Realist, not conformist analysis of the latest financial, business and political news

Why Not E10 Biofuel? Because It Provides Jobs, That’s Why Not

Apparently the use of E10 biofuel is just a no brainer:

[perfectpullquote align=”full” bordertop=”false” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””]Climate change: ‘No brainer’ fuel change to cut transport carbon[/perfectpullquote]

Hmm, well:

[perfectpullquote align=”full” bordertop=”false” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””]E10 is a mixture of 10% ethanol with 90% petrol, double the current permitted maximum.[/perfectpullquote]

Well, we’ve decent enough experience of biofuels, haven’t we? Including the fact that they end up producing more CO2 rather than less. But, apparently, it’s all a no brainer:

[perfectpullquote align=”full” bordertop=”false” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””] “For many reasons it is absolutely a no-brainer,” said Nic Dakin MP, the chairman of the all-party group. “On the environmental front, it’s a cleaner, greener fuel at a time when we’re trying to address air pollution and tackle climate change. [/perfectpullquote]

Well, let’s see if we can think of a reason why not:

[perfectpullquote align=”full” bordertop=”false” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””] “It is bonkers that the Department of Transport has yet to publish its consultation on the introduction of E10,” said Nic Daikin. “The British bioethanol industry is in a state of collapse, and ministers can not allow the fog of Brexit to distract them any longer from saving a £1bn industry that will not only make our cars cleaner and greener, but provide thousands of green jobs in the North and prove that the government is serious about championing the green economy.” [/perfectpullquote]

Ahh, there we go, that’s why not. Thousands of green jobs, eh? That is, this scheme will use more human labour than alternatives? But that’s exactly the thing we don’t want to do, use more human labour. For that makes us poorer – jobs are a cost, not a benefit.

So, no thanks, no E10. Making us all poorer isn’t a known aim of policy now, is it?

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Total
0
Shares
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

6 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Leo Savantt
Leo Savantt
5 years ago

Biofuels, expensive, high overall CO2 output, damaging to local environments and totally pointless. No doubt then that we shall be having more.

Davidsb
Davidsb
5 years ago
Reply to  Leo Savantt

Also, worse fuel economy, more engine wear, less ability to feed the starving poor…

Is there anything beneficial at all about E5, let alone E10?

(PS I’ve seen some idiotic drivel advocating E15 as the next step…..)

Leo Savantt
Leo Savantt
5 years ago
Reply to  Davidsb

No doubt they aim for E100 and zero food production.

literate3
literate3
5 years ago
Reply to  Davidsb

Brazil uses sugar cane waste which is both economic and reduces CO2 emissions (because it would otherwise be burned uselessly). Jolly good idea. Then some bureaucrat with less IQ than my cat (maybe a little more than my sister’s cat) decides than biofuel – any biofuel – is good.

Q46
Q46
5 years ago

Ethanol burns to give CO2 and water. But like the CO2 from burning wood and other vegetable matter, that is ‘good’ CO2 and does not cause global climate warming change emergency.

Quentin Vole
Quentin Vole
5 years ago

As I’ve pointed out before, “making the electorate poorer” is practically the job description of a politician. Take our money in taxes and then spaff it up the wall on their favourite vanity project …

6
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x