Quote:On the one side, the EU is doing what it does best - creating new layers of lunatic bureaucracy to "certify" that forests cut down for biofuel are not doing ecological harm. They proudly declare that their new laws are the "most stringent" (i.e. most repressive) in the world. Over in the other corner, those "environmentalists" (to the BBC, the most saintly group of people on earth) are yelping that - despite years of pressure to force biofuel production - they now think that cutting down trees by the million to do so is not a good idea. Mr Kinver, of course, reports it all without any attempt at balance.

Quote:As agricultural land is set aside to grow biofuels, pressure grows to cut down forests to grow food. The increase in European biodiesel demand could lead to the loss of vast areas of forests. The Commission is expected to make a policy decision over how to manage ILUC (indirect land use change) impacts by the end of the year.

Quote:Land is limited. Do you not need to cut down forests to produce biofuels?

The 10% target would require some 2 – 5 Million hectares of land, according to different estimates of the net land use change impact. The EU has sufficient amount of land previously used for crop production and now no longer in arable use to cover the land needed, even if all the biofuels consumed were to be produced in Europe. Also in other parts of the world, there are alternatives to fresh deforestation. In Indonesia, there are an estimated 3 – 12 Million hectare of land that has been deforested in the past and left to become wasteland. It makes sense to bring this land into use.

Quote:The conference calls on journalists to:

1. Abandon neutrality and to report only on the single extreme view of AGW calamity.
2. Abandon professional procedures in journalism.