- this area is one of the greatest "red herrings" of the environmental movement. Now, much of the energy we use comes from fossil fuels, which release, amongst other things, carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. This is from the carbon that was locked up in the fossilised remains. We know this contributes toward global heating. I am aware that some dispute this and, maybe, use that as an argument for doing nothing. However, you can aply what I call the "cookie jar" principle here - when it's gone, it's gone - even if the release of carbon wasn't an issue (which the science says it is, by the way), we would need to find alternatives in order fuel our energy-hungry society. Biofuels are sometimes held up as models of sustainable alternatives. This is because when they grow, they absorb carbon dioxide, so they are effectively carbon neutral, though I do wonder whether the full impact of processing has been put into the calculations. There is, however, a huge issue here - where do we grow the crops to use (this doesn't have to be palms by the way - a number of plants can be used in this way)? In order to replace the oil we currently use, it would be necessary to turn over vast areas of land to biofuel production. Yes, this could result in deforestation, perhaps we could grow biofuels rather than food - the income may favour this! Can you see a problem here? I could