Sam Cockerill1 and Chris Martin2
1Sam Cockerill Ltd, Link Hall, Wheldrake Lane, Crockey Hill, York YO19 4SQ, UK
2Xenva Ltd, George Street, Ryde, Isle of Wight PO33 2JF, UK
Biotechnology for Biofuels 2008,
1:9. (Open Access)
On 21 January 2008 the UK Government's
Environmental Audit Committee (EAC) published its report on the inquiry
'Are biofuels sustainable?' .
Their short answer, which has since been echoed by a wave of media
coverage and environmental group campaigning, was a resounding 'No'.
The report concludes that the stimulation of biofuels production by the
UK Government and by the EU is reckless. It urges the UK Government to
withdraw support for biofuels, and to persuade the EU to do likewise by
putting a moratorium on the current 5.75% target for biofuels until
more sustainable production processes are developed.
This review argues against this conclusion. Globally, the
development of an efficient biofuels industry is an environmental and
economic imperative and the UK should leverage its capabilities in life
sciences, energy and process industries to help meet this challenge.
The EU is right to promote 'sustainable' biofuels through the Renewable
Energy Directive, provided that sustainability criteria are implemented
effectively and applied consistently.
The remit of the EAC, established in 1997 by the newly elected
Labour Government, is to advise the UK Government on the likely impact
of current policy on environmental protection and sustainable
development. Sixteen members of parliament drawn from across party
lines form the current committee, the majority of whom are
philosophers, historians and agricultural college graduates, with one
scientist (Dr Desmond Turner) thrown in for good measure. Since July
2007, the committee has considered an impressive set of oral and
written evidence from research organisations, pressure groups, UK
Government departments, industry bodies and corporations.
One week before the EAC's report came out, the Royal Society
published its own report 'Sustainable Biofuels: Prospects and
The Royal Society arrived at a different conclusion, that biofuels have
the potential to be an important part of the future transport energy
mix, and can contribute to greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction and energy
security subject to two caveats:
1. not all biofuels offer GHG reductions and energy security
benefits, and different biofuels must be assessed on their respective
2. this assessment must include agronomic, environmental, economic
and social evaluation of the complete cycle including up-front land use
changes, and address global and regional impacts, not just local ones.
Like the EAC, The Royal Society's science policy team produce
independent advice aimed at influencing UK Government policy. In
contrast to the EAC, the Royal Society's working group for this report
consisted entirely of scientists from active research organisations,
and with relevant expertise. After a 15-month gestation period during
which evidence broadly overlapping that submitted to the EAC was
considered, the Royal Society's report and its findings were reviewed
by a separate panel of leading scientists, and then published.
Who is right?