A report by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) is saying biofuels may "offer a cure that is worse than the disease they seek to heal".
Pushing for biofuels will disrupt markets without generating environmental benefits, they say.
Why -
a. acidifcation
b. fertilizer use
c. toxidity of agrigultural pesticides
make the overall environmental impact of ethanol and biodiesel worse than petrol and mineral diesel.
Damned if we do and damned if don't.
OECD wants governments to encourage research that would avoid competition for land use with food production.
Biofuel policies are 'an easy way to support domestic agriculture against the backdrop of international negotiations to liberalize agricultural trade."
"Biofuels, made mainly from grains, oilseeds and sugar, have been accused of being responsible for a recent surge in farm commodities prices, along with other factors such as lower output and tight stocks."
OECD say it wants to avoid a "food-versus-fuel" debate.
Okay...I am confused now...which is it going to be...fuel or food? Biofuel or fossil fuel?
.jpg)
Comment Preview