Fraud 4. The Wind Energy Boondoggle

Many people have given both authoritative and anecdotal reasons why wind energy should never have been part of the mix. It's introduction will be blamed on the EU by eu-lab although if the truth is known, had they commissioned an exhaustive and honest financial and emissions cost benefit report then energy bills would have been 20-35% less than they are now.
Q. How do you persuade a gullible public to pay for a boondoggle that will cause energy bills to more than double?
A. Tell them it may save their grand children from suffering untold misery due to CO2 going from 0.03% of the atmosphere to 0.05% by offsetting 0.0002% that ~may cause the air in some places to be cooled by 0.005 to 0.02C by 2100 if all nations comply with a return to pre-industry life.

So, wind turbines or windmills as they are unaffectionately known.
First thing to understand is that they are hugely expensive at ~£2 million each for a land based 1.5mW turbine, installed. I haven't found the cost of sea farm turbines, £5-6 mil seems about right. Energy companies won't say how much straight out, preferring to give the cost per kW that varies from site to site depending on wind availability and is subjective in that ridiculous lifespans of up to 40 years are used and various items like maintenance and compensation are left out. Germany's experience showed an average life of ~12 years.
Next is to understand that the energy they produce is intermittent i.e. a turbine uses electricity to keep it spinning when there is no wind and average output in a very good year can be as much as 25% of rated maximum capacity. That means that energy companies have to have a backup energy source, ideally gas but there are insufficient plants so plants burning coal must be used. 90% of rated power (e.g. 1.5mW per turbine) is reasonable to avoid Brown-outs. The cost of backup plants needs to be included but never is.

Other items that are not normally included in cost include massive subsidies past 100% for sea farms, ongoing energy  production subsidies, compensation to people who suffer physical and mental distress from the noise. In years to come there will probably be claims from as diverse interests as the tourist industry and nature conservationists, the former for loss of trade due to the destruction of scenes of natural beauty and the latter for many reasons from habitat destruction to the bird and bat kill that is alarming.
Then there is the cost per kW where that from turbines put their electricity in the luxury class even without considering the backup energy costs.
Is their inclusion in the energy mix justified?
On cost alone no private company, investor or bank would look at them without gov't guaranteed returns. They cannot stand alone.
Are they environmentally friendly?
That they kill wildlife and their build destroys habitat gives an immediate NO WAY.
Do they reduce fossil fuel dependence?
No. Their introduction into the energy mix requires near instantaneous response from fossil fuel energy plants to varying output of wind farms. Compared to their not being part of the energy mix, more fuel is burned because ramping the output of the reserve plants up and down compared to steady output is comparable to town driving versus motorway cruising.
Do they reduce CO2 emissions?
At the very best they cause no reduction and generally they cause increased emissions as mentioned. That is not including the emissions involved in construction, transport and installation nor the loss of CO2 absorbing ground.
What other costs are associated with wind farms that are not included in government and energy reports?
As the number of wind farms increases, energy companies will be unable to build new traditional energy plants. There will be Brown-outs due to increasing energy demands from a swelling immigrant population, industry growth, the introduction of electric cars and normal increase in use of electricity as the climate cools. Because eu-lab, banks and the EC-EU have busted the country, traditional energy plants are expensive and not affordable, even as essential reserve energy sources. So National Grid has come up with a scam, I mean plan to borrow £22bil to upgrade infrastructure and connect the UK to cheap continental power sources like Poland that gets their energy in surplus from coal. The repayment of capital and interest will be passed to end users.
Alongside that there will be the cost and maintenance of spy meters.
So we come to this, why on Earth did eu-lab agree to install them and borrow money to subsidise them? Why didn't the then opposition object?
Why are the con-eu and eu-lib dims continuing to support the fraud?
It's a boondoggle that profits only banks and private investors at the expense of taxpayers and users.

Every MP should have one in his backyard

Bird and bat kills, link1(100,000), link2 (9,500), link3 (75,000 - 275,000 birds) link4 (16,000)
Health risks, link1, link2 , link3
Despoilment of sites of natural beauty, link (check the view from Snowdonia)
Substitute for building local plants - Cost of linking to the continent and upgrading infrastructure to handle "drunken" wind energy, link
How are wind farms financed? The gov takes money from energy suppliers (cost passed to end user) and borrows (cost passed to taxpayers) then gives it to developers, link
"NM Rothschild, the investment bank, which has a close relationship with the Treasury, has proposed the levy to fund new power infrastructure. Sources close to the Treasury indicate that the proposal is based on a levy of about £2 per megawatt hour on the wholesale price of electricity, which is currently about £45 per mwh."
How else are end users and taxpayers being stiffed, link

Kent Hawkins:
Analysis I, II, III, IV, V

Case studies I, II, III, IVSummary of Dutch and Bentek studies
Table 2 provides an overview of the findings of this series on wind integration. In summary, the Netherlands experience is that at wind penetration of about 3% the fossil fuel and CO₂ emissions saving is reduced to zero. As wind penetration is increased, the Colorado and Texas experience shows that the savings become negative, that is, fossil fuel and CO2 emissions are increased. The integration of all the considerations for the three approaches is complex and necessarily simplified. Any additional insights are welcome.

Big Wind: How Many Households Served, What Emissions Reduction? I, II
"The project sponsors claim that they will provide enough energy to serve 235,000 households and reduce CO2 output by 1.5 million tonnes annually.
Part I demonstrated that the served-household claims is fanciful. In reality, no more than 49,000 households could be “supplied”, and these with only a minimal degree of assurance. Indeed, the wind project is more costly than a diesel backup scheme that would actually be capable of supplying reliable power to several hundred thousand households. The wind project is also three times more costly than a replacement of just 211 MW of older coal capacity with new technology that would provide a similar reduction in emissions, while supplying firm power to the NW Power Pool’s customers.
Heritage Foundation Windpower Study: Response to Center for American Progress
Beyond NIMBY: [Not in my backyard] A Grassroots Strategy to Defeat Windpower
Emission cuts realities for electricity generation – costs and CO2 emissions
Huhne wants to meet EU CO2 reduction obligations subscribed to by eu-lab with con-eu complicity.
C. Booker mentioned "The 3,000 already built provide on average no more electricity than a single medium-sized conventional power station, and the more [wind farms] we build, the more we will have to build CO2-emitting power stations, costing billions of pounds, simply to provide back-up for when the wind is not blowing."

Source http://www.bmreports.com/bsp/bsp_home.htm 0.2% for 24 hours. 3000 windmills. Ludicrous.
To meet cloud cuckoo land targets of CO2 reductions is impossible using wind. Assuming more expensive "cheap" EU energy is used to provide backup, to meet energy plant replacement with wind, 80% of ~850,000 mW per day would require 680,000 mW from farms. With supreme optimism assume 25% of every 1.5mW turbine, 0.375mW can be delivered, the total number required would be 680000/0.375mW gives 1,813,333, 20% gives 453,333 turbines. Plus 10% for surplus to cover maintenance and breakdown and replacement - every 12 years or so.
In reality, although turbines are available to work 24/7 demand and the wind varies 24/7. The actual amount of useful energy from wind is around 8%.

How do you make luxury priced energy provided by windmills competitive with far cheaper (by 4-5 times) coal and gas? Simple, make coal and gas energy more expensive. Tax it and force the providers by law to buy carbon credits or fit carbon capture and storage.
Booker again, "Although the EU's new Industrial Emissions Directive has extended the time we are allowed to keep six of our ageing coal-fired power plants running, Mr Huhne will allow no new ones to be built unless they are fitted with "carbon capture and storage" – which, despite a Government-estimated cost of £14 billion, is never going to work.
There is no aspect of this Government's energy policy which is not based on wishful thinking and complete technical illiteracy. It talks of spending up to £30 billion on a Severn Barrage to supply "five gigawatts" of electricity, when in reality it would only intermittently produce on average 1.9 gigawatts, less than the output of a single coal-fired power station. For the same money, eight new nuclear plants could produce seven times as much power, reliably and round the clock."

Huhne is against nuclear unless someone else pays for it as per EU directives. No private investment profit perhaps. More likely to avoid investment going that way.

"... there is absolutely nothing wrong with Miriam Gonzalez - the City lawyer who just happens to be married to deputy Cleggeron leader Nick Clegg - joining the board of Spanish infrastructure group Acciona.
And the fact that this group specialises, amongst other things, in developing wind farm sites will have no effect on the thinking of Nick Clegg. He is after all already supportive of this stupidity, rather like his boss, the Boy Cameron." Link
Darling's £0.5bn offshore windfarm 'leccy-bill stealth levy

Quick Facts
Wind and Cap-and-trade
Wind and Natural Gas
Wind and Cost
Wind and the Energy Rot in Denmark
Why Wind Technology Is Problematic

Country Guardian is the National Campaign to oppose wind turbines in Britain's precious landscapes and promote energy conservation.
http://www.countryguardian.net/
This website contains a comprehensive database about wind energy, including the List of UK Wind Farm Action Groups. This contains links to over 230 UK Windfarm Action Groups as well as international links, and well-researched articles about all aspects of windfarms, news links etc.
Openview Newsletter Spring 2010
The Case Against Windfarms
National Wind Watch - A nonprofit corporation formed as a coalition of citizens and grassroots groups. We seek to promote knowledge and raise awareness of the risks and damaging impacts of industrial wind turbine development, including the environmental, social, and quality-of-life impacts. http://www.wind-watch.org/

"This is not green energy but a destructive boondoggle. It is even more intolerable that we as taxpayers are paying for it -- in so many ways", says NWW member Sue Sliwinski of New York.
Since the IEA shows that large-scale wind energy will not change anything for the better, and increasing evidence shows how much damage it does, National Wind Watch says that conserving even a small amount of electricity every year is obviously a better choice.

Industrial Wind Power - Issues and Concerns for Wind Turbines in Highland County, VA. http://johnrsweet.com/Personal/Wind/
Cohocton Wind Watch - Citizens, residents and neighbors concerned about ill-conceived wind turbine projects in the town of Cohocton and adjacent townships in Western New York. http://www.cohoctonwindwatch.org/
Wind Truth Alliance - For Responsible Regulation. http://www.windtruth.org/
Glebe Mountain Group - The Glebe Mountain Group (GMG) is a voluntary association of residents and property owners in the Glebe Mountain region of Vermont. The group was formed in response to concerns about a proposal by Catamount Energy to install 27 wind turbines 330 feet tall, lighted 24 hours a day, along a three and one-half mile stretch of Glebe Mountain in Londonderry, VT. http://www.glebemountaingroup.org/
Industrial Wind Action Group www.windaction.org/ 
Also
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5858989/How-can-wind-turbines-generate-so-much-lunacy.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1199535/CHRISTOPHER-BOOKER-Wind-farms-monument-age-leaders-collectively-went-heads.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1029551/A-load-hot-air-Why-spending-100bn-windfarms-EU-Labours-greatest-act-lunacy.html
Wind Power: Green and Deadly
***************************************
Gang-green has near bankrupted Spain
Gang-green has near bankrupted California
And of course the only reason the UK isn't where Greece is is that the gov't bonds don't expire for a while.

Summary.
Compared to conventional sources of energy wind energy is 4 to 5 times as expensive.
Wind farms require 90% backup by fossil fuel plants so the turbines are no more than a poor duplication of energy supply.
Wind energy does not reduce CO2 emissions and does not reduce fossil fuel use.
The noise from turbines is hazardous to health.
Turbines kill birds and bats in vast numbers and destroy habitat.
To integrate more wind energy requires the infrastructure to be upgraded, costed in billions.
To use continental energy is more expensive than home made conventional energy plants.
Because of the senseless obeisance to EC-EU dictats (that lowers the authority of this gov't to that of a pariah council) there is a moratorium on building conventional energy plants. Huhne, in a fop to lunacy said they can be built as long as another hugely expensive and infeasible boondoggle, CCS is included.
Bonus.
Expensive energy is driving business into the ground or abroad and increasing energy poverty.
Eon 2005
"Wind energy cannot replace conventional power stations to any significant extent...The more wind power capacity [on] the grid, the lower the percentage of traditional generation it can replace."
Even before that was known, it was common knowledge that wind fails to deliver.
Even micro installations
A report to the gov't The Economics of Renewable Energy that gets backup energy figures wrong. Eon in the link above said at least 90% backup would be needed.
Turbine technology is already out of date, vertical fans are more efficient.
Wind energy is not and will never be feasible without energy storage.
People don't like them.

eu-lab knew that. con-eu and eu-lib dims know it. It is a proven boondoggle and people should be before an independent (not politically controlled) judge. Under oath to find out why wind energy has been forced on an unwitting population.
There is NO JUSTIFICATION for wind energy. Period.

Wind farms and biofuel providers must be penalised for CO2 emissions if the crazy carbon emissions policy remains in force.

And what will be the effect of taking all that energy out of the air? No-one knows nor is even asking.

Source: withouthotair.blogspot.com/2010/01/wind-farm-wakes.html

The claim that Denmark derives about 20% of its electricity from wind overstates matters. Being highly intermittent, wind power has recently (2006) met as little as 5% of Denmark’s annual electricity consumption with an average over the last five years of 9.7%.

Denmark sells WE to other countries cheap and when it needs energy to meet demand, buys it dear. In effect storing the energy then paying a levy to use it, hiking the cost of the luxury energy even more.

Germany is replacing past their use by date nuclear reactors with ... coal.

End piece. There is more to this story but even this post makes it clear the authorities should never have imposed wind energy on a gullible public. Continuing to do so is likely collusion to criminally misuse funds.

Source: withouthotair.blogspot.com/2009/07/most-inaccurate-numbers-in-right-wing.html
*******************************

WUWT - A study: The temperature rise has caused the CO2 Increase, not the other way around

Climate Realists  
Abstract:
By applying generally accepted algorithms on radiative heat transfer, verified through experimentation by Hottel, Leckner(1) and other contemporary scientists and engineers(2)(3)(4), I demonstrate that carbon dioxide molecules do not possess the thermal properties to be able to cause global warming or climate change here on Earth.

Fraud 1. Maldives, Tuvalu, sea levels
Fraud 2. Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Fraud 3. Carbon credits
Fraud 4. The Wind Energy Boondoggle
Supplement to Fraud 4. Wind Energy
Fraud 5. Biofuel Boondoggle
Fraud 6. AGW by CO2 is settled science (by consensus)
Fraud 7. The IPCC - Its Reason For Being

Fraud 5. Biofuel Boondoggle

Biofuels, like wind energy, carbon taxes and carbon trading are the products of stupid, deceptive and corrupt idealogues. What is happening now is that the incompetent and brain dead EC is just now noticing that their eco fascist impositions are being seen to be counter-productive from just about every aspect. Their baseless and of only negative benefit dictats and directives that have and are, with the collusion of member country gov'ts, investing enormous amounts from the public purse on boondoggles such as carbon trading, wind energy and biofuel that have been shown in many studies to increase CO2 emissions.

Gang-green brought Spain and California to the brink of bankruptcy. Britain is in the same condition as Greece except the day of reckoning has a few years grace due to the term of gov't bonds. As for Spain, the other PIIGS and the UK, gang-green idealogues have played a major role in bringing nations to their knees. If EC and governmental incompetence and deceit was payable in pounds of flesh from those responsible, bureaucracy would be 98% lighter. 

"Green" describes not environmentalism but the susceptibility of those that subscribe to the gang-green agenda. These range from the media, environmental groups, energy users, advocacy org's, scientific organisations such as the RS and NAS, judges and activists to taxpayers and product supporters such as huhne and Cameron with his comic domestic wind turbine.

"Gang-green" describes the bandwagon of interests that have hitched their carriage to the "green" gravy train. The IPCC, the EU, the UN and politicians have used propaganda and lies to get the public to support the base and baseless eco-fascist ideology in order to increase revenue and extend gov't control by growing bureaucracy, NGOs and quangos. Business such as wind turbine sellers have used deceptive presentation of facts and omission of huge downsides to derive profit from public and private investment. Energy suppliers have supported the scam in the same way even down to the National Grid that is set to reap a substantial income increase by upgrading infrastructure to support integration of wind, to the detriment of end users of course. Scientists have used the scam to get guaranteed funding by including such as "study to determine harmful influence of AGW emissions" when they know the benefits both of CO2 emissions AND warming far and away outweigh negatives. Food retailers have used the green tag to attach an otherwise unjustifiable price hike to products. Media has consistently presented a one-sided view. Investigative journalism went out of the window when gang-green moved in. I guess the allegiance of owners*** had nothing to do with it. 

The Club of Rome (Madrid and Budapest and thousands of offshoots) given form at Rockefellers estate in April 1968 with Aurelio Peccei, an Italian industrialist, and Alexander King, a Scottish scientist designated as founders is a major force behind gang-green. The political agenda is described here.

The highly profitable scam of carbon trading was set up by Enron, Dupont, Soros, Strong and Gore with aid from Obama, supported and endorsed by the EC that used credits as a method to transfer wealth to Asia as a gift. The CoR is highly influential being an advisor to the EC and with members in the EC-EU, UN and governments throughout the world. Their stated objective is an eco-fascist world gov't using any means including fabricated climate scares, medical and financial alarms, supported by the EC, successive prime ministers from Eden on, as well as Cameron, Obama, Houghton and his IPCC and Hadley CRU, the RS and many, many other influential eco fascists. CoR admitted the failure of the green agenda and came up with the blue agenda. 

EU renewable energy
The Renewable Energy Directive requires E.U. member states to replace 10 percent of transport fuel with renewable fuels — overwhelmingly biofuels — by 2020. Biofuels currently account for 3.4 percent of transport fuel use in the E.U. The Renewable Energy Directive takes effect in December 2010.    

E.U. Memo: Commission sets up system for certifying sustainable biofuels  
Just another reasonless, invented to extend bureaucracy and create quangos at the expense of VAT and taxpayers.

What are biofuels?
Biofuels are transport fuels made from biomass. The most important biofuels today are bioethanol (made from sugar and cereal crops; used to replace petrol) and biodiesel (made mainly from vegetable oils; used to replace diesel). Biofuels accounted for about 3.4 % of transport fuel consumption in 2008 – up from 0.5% five years earlier. 
Biofuels are killers. Secret report: biofuel caused food crisis. Internal World Bank study delivers blow to plant energy drive.

Why do we need biofuels?
  We need biofuels to fight climate change and to help reduce greenhouse emissions by 20% as pledged by the European Council in 2007. Biofuels are the main alternative to petrol and diesel used in transport, which produces more than 20% of the greenhouse gas emissions in the European Union.   
Apart from the now blatant lie that human CO2 emissions are harmful, by their own disgraceful standards "We need biofuels" is patently false. Many countries have gas reserves sufficient for hundreds of years. Most countries have large coal reserves. Oil won't be in short supply unless foreigners like Obama ban drilling or tax maniacs make it prohibitively expensive.
 "... help reduce greenhouse emissions by 20%" is a patently false statement. Land use change from non cropped to biofuel cropped means an increase in irrigation. An increase in irrigation means more water going into the air as water vapour. WV is a much more effective GHG than CO2 in that it stores energy. CO2 instantly releases energy that it intercepts. But you can't get political and financial benefit from emissions of the GHG water vapour because the gullible public just ain't that gullible.

Read this:

Irrigation most likely to blame for Central California warming Evaporation cools the air next to the surface by moving heat into the atmosphere as latent heat that is released by condensation in cloud formation. Irrigation has increased globally. It accelerated to the late 70s then slowed dramatically.

Climate Change Impacts on Global Agriculture
Fischer et al. (2007) estimated an increase in global irrigation water requirements of 45 percent between 2000 and 2080. Irrigation water requirements were projected to increase by around 50 percent in developing regions and 16 percent in developed regions.

----

Note increasing CO2 volume reduces water dependency of crops. The estimates are probably wrong by 10-15%.

Irrigation - Worldwide Expansion of Irrigation, A New Paradigm, Environmental Concerns, Competition for Water, Increasing Productivity, Demand, Privatization 

In the half-century after World War II, the irrigated area of the world tripled from approximately 90 million hectares to 270 million hectares, an annual compound growth rate of over 2.5%. Most of the irrigated land is in the developing countries; over half is in Asia. There is a wide variation among regions in the fraction of cropland irrigated. Almost all of the cropland in North Africa and the Middle East is irrigated, over 20% in Asia, but 12% or less in the rest of the world.

The growth of irrigated areas in the developing world during this period was strongly influenced by two periods of severe drought: the drought in the Indian subcontinent in the mid-1960s, and the more general drought and shortfall in grain production accompanied by the energy crisis and fertilizer shortages in the mid-1970s. The Green Revolution—the development and spread of higher-yielding, shorter-season, fertilizer-responsive varieties—was closely associated with the expansion of irrigation.

The expansion of irrigation has been based mostly on the construction of new dams and reservoirs or, where ground water is readily available, through the use of tube wells. These reservoirs help to assure water supplies and allow carry-over of surplus flows in the rainy season for use in the dry season. Of the more than 40,000 large dams (defined by the International Commission on Large Dams as measuring 15 meters from foundation to crest), all but 5,000 have been built since 1950 .

Hmm.

I wonder how much of a water surface increase dams have given us. Plucking a number from the air, say an average 20 sq. miles would give 700,000 sq. miles. Then there is the acceleration of evaporation of the Caspian due to dams. How many marinas, garden ponds and swimming pools, since the 50s? The list is endless. I remind that WV is a GHG.

See the tables below for carbon debt offset terms.

How does the EU promote biofuels? Deceptively.
The 2009 Renewable Energy Directive1 sets binding targets for renewable energy. Every Member State has to reach individual targets for the overall share of renewable energy in energy consumption. In addition, in the transport sector, all Member States have to reach the same target of a 10% share of renewable energy. Biofuels are the main form of renewable energy used in transport.   
What the effect of this new web of deceit entanglement will be is to cause an artificial shortage of biofuel in Europe and force up the price bringing higher returns to investors such as perhaps commissioners and representatives. It will do nothing to alleviate land use change that is at the root of emissions. Even by their own standards of incompetence, self service and obeisance to the banking octopus dictates, this is a new low for the criminals in the EC and its rubber stamp parliament.   

What is new in two Communications? A different certificate scam.

• Sustainable Biofuel Certificate: The Commission encourages industry, governments and NGOs to set up voluntary certification schemes for biofuels. The Commission will assess whether these schemes are reliable and have fraud-resistant auditing. The certificates guarantee that all the biofuels sold under the label are sustainable and produced under the criteria set by the Renewable Energy Directive. All schemes have to have independent auditors which inspect the whole production chain, from the farmer to the trader and the fuel supplier.
• Protecting nature: The Commission explains very clearly which types of land can NOT be used to produce biofuels. These are: natural forests, protected areas, wetlands, peatlands. It explicitly rules out that forests can be converted into palm oil plantations.
  So it's OK to produce biofuel on land that was cleared before this latest act of deception and fraud comes into force?
• Promote only biofuels with high greenhouse gas savings: The Commission explains how to prove that the biofuels used have high greenhouse gas savings. It explains that all those which do not achieve greenhouse gas savings of 35 % compared to petrol and diesel, will not be accepted. This threshold will rise to 50% in 2017. In the calculation, not only carbon dioxide is included, but also methane (CH4) and di-nitrous oxide (N2O), both stronger greenhouse gases than CO2.
  The best thing for the planet, humanity and civilisation would be for the creators of these scams to find a very high bridge and do us all a favour. They are a hazard to the climate, life and civilisation as is everyone that supports them.

Does this mean that only these biofuels can be imported into the EU?
  No. It means that only biofuels that meet these conditions will count for the national targets the 27 EU Member States have to reach by 2020 under 2009 Renewable Energy Directive. This applies for all biofuels, whether they are produced within the European Union or imported from outside the EU. Only these biofuels can receive national public support such as tax relief.
So importation of biofuel produced by deforestation will continue. 

How does the certificate work in practice?
  Through any number of new quangos and increased bureaucracy.
An example: A UK fuel supplier who is using ethanol from Brazil has to notify the quantities of biofuels to the UK authorities. To show that they are sustainable according to the Directive, he can join a voluntary scheme. The fuel supplier has to make sure that throughout the production chain all records are kept, by the trader he buys the biofuels from, by the ethanol plant the trader buys the ethanol from, and by the farmer who supplies the ethanol plant with sugar cane. This control is done before the company is joining the scheme and at least once a year thereafter. The auditing is done as in the financial sector: The auditor is checking all the paper and inspects a sample of the farmers, mills and traders. He will check whether the land where the feedstock for the ethanol is produced has been indeed farm land before and not a tropical forest.
If the price of non certified biofuel is lower than the price of certified minus tax breaks, which would you buy considering certification is just another fraud to earn money for the EC and Al Gore types? Either way the users will pay more, i.e. who pays for the tax breaks?

Can I see a label, when I go to the filling station?
  It is not obligatory for a certification scheme to mark the end product with a label. However, schemes are free to do so. It would also make sense from a promotional point of view, if filling stations could show that they have sustainable biofuels. This is even more the case when a scheme applies sustainability criteria going even further than those required by EU law. 
Can I see clear labelling of how much of the price is tax? Nope. Green tag= price hike - always.

Have companies or governments already shown interest in setting up such a scheme?
  The Commission is in contact with many different companies and organisations interested in setting up voluntary schemes. It is expected that now that it is clear what the requirements for auditing will be, they will come soon to ask the Commission for recognition of their voluntary schemes.

Can there not be fraud? Auditors are not there all the time. In the very unlikely case – and despite the independent auditing – that there would still be a suspicion of fraud, any one can bring a case to the Commission and the Commission could take back the recognition of a scheme.   
If fraud was a concern of the EC it would have closed its accounts 14 years ago. That the self anointed bureaucratic layer has continued to receive illegal payments from nations means the commission past and present (that includes Kinnock) should be in front of a court for receiving monies illegally transferred by nations.   
Under the fraudulent and ridiculously maintained litany that CO2 is a harmful GHG, (despite the increasing abundance of observational research that debunks models that haven't got it right for the last 15 of 22 years), carbon trading will continue. Biofuels producers that can show compliance will get credits. The fraudulent carbon credit scam that criminals found so easy to commit further fraud through is now to be extended to, tah da de dahhhh--- biofuel certificates. (Has the Obama/Strong/Soros/Gore quartet got the Chicago biofuel cert. exchange ready?)

What biofuels are used in transport?
  In 2007 biodiesel accounted for 75% (6.1 Mtoe) of EU renewable fuels in transport, bioethanol constituted 15% (1.24 Mtoe), and the remaining 10% was pure vegetable oil.

How much biofuel is imported into the EU? In 2007, about 26% of biodiesel and 31% of bioethanol consumed in the EU was imported. Most of those imports came from Brazil and the USA. The overall majority of biofuels are produced in the European Union. On top of the sustainability criteria, EU biofuels have to show compliance with EU environmental law and agricultural requirements, including landscape maintance, protection of soil against erosion and management of the use of water. 
Much of that was dumped in the EU by the US that has a surplus.

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.   
See the chart below. Only 48 years to repay the carbon debt from such land use change alone.

Can you cut down rain forests and produce palm oil to make biofuels for the EU targets?
No. The Communication rules this out. It explicitly says that forests can not be converted into palm oil plantations.  Yet that contradicts what was said above, it says that rain forests already cleared can be used instead of allowing recovery by secondary growth. 
It also contradicts that such products are not banned, they just don't qualify for handouts of taxpayer money unless friends in the EC give a certificate.  

Are most biofuels from palm oil?
Only about 4-5% of biofuel in the EU is produced from palm oil. This is about 1% of world palm oil production. Outside the EU the use of palm oil for biofuels is not large either. More than 95% of palm oil is used for food and industrial uses such as cosmetics. Between 2000 and 2008, palm oil production increased by 20 million tons. That is forty times as much as the amount of palm oil going into biofuels in the EU (500.000 tons). So, biofuels are not the main cause of deforestation. The sustainability criteria are however a clear deterrent for deforestation.   
See the charts below. Biofuel crop prices drive deforestation and land use change by making cropping more attractive than e.g. growing real trees or animals.

EU studies show that biofuels are not saving greenhouse gas emissions. How is the EU reacting to this?
This is not the case. The recently released reports suggest that biofuels are saving greenhouse gas emissions. The Commission will publish a report on indirect land use by the end of the year, as requested in the Renewable Energy Directive on the basis of these studies. 
Cherry picked research is what got us this deep into debt, why would the EC divert from the con? Here we have patent lies from idealogues, idiots useful to the gang-green agenda and control freaks.
The following images (source U.S. corn subsidies drive Amazon destruction) demonstrate the price of soy has been forced as for wheat (corn) by its use as biofuel and so has driven deforestation. Deforestation is a major source of CO2 emissions.
An important study (Land Clearing and the Biofuel Carbon Debt - below the images) shows it can take up to 430 years for biofuels to repay the carbon debt for land change alone.



Biofuel production causes an increase in CO2 emissions.
For land clearance alone, when considered as a carbon debt it can take over 400 years to repay for palm oil and over 300 years for soy oil.
Land Clearing and the Biofuel Carbon Debt. Feb 2008 www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/...
Carbon debt, biofuel carbon debt allocation, annual carbon repayment rate, and years to repay biofuel carbon debt for nine scenarios of biofuel production. Means and SDs are from Monte Carlo analyses of literature-based estimates of carbon pools and fluxes (5).
(A) Carbon debt, including CO2 emissions from soils and above ground and below ground biomass resulting from habitat conversion.
(B) Proportion of total carbon debt allocated to biofuel production.
(C) Annual life-cycle GHG reduction from biofuels, including displaced fossil fuels and soil carbon storage.
(D) Number of years after conversion to biofuel production required for cumulative biofuel GHG reductions, relative to the fossil fuels they displace, to repay the biofuel carbon debt.
Also in an article (Biofuels May Hinder Antiglobal-Warming Efforts), the following image shows carbon debts.

Add to that crops sequester far less CO2 than forests.

Add to that the emissions and real (not the US/EU pretend) pollution in converting plant matter into combustible ethanol and biodiesel.
Biofuel plants pollute U.S. rivers 
Add to that biofuel NOx emissions.
Concerns over air quality could sink biodiesel sales in Texas
Add to that the (not a pollutant except to idealogues) CO2 produced by burning the damned stuff.
Cellulosic biofuels endanger old-growth forests in the southern U.S.
Cellulosic energy may trigger dramatic collapse in the Amazon
Biofuels 200 times more expensive than forest conservation for global warming mitigation

Facing criticism, biofuels industry forms new lobby group to influence lawmakers
Beyond high food prices, little to show for $11B/yr in biofuel support, says OECD reportCorn ethanol is worsening the Gulf dead zone
World fertilizer prices surge 200% in 2007, hurting the poor
UN: biofuels are starving the poor by driving up food prices
With subsidies, biofuel volume is ~same price as fosfuel. Except it produces ~a third less energy per unit.

Hemp yields ~3 times more ethanol per acre, 350 v 1000 gallons using far less fertiliser and water, and it is drought resistant. Is there a braincell to share in the EC?
If they can't make hemp legal for investment, greased palms and-or lobbyist reasons, get the Afghans to replace the heroin crops with hemp and give them a decent price for it.
The EC is committing blatant fraud by deception in several ways. Aside from the fraud that biofuel will reduce global warming, aside from the fraud that CO2 emissions are harmful, in the first instance biofuel from palm oil from new trees and soy grown on already deforested areas, palm oil and soy plantations already in existence in former rain forest land qualify. This is a carbon debt to the account of EC legislators, the commission and on the Bush/Obama admin. How many lifetimes to pay that back? These lands should be returned to secondary forest growth. Trees regulate the weather, and so the climate, not CO2.
More? Even with this addendum the whole downside is not covered.
*There are strong indications that the process to produce the fuel – including the machinery necessary to cultivate the crops and the plants to produce the fuel – has hefty carbon emissions.
*Water Use: Massive quantities of water are required for proper irrigation of biofuel crops as well as to manufacture the fuel, which could strain local and regional water resources.
*Smell: Biofuel production produces heavy smells depending on the type of materials used, and those smells are generally undesirable near large communities. While manufacturing plants can be isolated, this will add to the carbon emissions necessary to bring fuel to population centers.
As with wind energy, there is a small but genuine demand for biofuel. Inflated bureaucracy, especially unelected NGOs like the European Commission are like AIDS to society and like AIDS, the effects are devastating and remedies can be dire. When ideology supplants common sense, damaged and feeble minds are fertile ground. The free market and the public are subjected to the impositions of the beliefs of lunatic billionaires and fanatic activists without the legal constraint of cost benefit studies.
Had truly independent and exhaustive studies been conducted on CO2 emissions reduction (regardless of whether it is a warming gas), biofuels, wind farms and carbon credits with the results binding, I believe we would be bureaucratic boondoggle and propheteer free today, and much better off as individuals.
The US subsidised biofuel production with $29 billion between 2002-8, (the EU €45 subsidy per hectare of energy crops). Without that, as for wind energy, the boondoggle would be hot air. Without millstone legislation, carbon credits (hot air trading of EC permission to pollute) would be toilet paper.
Also see:
co2didit.blogspot.com/2008/03/cost-of-enviro-lunacy.html

Quotes by Rockefellers [closely associated with and agent of the Rothschild bank octopus]
*** We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected the promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world-government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the National autodetermination practiced in past centuries.
-- David Rockefeller in an address to a Trilateral Commission meeting in June of 1991
Whatever the price of the Chinese Revolution, it has obviously succeeded not only in producing more efficient and dedicated administration, but also in fostering high morale and community of purpose. The social experiment in China under Chairman Mao's leadership is one of the most important and successful in human history.
–- David Rockefeller
"You know, gentlemen, that I do not owe any personal income tax. But nevertheless, I send a small check, now and then, to the Internal Revenue Service out of the kindness of my heart."
-- David Rockefeller, before a Congressional committee
"...conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure -- one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."
--David Rockefeller / More here.

Fraud 1. Maldives, Tuvalu, sea levels
Fraud 2. Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Fraud 3. Carbon credits
Fraud 4. The Wind Energy Boondoggle
Supplement to Fraud 4. Wind Energy
Fraud 5. Biofuel Boondoggle
Fraud 6. AGW by CO2 is settled science (by consensus)
Fraud 7. The IPCC - Its Reason For Being

Fraud 5. The Biofuel Boondoggle

At live Journal
Fraud 1. Maldives, Tuvalu, sea levels
Fraud 2. Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Fraud 3. Carbon credits
Fraud 4. The Wind Energy Boondoggle
Supplement to Fraud 4. Wind Energy
and MyTelegraph
Fraud 1. Maldives, Tuvalu, sea levels
Fraud 2. Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Fraud 3. Carbon credits
Fraud 4. The Wind Energy Boondoggle
Supplement to Fraud 4. Wind Energy

Gang-green brought Spain and California to the brink of bankruptcy. Britain is in the same condition as Greece except the day of reckoning has a few years grace due to the term of gov't bonds. As for Spain, the other PIIGS and the UK, gang-green idealogues have played a major role in bringing nations to their knees. If EC and governmental incompetence and deceit was payable in pounds of flesh from those responsible, bureaucracy would be 98% lighter. 

"Green" describes not environmentalism but the susceptibility of those that subscribe to the gang-green agenda. These range from the media, environmental groups, energy users, advocacy org's, scientific organisations such as the RS and NAS, judges and activists to taxpayers and product supporters such as huhne and Cameron with his comic domestic wind turbine.

"Gang-green" describes the bandwagon of interests that have hitched their carriage to the "green" gravy train. The IPCC, the EU, the UN and politicians have used propaganda and lies to get the public to support the base and baseless eco-fascist ideology in order to increase revenue and extend gov't control by growing bureaucracy, NGOs and quangos. Business such as wind turbine sellers have used deceptive presentation of facts and omission of huge downsides to derive profit from public and private investment. Energy suppliers have supported the scam in the same way even down to the National Grid that is set to reap a substantial income increase by upgrading infrastructure to support integration of wind, to the detriment of end users of course. Scientists have used the scam to get guaranteed funding by including such as "study to determine harmful influence of AGW emissions" when they know the benefits both of CO2 emissions AND warming far and away outweigh negatives. Food retailers have used the green tag to attach an otherwise unjustifiable price hike to products. Media has consistently presented a one-sided view. Investigative journalism went out of the window when gang-green moved in. I guess the allegiance of owners*** had nothing to do with it. 

The Club of Rome (Madrid and Budapest and thousands of offshoots) given form at Rockefellers estate in April 1968 with Aurelio Peccei, an Italian industrialist, and Alexander King, a Scottish scientist designated as founders is a major force behind gang-green. The political agenda is described here.

The highly profitable scam of carbon trading was set up by Enron, Dupont, Soros, Strong and Gore with aid from Obama, supported and endorsed by the EC that used credits as a method to transfer wealth to Asia as a gift. The CoR is highly influential being an advisor to the EC and with members in the EC-EU, UN and governments throughout the world. Their stated objective is an eco-fascist world gov't using any means including fabricated climate scares, medical and financial alarms, supported by the EC, successive prime ministers from Eden on, as well as Cameron, Obama, Houghton and his IPCC and Hadley CRU, the RS and many, many other influential eco fascists. CoR admitted the failure of the green agenda and came up with the blue agenda. 

EU renewable energy
The Renewable Energy Directive requires E.U. member states to replace 10 percent of transport fuel with renewable fuels — overwhelmingly biofuels — by 2020. Biofuels currently account for 3.4 percent of transport fuel use in the E.U. The Renewable Energy Directive takes effect in December 2010.    

E.U. Memo: Commission sets up system for certifying sustainable biofuels  
Just another reasonless invention to extend bureaucracy and create quangos at the expense of VAT and taxpayers.

What are biofuels?
Biofuels are transport fuels made from biomass. The most important biofuels today are bioethanol (made from sugar and cereal crops; used to replace petrol) and biodiesel (made mainly from vegetable oils; used to replace diesel). Biofuels accounted for about 3.4 % of transport fuel consumption in 2008 – up from 0.5% five years earlier. 
Biofuels are killers. Secret report: biofuel caused food crisis. Internal World Bank study delivers blow to plant energy drive.

Why do we need biofuels?
  We need biofuels to fight climate change and to help reduce greenhouse emissions by 20% as pledged by the European Council in 2007. Biofuels are the main alternative to petrol and diesel used in transport, which produces more than 20% of the greenhouse gas emissions in the European Union.   
Apart from the now blatant lie that human CO2 emissions are harmful, by their own disgraceful standards "We need biofuels" is patently false. Many countries have gas reserves sufficient for hundreds of years. Most countries have large coal reserves. Oil won't be in short supply unless foreigners like Obama ban drilling or tax maniacs make it prohibitively expensive.
 "... help reduce greenhouse emissions by 20%" is a patently false statement. Land use change from non cropped to biofuel cropped means an increase in irrigation. An increase in irrigation means more water going into the air as water vapour. WV is a much more effective GHG than CO2 in that it stores energy. CO2 instantly releases energy that it intercepts. But you can't get political and financial benefit from emissions of the GHG water vapour because the gullible public just ain't that gullible.

Read this:

Irrigation most likely to blame for Central California warming Evaporation cools the air next to the surface by moving heat into the atmosphere as latent heat that is released by condensation in cloud formation. Irrigation has increased globally. It accelerated to the late 70s then slowed dramatically.

Climate Change Impacts on Global Agriculture
Fischer et al. (2007) estimated an increase in global irrigation water requirements of 45 percent between 2000 and 2080. Irrigation water requirements were projected to increase by around 50 percent in developing regions and 16 percent in developed regions.

----

Note increasing CO2 volume reduces water dependency of crops. The estimates are probably wrong by 10-15%.

Irrigation - Worldwide Expansion of Irrigation, A New Paradigm, Environmental Concerns, Competition for Water, Increasing Productivity, Demand, Privatization 

In the half-century after World War II, the irrigated area of the world tripled from approximately 90 million hectares to 270 million hectares, an annual compound growth rate of over 2.5%. Most of the irrigated land is in the developing countries; over half is in Asia. There is a wide variation among regions in the fraction of cropland irrigated. Almost all of the cropland in North Africa and the Middle East is irrigated, over 20% in Asia, but 12% or less in the rest of the world.

The growth of irrigated areas in the developing world during this period was strongly influenced by two periods of severe drought: the drought in the Indian subcontinent in the mid-1960s, and the more general drought and shortfall in grain production accompanied by the energy crisis and fertilizer shortages in the mid-1970s. The Green Revolution—the development and spread of higher-yielding, shorter-season, fertilizer-responsive varieties—was closely associated with the expansion of irrigation.

The expansion of irrigation has been based mostly on the construction of new dams and reservoirs or, where ground water is readily available, through the use of tube wells. These reservoirs help to assure water supplies and allow carry-over of surplus flows in the rainy season for use in the dry season. Of the more than 40,000 large dams (defined by the International Commission on Large Dams as measuring 15 meters from foundation to crest), all but 5,000 have been built since 1950 .

Hmm.

I wonder how much of a water surface increase dams have given us. Plucking a number from the air, say an average 20 sq. miles would give 700,000 sq. miles. Then there is the acceleration of evaporation of the Caspian due to dams. How many marinas, garden ponds and swimming pools, since the 50s? The list is endless. I remind that WV is a GHG.

See the tables below for carbon debt offset terms.

How does the EU promote biofuels? Deceptively.
The 2009 Renewable Energy Directive1 sets binding targets for renewable energy. Every Member State has to reach individual targets for the overall share of renewable energy in energy consumption. In addition, in the transport sector, all Member States have to reach the same target of a 10% share of renewable energy. Biofuels are the main form of renewable energy used in transport.   
What the effect of this new web of deceit entanglement will be is to cause an artificial shortage of biofuel in Europe and force up the price bringing higher returns to investors such as perhaps commissioners and representatives. It will do nothing to alleviate land use change that is at the root of emissions. Even by their own standards of incompetence, self service and obeisance to the banking octopus dictates, this is a new low for the criminals in the EC and its rubber stamp parliament.   

What is new in two Communications? A different certificate scam.

• Sustainable Biofuel Certificate: The Commission encourages industry, governments and NGOs to set up voluntary certification schemes for biofuels. The Commission will assess whether these schemes are reliable and have fraud-resistant auditing. The certificates guarantee that all the biofuels sold under the label are sustainable and produced under the criteria set by the Renewable Energy Directive. All schemes have to have independent auditors which inspect the whole production chain, from the farmer to the trader and the fuel supplier.
• Protecting nature: The Commission explains very clearly which types of land can NOT be used to produce biofuels. These are: natural forests, protected areas, wetlands, peatlands. It explicitly rules out that forests can be converted into palm oil plantations.
  So it's OK to produce biofuel on land that was cleared before this latest act of deception and fraud comes into force?
• Promote only biofuels with high greenhouse gas savings: The Commission explains how to prove that the biofuels used have high greenhouse gas savings. It explains that all those which do not achieve greenhouse gas savings of 35 % compared to petrol and diesel, will not be accepted. This threshold will rise to 50% in 2017. In the calculation, not only carbon dioxide is included, but also methane (CH4) and di-nitrous oxide (N2O), both stronger greenhouse gases than CO2.
  The best thing for the planet, humanity and civilisation would be for the creators of these scams to find a very high bridge and do us all a favour. They are a hazard to the climate, life and civilisation as is everyone that supports them.

Does this mean that only these biofuels can be imported into the EU?
  No. It means that only biofuels that meet these conditions will count for the national targets the 27 EU Member States have to reach by 2020 under 2009 Renewable Energy Directive. This applies for all biofuels, whether they are produced within the European Union or imported from outside the EU. Only these biofuels can receive national public support such as tax relief.
So importation of biofuel produced by deforestation will continue. 

How does the certificate work in practice?
  Through any number of new quangos and increased bureaucracy.
An example: A UK fuel supplier who is using ethanol from Brazil has to notify the quantities of biofuels to the UK authorities. To show that they are sustainable according to the Directive, he can join a voluntary scheme. The fuel supplier has to make sure that throughout the production chain all records are kept, by the trader he buys the biofuels from, by the ethanol plant the trader buys the ethanol from, and by the farmer who supplies the ethanol plant with sugar cane. This control is done before the company is joining the scheme and at least once a year thereafter. The auditing is done as in the financial sector: The auditor is checking all the paper and inspects a sample of the farmers, mills and traders. He will check whether the land where the feedstock for the ethanol is produced has been indeed farm land before and not a tropical forest.
If the price of non certified biofuel is lower than the price of certified minus tax breaks, which would you buy considering certification is just another fraud to earn money for the EC and Al Gore types? Either way the users will pay more, i.e. who pays for the tax breaks?

Can I see a label, when I go to the filling station?
  It is not obligatory for a certification scheme to mark the end product with a label. However, schemes are free to do so. It would also make sense from a promotional point of view, if filling stations could show that they have sustainable biofuels. This is even more the case when a scheme applies sustainability criteria going even further than those required by EU law. 
Can I see clear labelling of how much of the price is tax? Nope. Green tag= price hike - always.

Have companies or governments already shown interest in setting up such a scheme?
  The Commission is in contact with many different companies and organisations interested in setting up voluntary schemes. It is expected that now that it is clear what the requirements for auditing will be, they will come soon to ask the Commission for recognition of their voluntary schemes.

Can there not be fraud? Auditors are not there all the time. In the very unlikely case – and despite the independent auditing – that there would still be a suspicion of fraud, any one can bring a case to the Commission and the Commission could take back the recognition of a scheme.   
If fraud was a concern of the EC it would have closed its accounts 14 years ago. That the self anointed bureaucratic layer has continued to receive illegal payments from nations means the commission past and present (that includes Kinnock) should be in front of a court for receiving monies illegally transferred by nations.   
Under the fraudulent and ridiculously maintained litany that CO2 is a harmful GHG, (despite the increasing abundance of observational research that debunks models that haven't got it right for the last 15 of 22 years), carbon trading will continue. Biofuels producers that can show compliance will get credits. The fraudulent carbon credit scam that criminals found so easy to commit further fraud through is now to be extended to, tah da de dahhhh--- biofuel certificates. (Has the Obama/Strong/Soros/Gore quartet got the Chicago biofuel cert. exchange ready?)

What biofuels are used in transport?
  In 2007 biodiesel accounted for 75% (6.1 Mtoe) of EU renewable fuels in transport, bioethanol constituted 15% (1.24 Mtoe), and the remaining 10% was pure vegetable oil.

How much biofuel is imported into the EU? In 2007, about 26% of biodiesel and 31% of bioethanol consumed in the EU was imported. Most of those imports came from Brazil and the USA. The overall majority of biofuels are produced in the European Union. On top of the sustainability criteria, EU biofuels have to show compliance with EU environmental law and agricultural requirements, including landscape maintance, protection of soil against erosion and management of the use of water. 
Much of that was dumped in the EU by the US that has a surplus.

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.   
See the chart below. Only 48 years to repay the carbon debt from such land use change alone.

Can you cut down rain forests and produce palm oil to make biofuels for the EU targets?
No. The Communication rules this out. It explicitly says that forests can not be converted into palm oil plantations.  Yet that contradicts what was said above, it says that rain forests already cleared can be used instead of allowing recovery by secondary growth. 
It also contradicts that such products are  banned, they just don't qualify for handouts of taxpayer money unless friends in the EC give a certificate.  

Are most biofuels from palm oil?
Only about 4-5% of biofuel in the EU is produced from palm oil. This is about 1% of world palm oil production. Outside the EU the use of palm oil for biofuels is not large either. More than 95% of palm oil is used for food and industrial uses such as cosmetics. Between 2000 and 2008, palm oil production increased by 20 million tons. That is forty times as much as the amount of palm oil going into biofuels in the EU (500.000 tons). So, biofuels are not the main cause of deforestation. The sustainability criteria are however a clear deterrent for deforestation.   
See the charts below. Biofuel crop prices drive deforestation and land use change by making cropping more attractive than e.g. growing real trees or animals.

EU studies show that biofuels are not saving greenhouse gas emissions. How is the EU reacting to this?
This is not the case. The recently released reports suggest that biofuels are saving greenhouse gas emissions. The Commission will publish a report on indirect land use by the end of the year, as requested in the Renewable Energy Directive on the basis of these studies. 
Cherry picked research is what got us this deep into debt, why would the EC divert from the con? Here we have patent lies from idealogues, idiots useful to the gang-green agenda and control freaks.
The following images (source U.S. corn subsidies drive Amazon destruction) demonstrate the price of soy has been forced as for wheat (corn) by its use as biofuel and so has driven deforestation. Deforestation is a major source of CO2 emissions.
An important study (Land Clearing and the Biofuel Carbon Debt - below the images) shows it can take up to 430 years for biofuels to repay the carbon debt for land change alone.



Biofuel production causes an increase in CO2 emissions.
For land clearance alone, when considered as a carbon debt it can take over 400 years to repay for palm oil and over 300 years for soy oil.

Land Clearing and the Biofuel Carbon Debt. Feb 2008 www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/...
Carbon debt, biofuel carbon debt allocation, annual carbon repayment rate, and years to repay biofuel carbon debt for nine scenarios of biofuel production. Means and SDs are from Monte Carlo analyses of literature-based estimates of carbon pools and fluxes (5).
(A) Carbon debt, including CO2 emissions from soils and above ground and below ground biomass resulting from habitat conversion.
(B) Proportion of total carbon debt allocated to biofuel production.
(C) Annual life-cycle GHG reduction from biofuels, including displaced fossil fuels and soil carbon storage.
(D) Number of years after conversion to biofuel production required for cumulative biofuel GHG reductions, relative to the fossil fuels they displace, to repay the biofuel carbon debt.
Also in an article (Biofuels May Hinder Antiglobal-Warming Efforts), the following image shows carbon debts.

Add to that crops sequester far less CO2 than forests.

Add to that the emissions and real (not the US/EU pretend) pollution in converting plant matter into combustible ethanol and biodiesel.
Biofuel plants pollute U.S. rivers 
Add to that biofuel NOx emissions.
Concerns over air quality could sink biodiesel sales in Texas
Add to that the (not a pollutant except to idealogues) CO2 produced by burning the damned stuff.
Cellulosic biofuels endanger old-growth forests in the southern U.S.
Cellulosic energy may trigger dramatic collapse in the Amazon
Biofuels 200 times more expensive than forest conservation for global warming mitigation

Facing criticism, biofuels industry forms new lobby group to influence lawmakers
Beyond high food prices, little to show for $11B/yr in biofuel support, says OECD reportCorn ethanol is worsening the Gulf dead zone
World fertilizer prices surge 200% in 2007, hurting the poor
UN: biofuels are starving the poor by driving up food prices
With subsidies, biofuel volume is ~same price as fosfuel. Except it produces ~a third less energy per unit.

Hemp yields ~3 times more ethanol per acre than wheat (corn), 350 v 1000 gallons using far less fertiliser and water, and it is drought resistant. Is there a braincell to share in the EC?
If they can't make hemp legal for investment, greased palms and-or lobbyist reasons, get the Afghans to replace the heroin crops with hemp and give them a decent price for it.

The EC is committing blatant fraud by deception in several ways. Aside from the fraud that biofuel will reduce global warming, aside from the fraud that CO2 emissions are harmful, in the first instance biofuel from palm oil from new trees and soy grown on already deforested areas, palm oil and soy plantations already in existence in former rain forest land qualify. This is a carbon debt to the account of EC legislators, the commission and on the Bush/Obama admin. How many lifetimes to pay that back? These lands should be returned to secondary forest growth. Trees regulate the weather, and so the climate, not CO2.

More? Even with this addendum the whole downside is not covered.
*There are strong indications that the process to produce the fuel – including the machinery necessary to cultivate the crops and the plants to produce the fuel – has hefty carbon emissions.
*Water Use: Massive quantities of water are required for proper irrigation of biofuel crops as well as to manufacture the fuel, which could strain local and regional water resources.
*Smell: Biofuel production produces heavy smells depending on the type of materials used, and those smells are generally undesirable near large communities. While manufacturing plants can be isolated, this will add to the carbon emissions necessary to bring fuel to population centers.

As with wind energy, there is a small but genuine demand for biofuel. Inflated bureaucracy, especially unelected NGOs like the European Commission are like AIDS to society and like AIDS, the effects are devastating and remedies can be dire. When ideology supplants common sense, damaged and feeble minds are fertile ground. The free market and the public are subjected to the impositions of the beliefs of lunatic billionaires and fanatic activists without the legal constraint of cost benefit studies.
Had truly independent and exhaustive studies been conducted on CO2 emissions reduction (regardless of whether it is a warming gas), biofuels, wind farms and carbon credits with the results binding, I believe we would be bureaucratic boondoggle and propheteer free today, and much better off as individuals.
The US subsidised biofuel production with $29 billion between 2002-8, (the EU €45 subsidy per hectare of energy crops). Without that, as for wind energy, the boondoggle would be hot air. Without millstone legislation, carbon credits (hot air trading of EC permission to pollute) would be toilet paper.
Also see:
co2didit.blogspot.com/2008/03/cost-of-enviro-lunacy.html

Quotes by Rockefellers [closely associated with and perhaps agent of the Rothschild bank octopus - more, more]
*** We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected the promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world-government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the National autodetermination practiced in past centuries.
-- David Rockefeller in an address to a Trilateral Commission meeting in June of 1991

Whatever the price of the Chinese Revolution, it has obviously succeeded not only in producing more efficient and dedicated administration, but also in fostering high morale and community of purpose. The social experiment in China under Chairman Mao's leadership is one of the most important and successful in human history.
–- David Rockefeller

"You know, gentlemen, that I do not owe any personal income tax. But nevertheless, I send a small check, now and then, to the Internal Revenue Service out of the kindness of my heart."
-- David Rockefeller, before a Congressional committee

"...conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure -- one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."
--David Rockefeller / More here.