Widely misquoted 'OECD report' on biofuels turns out to be... not from the OECD

An author of a controversial paper produced for the 'Roundtable on Sustainable Development' (earlier post) has posted a clarification regarding the relationship between the OECD and the report. He writes:

I was surprised that, despite the paper displaying prominently that it was 'by Richard Doornbosch and Ronald Steenblik', the press has paid more attention to the logo on the cover, and has begun each story with 'The OECD says … .' [...] the OECD as an institution — as a club of nations — certainly has not endorsed the paper. The paper (which at this stage was meant to be a discussion paper and revised before being published) was produced for a body that is largely independent of the OECD — ambiguously called the OECD Round Table on Sustainable Development — a talking shop for Ministers of Environment, Finance and Trade. - Ron Steenblik

The working paper has been misquoted as an 'OECD report' in The Washington Post, The Toronto Globe & Mail, MSNBC, The Melbourne Age and The Financial Times, among many other outlets who all copied each other's mistakes. Reuters is among the organizations which picked up on the story and reported it as an 'OECD report' instead of a draft discussion document for a group that has no immediate relation with the OECD. Biofuels Digest contacted Reuters and the Globe & Mail to make a retraction, but they have not yet responded.

Besides this mistake, the readings of the report by mainstream media were extremely simplistic and selective as well. Big chunks of it have completely been left out of the coverage: like the fact that there is potential to produce sustainable biofuels in the developing world (the paper even includes a quote by the FAO's director-general saying that biofuels can initiate an 'agricultural renaissance' in poor countries, and that they can alleviate poverty and salvage the environment); or the paper's discussion of the need to scrap biofuel tariffs and subsidies, because they hinder the trade of sustainable biofuels.

But the grand prize for selective readings goes to the European Federation for Transport and the Environment (notoriously anti-biofuels). It twists the paper's recommendations in such a way that it even concludes that the 'OECD calls for an end to EU's biofuels target'! The absurdity of the workings of today's media can't be illustrated better. It is about time mainstream journalists and organisations with a particular interest in biofuels stop writing about the topic as if complexity, truth and reason don't matter. Else, they are making themselves irrelevant to any serious debate on biofuels. Green fuels have many disadvantages and present certain risks, but the benefits should not be glossed over either. All aspects of biofuels need to be analysed and debated carefully by as many stakeholders as possible. Only then a consensus can emerge on which fuels to promote.

We agree with the executive director of the United Nation's very own Environment Program (UNEP), Achim Steiner, who said a few days ago:

We should ask ourselves: are we getting single-minded about the biofuels issue instead of looking at the full spectrum of issues?

Steiner said this after a workshop at the FAO, in which he debunks the false claim that biofuels are responsible for rising food prices. But none of the above mentioned mainstream media reported on Steiner's address either. Somehow, they have become very, very 'single-minded' indeed [entry ends here].
sustainability :: Africa :: ethanol :: biodiesel :: biomass :: bioenergy :: biofuels :: energy :: media ::