Fossil fuels may be better than biofuel

YOU recently published an article warning that the new E10 petrol that is about to be introduced could damage the engines of some older cars (LeicestershireLive, June 20).

You point out that the government claims that this new fuel will help to combat climate change, but not that this justification for introducing it is in fact strongly contested.

Most petrol currently sold in the UK is E5, which has 5 per cent of the petrol replaced by ethanol.

The new E10 petrol will instead contain 10 per cent ethanol.

Because the ethanol is produced by fermenting crops, the suggestion is that the fact that carbon is removed from the atmosphere when the crops are grown means that ethanol production is carbon neutral, but this ignores the fact that devoting land to growing crops to produce fuel increases overall demand for land.

Directly or indirectly, this is driving a lot of deforestation and draining of wetlands, which releases large amounts of additional carbon into the atmosphere, as well as contributing towards destruction of biodiversity.

In addition, diverting land from growing food to producing so called biofuels also drives up food prices and the increased demand for land is driving human rights abuses, as indigenous people and small farmers are driven from their land, to make way for big plantations.

When all these factors are taken into account biofuels, such as bioethanol and biodiesel are actually worse than fossil fuels.

I would urge people to continue to buy older types of fuel where they are still available.

Malcolm Hunter, Leicester Friends of the Earth