A very disappointing article. Yes, current biofuel production does not have good implications for food production, but were the technology to produce biofuel from cellulose developed, there would be no food supply conflict. I would have thought that the author would be pushing for a massive research effort along this line, but instead Nick Rose seems fixated with a Khmer Rouge like utopia.

My suspicion is further raised by this comment:

"The irony is that biomass-derived fuels have a very low power and energy density as compared to fossil fuels - for example 1.5 units of ethanol is needed to replace 1 unit of fossil fuels - and that these factors "provide permanent physical limits to the extent to which biofuels can replace fossil fuels""

The comment is already outdated as a biofuel with comparable energy density to petroleum has been developed.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070620154945.htm

History consistently shows that technological advance is a safer bet for improving the lot of humanity than revolution.

Well said. As I wrote in The Australian some time ago, if the answer is ethanol, we're asking the wrong question. Apart from problems covered above, the massive subsidies for bio-fuels (including by fuel tax concessions) mean that it is not a cost-effective approach to reducing emissions, but yet another ad hoc, knee-jerk response.

I'm sorry but the claims are hysterical rantings often put forward by the petroleum industry. Palm oil: it is uneconomical to make biodiesel out of palm oil at these prices. Secondly the FAO has independently stated that there is a surplus of palm oil produced. This surplus is sufficient for three times current global biodiesel production. Finally China has massively increase its edible oil imports: it buys 45% of exported soybean compare to 25% 5 years ago. If China were to increase its per capita edible oil consumption to a per capita level as in Taiwan the amount of extra oil required is equivalent to the current annual biodiesel throughout the world.
As to lifecycle studies: not one reputable, peer review study has found that biodiesel production from any agricultural product is greenhouse gas positive.
I do not want rainforests cut down to grow more palm, but do not blame biodiesel for rainforest destruction.

How about just we just pray and wait until god comes down and gives us next weeks power ball scores. They already have the hydrogen engine. And just about everything gives off some sort of bi-product, and the sun, is just not fast enough. Something has to fry! So I would ask my self, What would make me move faster and not cause Co2.

How about just picking the one, that has the smallest emissions, and just change the laws. Its a no brainer! A big sorry too the Maisons poor world! We just hope you know what you are doing.

Why is it so hard to get something across to people? Of course we are going to have food riots all across the third world. The reason has nothing to do with biofuels, and everything to do with overpopulation. This is the subject that no-one will discuss, because it is the only subject on which George Bush, the Pope, the third world and the muslim world are united in opposition, calling it racist or genocidal.

The population of the third world is set to double in the next 25 years. Simple primary school arithmetic tells you that this means that twice the current amount of food will be needed just to maintain the current inadequate standards of living.

What should we do? If we no nothing the problem will be corrected by nature using the usual four horsemen of war, famine, disease and death. A much better way, in which we can help, is to educate young girls in the third world, as childbearing is inversely proportional to education. All of our foreign aid should be devoted to this end. Countries that refuse to accept this should be denied all aid, trade and tourism.

Look at the example of China, where the one child policy was the foundation of their current progress.

All other solutions are merely urinating into the breeze.

Plerdsus - forthright, unambiguous, and spot-on.

Without the developed world taking action to assist the third world address population pressure, our talk of biofuels to the rescue becomes discussion as useful as debate on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

A great pity of it all is that the world congress at Cairo in 1994 addressed the population issue, and came up with a plan of action; one which fundamentalists having leverage over world governments have lobbied against ever since - unfortunately too successfully.

Articles like this, combined with many respondents, in neglecting to incorporate any mention of the fundamental problem, facilitate its cancerous growth.