A think-tank has recently come up with a report that suggests biofuel subsidies would have more of an impact on climate change if they were used not on subsidising land for crop use but to actually save the rainforests and vital peatland. These are areas that once gone take literally thousands of years to redevelop – hence the need to save them.
The movement toward ‘green’ fuels (an misnomer when they are possibly doing far more harm than good to the environment) has lead to increased fuel prices and damage to many land areas, said the Policy Exchange report. The suggestion put forward is that the £550 million annual fund for biofuels could be used for the aforementioned land masses and lead to ’50 times greater avoided emissions’.
The thinking behind this is that when trees and peat areas are removed, the stored carbon is then released. Globally, a huge amount is spent on biofuel subsidies. The Policy Exchange report puts it at about £7.5 billion. Is that enough though? Well, it could possibly be halved, say the organisation, were we to move the focus to conservation.
I’m fairly sure that we should be doing more conservation work as a matter of course – a number of reports after all suggest that we’re already too late to take minor action – only serious solutions that act fast are viable. Part of this should be to maintain the carbon-holding elements we already have in the world, not getting rid of them.
Leave a Reply