The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) might not be familiar to many, but its reports and analyses are used by nations across the globe to set policy.
Unfortunately, American media only cover papers and announcements from this organization when its findings support a liberal agenda.
For instance, when the OECD presented its new paper, "Biofuels: Is the Curse Worse Than the Disease?" at Tuesday's Paris meeting, American media ignored it, likely due to conclusions which go counter to soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore's views concerning the need to expand ethanol usage in order to solve manmade global warming.
As the Financial Times reported Monday, the OECD believes "the current rush to support alternative energy sources will lead to surging food prices and the potential destruction of natural habitats" (emphasis added throughout, h/t Benny Peiser):
Governments need to scrap subsidies for biofuels, as the current rush to support alternative energy sources will lead to surging food prices and the potential destruction of natural habitats, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development will warn on Tuesday.
Understand why American media ignored this? But there's more:
The OECD will say in a report to be discussed by ministers on Tuesday that politicians are rigging the market in favour of an untried technology that will have only limited impact on climate change.
"The current push to expand the use of biofuels is creating unsustainable tensions that will disrupt markets without generating significant environmental benefits," say the authors of the study, a copy of which has been obtained by the Financial Times.
To be sure, as nations around the world have aggressively moved towards biofuels this decade, grains prices have skyrocketed. In fact, for the first time in history, wheat crossed $9 on the Chicago Board of Trade Wednesday, a seriously ominous event.
Yet, also being hidden from the public by the media's decision to not report the release of this paper is the OECD's contention that biofuels aren't the panacea global warming alarmists avow:
The survey says biofuels would cut energy-related emissions by 3 per cent at most. This benefit would come at a huge cost, which would swiftly make them unpopular among taxpayers.
The study estimates the US alone spends $7bn (€5bn) a year helping make ethanol, with each tonne of carbon dioxide avoided costing more than $500. In the EU, it can be almost 10 times that.
It says biofuels could lead to some damage to the environment. "As long as environmental values are not adequately priced in the market, there will be powerful incentives to replace natural eco-systems such as forests, wetlands and pasture with dedicated bio-energy crops," it says.
Adding it all up, as NewsBusters has reported many times in the past, biofuels are not what is being advertised by folks on the left and in the media who have an agenda to advance regardless of the economic and environmental consequences.
In fact, the boycott of this paper by American media is another shameful example of how our press are manipulating the dissemination of information concerning global warming.
This is being accomplished by reporting only studies which support the alarmists' views regarding this matter, and boycotting papers like this that challenge the "consensus" position.
As such, if this OECD analysis made assertions and conclusions in lockstep with Al Gore, it likely would have been widely reported by all mainstream press outlets.
What a disgrace.
