According to the statement, the indisputable need for drastic greenhouse gas emissions reductions should not hinge upon wider implementation of biofuels that contribute to deforestation and compete so readily with the world's food supply:

[M]onoculture expansion is a driving force behind the destruction of rainforests and other carbon sinks and reservoirs, thus accelerating climate change. . .[It] is a major threat to the livelihoods and food sovereignty of communities many of which are already bearing the brunt of climate change disasters caused largely by the fossil fuel emissions of industrialised countries."

The IPCC summary states that "Biofuels might play an important role in addressing GHG emissions in the transport sector, depending on their production pathway." It also suggests the implementation of second-generation GM biofuels, e.g. cellulosic ethanol from switchgrass, made from crops genetically engineered to facilitate ethanol production. Presently there is no consensus on how or when newer biofuels will be economically feasible and widely available, but some estimate the technology is at least 10-15 years from commercialization.

Vast tracts of fuel-producing GM monocultures do not sound appealing, nor does growth of currently destructive agricultural practices. Indonesia is already planning to increase biofuel crop production 43 fold to meet projected world biodiesel demand, consequently opening up 20 million more hectares to crop production. According to the press release, this expansion would release 50 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere - or 6 years worth of global CO2 emissions. I've also already discussed Brazil's potentially damaging soy cropping industry and the impact of domestic ethanol production on world food prices. As Jeff noted in his post on the subject, Almuth Ernsting of Biofuelwatch highlighted that biofuels now supply only 1% of global transport needs and have already affected grain and food prices for the world's poor.

Mayer Hillman, senior fellow emeritus at Policy Studies Institute said: "There is an inherent and acutely serious problem within the report. On the one hand, it leaves us in no doubt to how vital conservation of the planet's ecosystems and carbon sinks are to averting the worst predictions made in the previous sections of the report. On the other, it proposes the large scale use of the biosphere to satisfy demand in the transport and energy sectors."

But it doesn't seem clear the IPCC is arguing for full-scale implementation of biofuels at all–rather, the argument seems to be for the development of common-sense biofuel policy that avoids the worst aspects of biofuel production. Many fail to understand that biofuels are only a piece in a greater renewable energy portfolio. No sane and logical enthusiast will claim to have the panacea for intense and growing resource consumption.

Here are some of the IPCC's actual recommendations under 'mitigation for the tansport sector':

• More fuel efficient vehicles; hybrid vehicles; cleaner diesel vehicles;biofuels; modal shifts from road transport to rail and public transportsystems; non-motorised transport (cycling, walking); land-use and transport planning.
• Second generation biofuels; higher efficiency aircraft; advanced electric and hybrid vehicles with more powerful and reliable batteries.
• Transport Demand Management, which includes urban planning (that can reduce thedemand for travel) and provision of information and educational techniques (that can reduce car usage and lead to an efficient driving style) can support GHG mitigation.
• Investment in attractive public transport facilities and non-motorised forms of transport.
• Mandatory fuel economy, biofuel blending and CO2 standards for road transport.

This all sounds pretty reasonable to me. But technology will only get us so far, and the summary nails this on the head:

Changes in lifestyle and behaviour patterns can contribute to climate change mitigation across all sectors. Management practices can also have a positive role. (high agreement, medium evidence)

There are multiple mitigation options in the transport sector, but their effect may be counteracted by growth in the sector. Mitigation options are faced with many barriers, such as consumer preferences and lack of policy frameworks (medium
agreement, medium evidence)."

If the IPCC were to suggest that the global climate could be stabilized without a significant reduction in growth and concomitant lifestyle changes by First World (and growing Third World) nations, this would be problematic, and doesn't seem to be the case. Without overemphasizing their importance, I think we can say that biofuels have a niche (and perhaps only that) in the transition to greener fuel sources and global reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

Read the Summary for yourself: Working Group III Report "Mitigation of Climate Change" Summary for policymakers.