Virgin Atlantic hits back at biofuel critics

Airline insists green groups' knee jerk opposition to biofuel powered flight ignores company's commitment to only researching genuinely sustainable biofuels

Virgin Atlantic has hit back at environmental groups that branded yesterday's inaugural flight of a commercial airliner powered partly by biofuels as a " publicity stunt", insisting the green lobby should instead be co-operating with those firms working on developing genuinely sustainable biofuels.

"They showed their true colours yesterday by criticising the flight on Saturday evening before they even knew what the fuel was made from," said Virgin Atlantic spokesman Paul Charles, in response to a flurry of accusations from green groups that biofuel powered flight would fail to deliver significant carbon savings and would contribute to deforestation.

"It is time they spent more time working on a solution to climate change rather than criticising those companies that are out there working on developing the next generation of biofuels," he added.

The Virgin Atlantic 747 flew from London to Amsterdam using a blend of 80 per cent normal jet fuel and 20 per cent biofuel made from coconut oil and babassu oil in one of its four main fuel tanks.

Virgin boss Sir Richard Branson said that the flight represented a "historic " step forward for the aviation industry, proving that it was possible to use a mix of biofuels at 30,000 feet without the fuel freezing.

However, the flight met with a chorus of disapproval from green groups who insisted that the aviation industry's interest in biofuels had the potential to do more harm than good.

Friends of the Earth aviation campaigner Kenneth Richter said that biofuels were "a major distraction" in the fight to cut carbon emissions. "There is mounting evidence that the carbon savings from biofuels are negligible," he said. "If Virgin was really serious about reducing the aviation industry's impact on the environment it would support calls for aircraft emissions to be included in the climate change bill."

His comments were echoed by Peter Hardstaff of the World Development Movement who insisted the Virgin flight was nothing more than a "publicity stunt with dangerous consequences for the planet". The anti-poverty group argued that biofuels "are generally sourced from crops that displace the production of staple foods" leading to rocketing food prices.

But Virgin Atlantic insisted it had purposefully selected a form of biofuel that did not affect the food chain. Charles said that babussa palms grew wild in the Brazilian rainforest and that the oil was used in cosmetics rather than food, while the coconut oil came from existing plantations.

"It is time the green groups understood that the next generation of biofuel research is focused on finding sustainable alternatives," he said. "They have a point when they criticise corn oil, but we understand that and would never use corn oil."

He added that while the calculations on the level of carbon savings delivered through the flight were still being undertaken initial projections suggested the new fuel could cut the flights carbon footprint by between 15 and 20 per cent.

Branson also downplayed fears that there would be no way to produce enough of the new biofuel to meet demand from aviation firms without undertaking forest clearance, insisting that the next phase of the project to develop a commercially viable aviation biofuel would be focused on fuel made from algaes.