Stephen Whittaker, The Telegraph 7 Feb 08;
The 'biofuels backlash' has certainly gathered pace in recent months and we anticipate that the recent spate of reports, from both sides of the Atlantic, criticising the negative environmental impact of biofuels production is only the tip of the iceberg.
Perhaps, given the size and scale of the industry today, this is not surprising.
There's no doubt that globally there has been a rush by some emerging countries to produce biofuel on the same industrial scale as fossil fuels and there is evidence that deforestation has been one unfortunate consequence of this.
However, there is the danger that we throw the baby out with the bathwater; that the failure to differentiate between 'good' and 'bad' biodiesel production undoes years of sound ecological progress.
Any journey that takes a 'green' product from its perception as a niche alternative and turns it into a successful, globally available commodity is unlikely to happen without causing a few ripples.
What is important is that any issues are monitored and handled responsibly, that the industry is regulated as effectively as possible and that improvement in best practice is continuously encouraged.
If we want the world's innovators and entrepreneurs to take new, alternative products through to mass production, then we need to be as assertive in the crucial expansion stages as we were when it was a quirky, niche idea.
Sustainably produced biofuels genuinely deliver significant net benefits when it comes to the environment, and in the UK they are certainly helping many local councils and environmentally-aware private businesses achieve and exceed their carbon-reduction targets.
Biofuels consistently offer many environmental and performance advantages over traditional diesel. They produce no net emissions of carbon dioxide, one of the main gases responsible for global warming, and they burn more cleanly and efficiently than fossil diesel and cause less pollution when burnt.
At the heart of the current biofuel debate is the sourcing of raw materials used in its production process. Historically, our fuels have always been based on the recycling of waste vegetable oils, sourced locally from food manufacturers, pubs and restaurants and then recovered in the biofuel production process as an oxygenated vegetable oil ester.
This remains our principal source of raw material, but more recently supplemented by other genuinely sustainable feedstocks such as animal fats or fish oils of known (preferably local) origin and with traceable history.
For the producer that remains genuinely determined to produce a sustainable, environmentally-friendly product and uses these raw materials to achieve that objective, biofuel does make a fantastically positive contribution to the climate change agenda, in line with key Government policy.
The European manufacturer that is sourcing locally produced vegetable oils such as rapeseed, sunflower or olive oil as the basis of its biofuel production is, literally and metaphorically, miles and miles away from those associated with the destruction of Indonesian or Amazonian rain forests. To lump them all together in a critical report is a sweeping and inaccurate generalisation.
We must not dismiss or ignore the negative consequences that mass biofuel production is undoubtedly having on some parts of the world, but nor should we underestimate the very real ecological benefits that sustainably produced biofuels are having on the UK's ability to reduce its dependency on fossil fuels."
Stephen Whittaker is managing director of Cheshire-based ESL Biofuels established almost 10 years ago as the UK's first commercial manufacturer of biodiesel.
