A new consensus is emerging. 

Biofuels are Bad. Not that long ago they were Good.

As Mark Steyn puts it:

On April 15, the Independent, the impeccably progressive British newspaper, editorialized: “The production of biofuel is devastating huge swathes of the world’s environment. So why on earth is the Government forcing us to use more of it?”

You want the short answer? Because the government made the mistake of listening to fellows like you. Here’s the self-same Independent in November 2005:

At last, some refreshing signs of intelligent thinking on climate change are coming out of Whitehall. The Environment minister, Elliot Morley, reveals today in an interview with this newspaper that the Government is drawing up plans to impose a ‘biofuel obligation’ on oil companies… This has the potential to be the biggest green innovation in the British petrol market since the introduction of unleaded petrol…

The argument now goes that the massive (and massively subsidised) production of biofuels in the USA is distorting world markets and forcing up food prices round the planet.

But according to Robert Zubrin this is not the case. Instead:

… the ethanol program has actually stimulated corn production so much that, after the part used for ethanol is taken away, the net US corn harvest available for food and feed is up 34% since 2002. Furthermore, contrary to claims in many articles, this has not been done at the expense of soy or wheat production. In fact, U.S. soy plantings this year are expected to be up 18% to a near record of 75 million acres, wheat plantings are up 6%, and overall, US farm exports are up 23%.

Hmm.

Is any part of the wave of criticism against biofuels being whipped up by those who profit from the world’s current addiction to oil reserves controlled by non-democratic regimes?

Just asking.