Biofuels: Who Bears the Cost? (Hint: Not Govt Officials)

A number of extraordinarily complicated computer models of ‘climate’ have been developed & refined over the last 20 years or so, by govt-funded physicists-cum-computer modellers. This process of development & refinement of the models is still continuing, with continuing official support. Computer runs of these models have produced increases in average global temperature (‘global warming’) over time periods yet to come. The models link these results to increases in CO2 from human burning of fossil fuels (‘anthropogenic global warming’.) For a succinct & critical survey of these models, see esp. Roger Pielke Sr, ‘What are Climate Models? What do they do?’

Making use of the runs of these computer models, govt officials have (inter alia) subsidised farmers who grow crops for biofuels; companies that turn out biofuels & the vehicles that use them; & the price of biofuels at the pump. Officials have also ordered their subjects to use such fuels. Thus officials have done their job: they have spent tax revenues under the appropriate head & issued orders to their subjects.

Now, govt officials levy & spend tax revenues. Thus they are always insulated against the actual outcome of their spending & their decrees. The burden falls always on their subjects. Whatever happens, the tax-supported official juggernaut can & does roll on regardless.

Thus the costs of biofuels have fallen on the poorest populations -- mostly in the LDCs. Land & output are being diverted away from food. And the biofuels produced at such unconscionable cost add to greenhouse gases, on net. So objections to biofuels are now being raised from the most impeccable sources: Oxfam; FAO; senior scientists advising the Franco-German Empire (alias the EU); a Green Party (!) councillor from England; a Nobel-Prize-winning chemist; and so on. See the following.

From Der Spiegel (English edition online):

(A.) 16th April 2008 ‘Pressure Grows on EU to Abandon Biofuels’

‘With food prices skyrocketing and faith in biofuels plummeting, many are demanding that the European Union back away from its commitment to eco-fuel. Even the EU's own scientists are sceptical [….]

‘The development charity Oxfam on Tuesday blasted the UK regulation, saying that green fuels have the potential to do much more harm than good. The UN's Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) argues in a paper released on Monday that biofuels negatively affect those in poorer countries. The paper argues that the growing biofuel industry competes directly with food crops for farmland, water and investment money. Food prices increase as a result and biofuels “put at risk access to food by the poorest sectors,” the paper says.

‘And even the European Union's own scientific advisory body has gotten into the act. “I see absolutely no reason to use a lot of energy, money and large swaths of farmland” to produce biofuels, Professor Helmut Haberl, a member of the European Environment Agency's Scientific Committee, told SPIEGEL ONLINE…’ [...]
----------------------

(B.) 23 Jan 2008 Critique Mounts against Biofuels

[….] ‘ “The biofuels route is a dead end,” Dr. Andrew Boswell, a Green Party councillor in England and author of a recent study on the harmful effects of biofuels, told SPIEGEL ONLINE. “They are going to create great damage to the environment and will also produce dramatic social problems in (tropical countries where many crops for biofuels are grown). There basically isn't any way to make them viable.” ’

‘ “We are causing a climate catastrophe by promoting agro-fuels,” Greenpeace agricultural specialist Alexander Hissting told SPIEGEL ONLINE…. [....]
-----------------------

(C.) 26 Sept 2007 ‘Biofuels “Emit More Greenhouse Gases than Fossil Fuels” ’

‘A team of researchers led by Nobel-prize winning chemist Paul Crutzen has found that growing and using biofuels emits up to 70 percent more greenhouse gases than fossil fuels. They are warning that the cure could end up being worse than the disease.'[....]