Roy Heather: Biofuel Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Roy Heather: Biofuel Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 02 September 2008. Volume:649;Page:18280. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I stand and agree entirely with my colleagues from the National Party and with what they have been saying about the Biofuel Bill. This bill as introduced requires petrol and diesel suppliers to also supply biofuels with an initial level of 0.53 percent in 2008 increasing—as we have heard—to an upper level of 2.5 percent by 2012. Here we have more dopey legislation being introduced in this urgency motion. Why after 9 long years of a Labour Government is this bill suddenly being rushed through in the death throes of this Government? The reason is that it wants to leave its mark on the world and show that it cares. Well if it really cared it would look not just at the costs which it is having difficulty quantifying anyway—or describing accurately—but also at the hidden costs this bill will bring to not just New Zealand but elsewhere.  
The environmental benefits of biofuels are arguable at best. Before we embark here in New Zealand on a campaign of changing our fuel source let us look at what is happening abroad. I contend that other countries are now exhibiting very serious lessons that we should be paying some attention to. In the United States the leading source of biofuels is corn or maize. Nobel Prize - winning atmospheric chemist Paul Crutzen a man not known for his climate change scepticism found in 2007 that biofuels made from corn and rapeseed—something that Jeanette Fitzsimons stood in this House and propounded the benefits of—contribute more to global warming than fossil fuels. Biofuels made from corn and rapeseed contribute more to global warming than fossil fuels; there is a lesson there.  
While we are on the topic of emissions we should note that biofuels emit a significantly higher level of nitrous oxide into the air. Before Mr Anderton gets too excited I should point out that nitrous oxides are the principal cause of smog—something that people in Christchurch are well aware of or at least they should be. So I ask the Labour members of this House from Christchurch to explain to their constituents why they are supporting this bill.  
While we are talking about overseas examples I ask: what about Brazil? It is the second largest producer of biofuels in the world. How has it achieved this honour? Through having a large-scale slash and burn of the country’s native rainforest. As if the rainforest was not diminishing at a rapid enough rate as it is Brazil has now embarked on an unprecedented campaign of cutting down rainforest to plant sugar cane for biofuel production. That is something I thought the Greens and possibly some of the more conservation-minded members of the Labour Party might have thought was important.  
The loss of Brazil’s rainforest though is potentially not the worst impact of biofuels. The worst impacts may well be seen in Africa. In May 2008 Olivier de Schutter the United Nations food adviser stated: “The ambitious goals for biofuel production set by the United States and the European Union are irresponsible … I am calling for a freeze on all investment in this sector.” Why did he call for that? The reasons are twofold. Firstly food that was once used for its intended purpose is now being turned into biofuels. The very poor in the world are now starving because they can no longer afford what was very cheap food that made them sustainable—it actually kept them alive. Again the Greens and Labour once upon a time actually believed in helping out the poor of the world.  
Secondly land once used for intensive food production is now being converted to biofuel production. The cause is the latest fascination of the West and the victims are those in poverty—those in poverty in Asia and Africa. Sadly those who are in poverty in New Zealand will now have more costs imposed upon them. Pushing food prices up will hurt most those who are least able to afford it and all so that Helen Clark Michael Cullen and the Labour Cabinet can feel that they are doing something positive for the environment when they drive around in their new BMW ministerial fleet. Legislation that diverts food supply into fuel for those least able to afford it is dopey legislation and the ACT party will be opposing it.