Putting biofuels into the wider context: my current opinion on the matter

Prior to launching into the discussion on the effectiveness of biofuels in dealing with the problems they could potentially resolve (or create), I would like to put biofuels into the wider context and express my current views on the actions humanity should take to attempt to resolve the problems of energy security and climate change.  

Primarily, I would like to stress that I believe that global action should be taken towards drastically reducing humanity’s emissions of GHGs. This means that renewable energy should not be used as an excuse to continue with the highly energy-consuming lifestyle of the developed world. This opinion is based on the rate at which this supposedly serious problem is being addressed, as the results of the Copenhagen meeting, which did not amount to much action (Guardian, 2009), show. Additionally, the schemes which have actually been put to practice are often not effective enough at all: in 2001, only 15% of consumers knew that the EU Flower was an eco-label, with very few knowing what manufacturing practices it actually reflected (Pedersen and Neergaard, 2006). How can this lead to ‘greener’ consumption, when there is such a lack of communication between the different domains of governance, which in this case is between the markets and the consumer?

I think that the rate of change is so low mainly because everyone shifts the responsibility of dealing with climate change onto someone else, creating a vicious circle of inaction. Here, the citizens of developed countries shift the responsibility onto the governments, the governments of the developed countries – onto governments of the developing countries, onto technological advances or onto the market, and the market – onto consumers and governments. Ideally, I believe that all three domains of governance should be employed in dealing with the issue, where governments, people and industry should all be involved in reducing emissions.

The slow rate of action to mitigate climate change also reflects the unwillingness of the developed countries to change their lifestyle: for example, the target of 80% carbon emissions reduction by 2050 has been dropped; instead, the U.S. has only agreed to reduce their emissions by 4% of the 1990 levels as a result of the recent Copenhagen meeting (Guardian, 2009). Since it is these countries that are the biggest emitters of GHGs, it seems that it would be highly unrealistic to suggest that it would be possible to reduce the global energy requirements by changing lifestyle in the short-term.

However, reducing the global energy consumption would be important in the long-term, as it is possible that ‘green’ energy will not be able to meet all energy requirements if these remain at the current level of the developed countries. This especially holds true when considering the future threat posed by population growth and the continued development in the lower-income countries where most of this growth occurs.

Nonetheless, in the short-term, switching to renewable energy seems like a more practical near-future solution to me at the moment, as this does not assume lifestyle changes. Biofuel is one such source of renewable energy and therefore it is important to consider whether it should be employed.