How many emails does it take to change a biofuels policy?
2 October 2008
... About 35,000. Or at least that's how many it took to help trigger the other week's biofuels vote victory. But before we go into that, some history.
Earlier this year Oxfam started campaigning against the use of biofuels. Made from crops like maize and wheat, biofuels were previously considered to be 'green'. But it's now known that biofuels are doing far more harm than good.
So as you can imagine, we were less-than-impressed when the European Union started suggesting it was going to introduce targets to make it compulsory for biofuels to be blended with petrol and diesel.
Action was needed. So we decided the best plan of attack was to target the MEPs (the people that represent us at the European Parliament) who were set to vote on the biofuel legislation at the EU.
35,000 emails were sent by Oxfam supporters from 19 different countries, meaning that for the last two weeks, MEPs were starting work with jammed inboxes. Though this was probably annoying for the MEPs who had to wade through a long list of emails, sometimes you have to annoy to make a point. And as the biofuel vote was ultimately one that will affect people's lives, this was a point that needed making.
The MEPs got the message. After two weeks of intense emailing the results were:
- The original target of biofuels providing 10 per cent of transport fuel has been reduced to 6 per cent
- Standards and safeguards should be introduced to help protect people in poor countries and reduce the impact of biofuels on food prices
- A strong review clause - which would potentially allow the target to be scrapped in 2014
We think this is important progress. And while we're not quite ready to crack open a big bottle of victory Champagne (ideally EU biofuels targets would be scrapped altogether), it's a step in the right direction.
The next stage is making sure the MEP's recommendations aren't watered down, and we'll be letting you know how you can keep the pressure on - the best way to keep up-to-date is by subscribing to our monthly email newsletter.
In the mean time, it's an opportunity for all of you who took the online action to feel rather chuffed that you helped change the direction of policy without even leaving your desk.
Comments
Dear Dr Bell.
We've been campaigning on this issue because today's biofuel policies are not the answer to the climate crisis or the fuel crisis but are instead contributing in a large degree to the current food crisis, hurting poor people hardest.
Current policies and targets in place in rich countries are driving up food prices as they divert more and more food crops and agricultural land to fuel production. Indeed, 30% of these price increases are attributable to biofuels, suggesting that they have endangered the livelihoods of nearly 100 million people and dragged over 30 million into poverty..
Biofuels made from non-food crops are often 'second generation' biofuels. While these are a far more sustainable way to produce biofuels, they have very limited use at present because the technology needed to produce large amounts of biofuel from them is not yet commercially viable.
So, while biofuels may offer some genuine opportunities for developing countries, the potential environmental, social and environmental costs of biofuels remain severe. Rich countries must urgently review their existing biofuels targets and freeze new ones, and discussion needs to continue to make sure that future biofuel policies have a pro-poor impact. We need to focus on how feedstocks can be grown in such a way that food production is not displaced or constrained, vulnerable communities are not displaced, and important ecosystems are not destroyed or degraded.
Ian | October 31, 2008 4:31 PM
For the developed country where the land is an issue, introducing biofuel is wrog idea. In the third world countries (tropical), I believe they have natural vegetation which can produce biofuel despate of using human and other animals food. I think climate change can be controlled if the UK,US,Italy, German, & Scadinavian countries will start again idustrialization, I think even poverty can be reduced. Even terrarism can be fought. Even war in developing country.
Nickson Ndyetabula | October 28, 2008 9:03 PM
I am proud to support Oxfam in all its campaigns and congratulate every volunteer worldwide who has the courage to act for the benefit of every human being who suffers.
Thank you Oxfam for giving me this wonderful opportunity to help other people and our beautiful planet.
Sylviane, UK
Sylviane | October 28, 2008 5:31 PM
The World is standing on four major food stuff pillars; wheat,rice, maize ,and cassava for tropical countries. So listing any of those pillars as biofuels, means the poor will surrender what is meant for the household food security to earn a dollar, and lots will serve to death! I pray that this stops on paper and never to be implemented
Nyamutale Placid | October 28, 2008 8:18 AM
As an Oxfam supporter and also someone who is concerned about global warming, I am concerned that the article dated 2nd October is extremely simplistic and misleading.
It is not necessarily true to say that biofuels are "made from crops like maize and wheat" and that "it's now known that biofuels are doing far more harm than good"
Some biofuels are waste products eg husks and straw or even sewage sludge. Using these as fuels may well be a good thing.
Others may be grown on poor land
that could not be used for food production eg wood.
There are many other proposals and technological developments I have read about which may well have merit.
You appear to be referring to bioethanol from food crops for blending with petrol and there are strong arguments against this. I believe that there is a better case for biodeisel since extracting oil from crops like rape is less energy intensive than making ethanol from wheat. Whether its overall a good thing, I am not sure.
However its a complicated issue and we need to look at each biofuel on a case by case basis rather than tarring all biofuels with the same brush. That is lazy journalism that serves only to make Oxfam look bad and demeans this whole important debate.
Kenneth Bell | October 27, 2008 7:35 PM
Good news, well done everyone!
Susan Gilchrist | October 18, 2008 7:59 PM
Hi Roger,
The detail was in the small print. The MEPs you, and everyone else, emailed were targetted because they were all members of Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, and so they might not have been your MEP per se.
The letter that you'll have sent when you completed the online action went into detail on this and explained that we weren't contacting MEPs about consituent issues.
Richard, Oxfam GB | October 6, 2008 11:56 AM
La humanidad siempre em primer lugar.
No destruan la humanidad que tenemos.
Antonio da Silva Ortega | October 4, 2008 5:37 PM
The growing of biofuels is a con. It competes for arable land and so pushes up food prices, and it's the poor who are deprived of food.
ken kirk | October 3, 2008 7:34 PM
Thanks for the feedback and news of some progress. Good news indeed. I noted however that when I responded to the call to post an email there was no indication given that it would be sent specifically to my MEP. I can understand the annoyance of MEPs if they are blitzed with emails from far and wide rather than just their own contituents.
Roger Hand | October 3, 2008 5:02 PM