This is the issue here: An argument is made to stop biodiesel subsidies in Europe. It is a complex reason to do with net increased emissions. Now why de hell should we be interested in letting this reason sink in while othere subsidized activities such as oil exploration CAN ONLY INCREASE EMISSIONS?
"The experts unanimously agreed that, even when uncertainties are high, there is strong evidence that the ILUC effect is significant," (source)
The same thing with technical solutions. We are to believe we can have no technical solution to local electricity storage. But we are to EXPECT technical solutions to Climate Change. You can solve the storage problem every day in a thousand ways, tell me the cost of battery acid? Nothing right? Now the cost of batteries ? Solve the damn problem! But nooo..
Back to biodiesel. The real reason is that the oil industry does not want competition for diesel as long as there is plenty of that from the ground. How do we know? Because the complex reason somhow does NOT work for bioethanol.
"Ethanol feedstocks have a lower land use change effect than the biodiesel feedstocks. For ethanol, sugar beet has the lowest land use emission coefficients," said the IFPRI report.
Yeah right, so the sugar beets that grow on good agricultural land do not give rise to forest burning elsewhere. What? Instead of killing biodiesel for complex reasons,
LETS KILL FOSSIL FUELS FOR SIMPLE REASONS!