Outbreak of commonsense in Ireland

Suitably emboldened by the disarray that their 'No' to Lisbon has caused ... Minister abandons biofuel target as doubts grow about benefits.

Via Christina Speight.

Number crunching

Planned increase in fuel bills per household per week to pay for a "£100bn plan to boost renewable energy": £5.59

Amount of food wasted per household per week according to the Cabinet Office, which could be avoided to help "combat rising living costs": £8

Increase in weekly food bill over last year due to various factors = £15

Increase in food prices due to "bio fuels" targets = 75%*

Additional greenhouse gas emissions created by bio-fuels compared to fossil fuels = 50% to 70%

* It's not entirely clear if they mean that agricultural prices are 75% higher than what they would be in the absence of the bio-fuels nonsense; or whether 75% of the overall increase is due to the bio-fuels nonsense. Either way, this is not good.

"Suspend biofuel rules, say MPs"

From today's FT...

Regulations mandating the use of biofuels must be suspended, MPs warned the government on Thursday amid mounting political alarm. Ministers have conceded they may have to rethink biofuels policy because of growing concerns about their effect on food prices and the environment.

The call from the Commons environmental audit committee comes as the industry warned that Britain would have enough surplus wheat production to support only three large ethanol plants, even though several more were being planned.
...
The MPs said the UK had the capacity to produce only 2.5% of transport fuels from plants in an environmentally sound manner. To meet the 5% target would require between 10% and 45% of the arable land, they said.

What strikes me ...

1. Every now and then MPs talk a bit of sense. What's surprising is that it's surprising; we're so used to them talking complete and utter vacuous shit, to the extent that they are not telling outright lies, of course.

2. There's bugger all the government can do about bio-fuels nonsense, as the targets are imposed by the EU. This bit seems to have escaped them.

3. They've left themselves a nice wide margin of error, haven't they? Haven't they bothered working out how much arable land we'd have to turn over? "...between 10% and 45%" looks a bit vague to me. Richard North worked out a year ago that we'd need 70% of our wheat crop to meet a 5% bio-fuel target, so I suspect that whatever the figure is, it's a damn' sight nearer 45% than 10%.

4. If you follow the link (you may have to register, for free) then the grey box headed 'Green saint or sinner' is also well worth a read!

5. Update, see also "Nearly one-third of the US corn harvest is currently being funnelled into biofuel production".

Fun with numbers (2)

Richard North has revisited the topic of the drive towards bio-fuels and the effect on grain prices. He links back to an earlier post that in turn links back to his original calculations.

The numbers are staggering. For the UK to achieve the EU's target of 5% bio-fuel, it would require 70% of our domestic wheat crop. Little surprise that it's had an effect on grain prices, then ...

"Brazil president defends biofuels"

Seems perfectly fair, the president of Brazil, the world's largest exporter of bio-fuels, asking what the problem is, despite the growing realisation that bio-fuels are counter-productive.

What sticks in the craw is this sentence... "Environmental groups, government ministers and even world leaders like President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela have all voiced their concerns ..."

The Chav, a world leader? I think not! In turn, to be fair, he is president of an oil-exporting country, so of course he's going to be against bio-fuels. Good luck to him on that one, frankly.

Bus company reverses global warming!

Yup. It's now so cold that the bus won't run any more.

Via Little Fat Bastard UK.