Apparently, even the UN does ~ Biofuels do more harm than good, UN warns ~

A leaked draft of a UN report condemns the widespread use of biofuels made from crops as a replacement for petrol and diesel. It says that biofuels, rather than combating the effects of global warming, could make them worse […]
 
… (the report notes) that growing biofuel crops on a large scale requires either the conversion of agricultural land used for food crops or the destruction of forests to free up land, possibly offsetting any reduction in carbon emissions from the use of biofuels.
 
Other concerns include increased stress on water supplies and rising corn prices as a result of increased demand for the crop, which is fermented to produce biofuel […]
 
(The report) puts pressure on world leaders to scrap policies promoting the use of biofuel for transport.

Wouldn’t it be nice if the O’Ministration would pay attention?
 
Of course we need to keep in mind that this is the same UN that believes man-caused climate change is threatening the planet’s very existence… but they do seem to be moving a bit closer to reality these days. Matt Ridley (WSJ) evaluates their current position ~

The UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) 2007 report was riddled with errors about Himalayan glaciers, the Amazon rain forest, African agriculture, water shortages and other matters, all of which erred in the direction of alarm. This led to a critical appraisal of the report-writing process from a council of national science academies, some of whose recommendations were simply ignored.
 
Others, however, hit home. According to leaks, this time the full report is much more cautious and vague about worsening cyclones, changes in rainfall, climate-change refugees, and the overall cost of global warming.

Ridley’s piece concludes with this common sense wisdom ~

Almost every global environmental scare of the past half century proved exaggerated including the population “bomb,” pesticides, acid rain, the ozone hole, falling sperm counts, genetically engineered crops and killer bees. In every case, institutional scientists gained a lot of funding from the scare and then quietly converged on the view that the problem was much more moderate than the extreme voices had argued. Global warming is no different.