Biofuels argument 'not simple'
Friday, 06 Jul 2007 15:11
Campaign groups warn of the dangers of deforestation
Science In Focus
Click here to see how British small businesses are creating innovative, low carbon business ideas, on inthenews.co.uk. Full Story
The environmental usefulness and impact of biofuels is not a simple argument, according to a newly-appointed advisor to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra).
Professor Robert Watson said that more studies were needed to understand the inadvertent damage that could be done from trying to find more friendly forms of energy.
For instance, the clearing of forests to grow crops for biofuels could lead to increased soil erosion and the other dangers of deforestation, something Professor Watson believes is an "absolutely" justified argument.
He told BBC Radio 4's Farming Today programme: "One needs a complete analysis: what land's being used, what water's being used; is it good or bad for the climate system? What are the implications for soil erosion?
"What are the implications for biodiversity? And that's why there's no very simple 'biofuels are good' or 'biofuels are bad'.
"We really need to do a case-by-case study of the economic, the social and the environmental issues, which are very context-specific."
Environmental groups have argued that importing biofuels from south America could do more harm than good.
But Professor Watson gave his backing to bioethanol from sugar in Brazil, saying there was "no question" that it is "indeed energy saving".
Bioethanol from maize, however, is regarded a "much more questionable", according to the newly appointed advisor.
"There is probably some saving in greenhouse gas emissions, but not a lot," Professor Watson added.