Sir, Statements by Professor Julia King (“Green tax puts extra £1,000 on family cars”, Nov 10) and recent reports from the UN’s special rapporteur on food issues and Oxfam have argued that the development of biofuels will cause famine in developing countries and the price of food to rise. The UN special report described biofuels as a “crime against humanity”, a sentiment that is both stupidly alarmist and not in accordance with a range of facts concerning world agriculture.

An OECD report in September 2007 pointed out that biofuels currently cover 10 million hectares, which sounds a huge area until one realises that the total global cropped land area is 1.5 billion hectares and the area for pasture is 4.5 billion hectares. The current global area for biofuels thus represents just over half of 1 per cent of the total cropping area and a minuscule fraction of the total area cultivated for food. To say that such a tiny proportion of the global cropping area has been responsible for small rises in the cost of food is not credible.

An FAO report from October 2007 has pointed to the real reasons for rising food prices as a succession of poor cereal harvests in Europe, the US and Australia, possibly caused by climate change, rising food freight charges and a general decline in cereal stocks. In the case of maize, which is being used for ethanol production in the US, reports are that its rising price has stimulated poor farmers in Mexico to increase the acreage of maize for 2008.

It is interesting to note that ethanol production from maize and other crops has been a longstanding human activity for millennia and has clearly competed with food production — the difference being that humans have drunk the products of its fermentation and distillation rather than used it to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and contribute to energy security in the West.

Professor John R. Porter
The University of Copenhagen

Professor Marco Bindi
L’Università di Firenze

Professor Jørgen E. Olesen
The University of Aarhus

Professor Pete Smith
The University of Aberdeen

Sir, It becomes clear that the tipping point when vehicles powered by alternative energy sources will become commonplace is drawing ever closer. Those of us involved with the development of cleaner energy look forward to the release of Professor King’s report. Let’s hope, as your report suggests, that those recommendations don’t suggest replacing reliance on one single energy source, namely oil, with any other singular energy, whatever its origin.

That oil has been dominant for so long is at the heart of many of our most pressing geopolitical problems. We need cleaner energy if we’re to meet the Government’s admirable and ambitious carbon emission targets, and we need diversity of supply if we want our children to grow up in a safer world.

Thomas Bennett
Loughborough, Leics

Sir, A car per se does not produce carbon dioxide — apart from some in its manufacture and transportation to market. It is the burning of fuel in use that does the damage. A car which does 10 miles to the gallon and 2,000 miles a year produces no more carbon dioxide than one which covers 20,000 miles a year at 100 miles per gallon.

Most of us could reduce dramatically our fuel consumption tomorrow by deliberately economical driving and limiting car use. Swingeing taxes on buying cars and on their excise duty does nothing to encourage that.

Dr W. S. Affleck
Nailsworth, Glos

Explore Letters

• Feedback