A possibility that should be explored in earnest is the encouragement (with mandatory targets) of the recycling of cooking oil into biodiesel, given that rapeseed oil (the most promising oil crop in the EU) has a paltry 1000 l/ha of biodiesel yield, and that dumping used cooking oil is more harmful for the nevironment than efficient burning in a diesel engine. 5.1: Should the EU continue acting in favour of biofuels after 2010? Yes, it should, but more as a stop-gap measure against the economic effects of the inability of petroleum suppliers to keep up with growing global demand. 5.2: If the EU is to continue acting in favour of biofuels after 2010, should this action include or exclude the definition of a quantified target for biofuels? If oil supply does plateau at 2006 levels while global demand keeps pushing oil prices up, it will become economical to use biofuels and then EU support will be unnecessary. Moderate support should be given up to that point, to ensure that a substitute is in place. However, according to the land use calculations of answer 2.1, it seems unrealistic to increase the target share above 6%. A minimum level of 6% might be imposed by, for instance, requiring all gasoline to be an E10 mix, and encouraging biodiesel from recycled cooking oil. Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman
With intensive farming methods currently requiring substantial fossil fuel inputs, biofuels do not seem like a cost-effective way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Even if not actively promoting biofuels, the EU should ensure that the technical regulatory framework for transportation fuels does not unfairly favour fossil fuels over biofuels. Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman
What this means is discouraging road transport in favour of waterways and railways, and promoting public transportation by light-rail or electrified vehicles in urban areas.
It also means taking energy efficiency much more seriously than to date. The notion that we can all go on consuming liquid fuels as in the past, because biofuels will phase in and take up the petroleum slack, is a feelgood fallacy that needs to be actively discouraged. Car manufacturers must work rapidly towards decreasing fuel consumption as well as decreasing GHG emissions per litre consumed. Currently, the car industry is not meeting its own targets on these issues. If the EU is to use the tool of obligation, this is the first and most vital area in which obligation should be applied.
The Commission, in its dual concern with reducing GHG emissions and promoting energy security, should first and foremost be considering the demand side. Lower pollution and higher energy independence result from reduced consumption.
(Meaning any GHG gains from use of biofuel should not accrue to the car industry's credit).
The final sentence might better be:
The key to lower pollution and higher energy independence is reduced consumption.
The DG is TREN, Transport and Energy.
