of the environmental movement: that biofuels derived from crops such as corn, sugar and oilseed are a cover for big business to hijack the green agenda – and the huge subsidies available from governments courting green votes – to bolster their profits.
But as oil prices soared, and as climate change moved up the political agenda, biofuels seemed to be a potent answer to both problems. Clean, cheap fuel that doesn’t punch holes in the ozone layer or make you dependent on Saudi sheikhs? What could possibly be wrong with that?
Plenty, as it turns out. Critics argue that new fuels do nothing to slow climate change. Worse, by switching agricultural resources away from food, they are driving up prices of staples such as corn, wheat and rice. Food inflation is rampant, and, in developing countries, people are going hungry. ‘Biofuels are actually making the problem worse,’ says the British environmental campaigner Mark Lynas. ‘All the studies show that the impact of using biofuels is even worse than using fossil fuels.’
More articles from: Matthew Lynn | this section
Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit
Advertisement
FTSE ends modestly lower as holiday companies slump
20/11/2009FTSE turns lower midday as holiday companies tumble
20/11/2009 20/11/2009 20/11/2009City pay is no side issue: it’s an affront to society
Roger BootleKeep on digging: Boris’s route to recovery
Elliot Wilson Martin Vander WeyerFor whom the tolls mean tax-free profits
Neil CollinsThere’s worse to come as we all get older
Ruth Lea
GASCONY, SW France, near Condom-en-Armagnac 13th Century stone house, 21st Century luxury for 12 in 5 en-suites. 50 acres +
IF YOU ARE PLANNING A CHAMPAGNE RECEPTION and looking for some light entertainment, you can now hire London's busiest steel
BOSC LEBAT, SW France. Only 45 minutes from Toulouse Airport with daily flights from most provincial airports avoiding the horrors
Spectator Business | Apollo Magazine
Corporate | Advertising | Privacy | Terms
Spectator, 22 Old Queen Street, London, SW1H 9HP
All Articles and Content Copyright ©2009 by The Spectator | All Rights Reserved
S.McDonald
September 12th, 2008 1:43pm Report this commentJust to pedantic, because I notice he writes for Bloomberg, though Spectator is published in Britain.
What the Americans call "corn" is what we call "maize", though we eat it as sweet corn.
In Britain we refer to "cereals" - not grains - i.e. wheat for milling and barley for malting. (How many Londoners know that one of our main two cereal crops is used to make beer?).
If you are writing on technical topics you should get your definitions correct...
Good article though!
Back to top