THE ILUC VOTE

bio-fuels

Bio-fuels were once regarded as a major contributor in “fighting climate change” and cutting emissions.  Then several problems were recognised.

First, there is a considerable energy input in growing bio-fuel crops.  Diesel for tractors, fertilisers and pesticides.  This must be off-set against the supposed emissions savings.

Second, burning food crops reduces the tonnage of food available to feed people, at a time when hunger remains a global problem.  It also raises food prices.  There have been riots over food prices in a number of countries.  The extent to which bio-fuels raise prices is disputed, but clearly they must have a significant effect.

Thirdly there is the question of “Indirect Land Use Change” or ILUC.  If people use agricultural land for bio-fuels, this will put further pressure on other land.  It may cause the clearing of rain-forest or other forests, or the use of peat-lands.  The extent to which this occurs and its impact on emissions is dependent on the type of crop involved, the type of land brought into cultivation, and the extent to which new land is required.  It too is debated, but it is recognised that ILUC further discounts the emissions savings envisaged by the biofuels business.

The EU was proposing to mandate 10% biofuels in automotive petrol and diesel, but following the ILUC debate it now proposes to cut this figure to 5%.  This is a blow to companies that have invested in bio-fuel capacity — and regulatory uncertainty is a major problem across the energy spectrum.

It is expected that “next generation” biofuels will come on stream using agricultural waste products rather than food crops.  Straw, for example.

UKIP’s position is as follows.  We think that bio-fuels are unnecessary and that “the fight against climate change” and against fossil fuels has had its day.  We believe it is irresponsible to burn good food, or to use good agricultural land for bio-fuels (or indeed for solar panels).  Accordingly, given the choice in this legislation between lowering the 10% target and not lowering it, we want it lower.  We recognise that the NFU opposes this position, but we believe that the interests of the energy market and the economy generally (as well as the need to feed the world) outweigh the sectional interests of some farmers.

At the same time we draw attention to the industrial/economic damage that EU regulation is doing by constantly changing the goal-posts for industry, as in this case.  We see regulatory uncertainty as a major threat to the energy market.  And we also urge the industry not to base a business plan solely on subsidy or regulation, since both can be dramatically altered at the stroke of a pen.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to THE ILUC VOTE

  1. 1957chev says:

    Excellent advice for the renewables industry. Your free ride is over….if you cannot survive without subsidies….get into another business.

  2. 1957chev says:

    Reblogged this on Mothers Against Wind Turbines and commented:
    NO SUBSIDIES…NO TURBINES….NO PROBLEMS!!!

  3. maureen gannon says:

    Roger is there no way that the message cannot be given to a wider audience , chatting with friends and Syria came up they were surprised when I told them UKIP was against invading, asked them did they know the tories were following a European directive with regard to HS2 they were absolutley disgusted, also that the Post office was going to be sold off once again as the european unelected wanted one postal service this really woke them up , and even the staunch tories were angry and questioned me more about it this prompted one of them to say ” Well that shows Cameron is a hypocrite is he de stabalising the country so we will have to vote to stay in?”
    I smiled and said thats for you to judge somehow UKIP has to invade the nedia and let these things be known , I may have given them food for thought but it needs more fron the hierarchy of UKIP to start getting the truth known.

    • Mike Stallard says:

      Roger this is something you really ought to be getting on with. Get the EU on TV! No, not lots more Nigel Farrage. Lots and lots of Verhofstadt. Tons of Rompuy. Yards and yards of Barroso!
      Once people see what is really going on, they will, surely, come to their senses. At the moment, for some reason that escapes me, the government and the Labour Party pretend that all this rubbish is their own idea. Why?

    • Thanks Maureen. We’re constantly told we need to do more. But we have media appearances, press releases, publications, DVDs, meetings, web-sites and blogs and Twitter, a National Press Office and regional press officers (and not much money) — we really are doing our best, but the news media provide a very competitive environment with thousands trying to get their stories across.

  4. Roger

    One of my readers referred me to this report from the Select Committee for Energy & Climate Change, that was issued in July.

    http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/09/09/energy-committee-warns-of-huge-hikes-in-energy-bills/

    They confirm that renewable subsidies will be adding 33% to energy bills by 2020.

    I have never seen this reported in the media (i.e the report!), and whenever such figures have been bandied about, everybody from Davey down to the renewable industry ponces jumps on them and tries to discredit them.

    I would appreciate any help in getting this info out to the public.

    Thanks

    Paul

  5. cornwallwindwatch says:

    Reblogged this on Cornwall Wind Watch and commented:
    Man faces it’s next biggest threat – greentards.

  6. neilfutureboy says:

    Another example of the ecofascists trying to reinvent the price system to make their own parasitism look non-parasitic – and of course failing.

  7. Mike Stallard says:

    Here in the fertile Fens – one of the most fertile places on earth – instead of strawberries and apples and pears (all imported, of course nowadays) we have golden biofuel stretching to the flat horizon. What a waste of some of the best land on the planet!
    And, of course, much of this is going to become the new town of Ely because we need more houses, apparently.
    Fracking? The left do not like it – I gather because the name sounds a bit, well, scary…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s