You read that right. 

The new binding energy targets the EU voted on and approved to lower CO2 and make Europe more 'green' will actually increase global warming, threaten endangered species and speed the deforestation of the South East Asian rainforests.

Via the Mighty Orb:

EU green targets will damage rainforests

European union green fuel targets will accelerate the destruction of rainforests in South-East Asia and threaten the habitat of endangered species, such as the orang-utan.  

In March EU leaders agreed to set a binding climate change target to make biofuel - energy sources made from plant material - account for 10 per cent of all Europe's transport fuels by 2020.

But the European Commission has admitted that the objective, which aims to cut carbon dioxide emissions, may have the unintended consequence of speeding up the destruction of tropical rainforests and peatlands in South-East Asia - actually increasing, not reducing, global warming.

Can you say oops?

European consumption of plant-based fuels will soar from around three million tons at present to more than 30 million tonns in 2010, driving a boom in imports of cheap biofuels.

Europe is still years away from self-sufficiency in biofuels produced from straw and other waste vegetation. As a result, demand for cheap imports of fuels, such as palm oil, is expected to soar.

Countries such as Indonesia have already begun planning an increase in the production of palm oil, a development campaigners fear will see more rainforest fall to the axe and rare peat soil burned.

Andris Piebalgs, the European Energy Commissioner, has confirmed that, despite setting the biofuel target, the EU has no system to certify that imports exclude palm oil or fuel production that has resulted in the destruction of rare natural resources.

Oops again.

''No mandatory certification exists at present that will guarantee that tropical rainforests or peatlands in South-East Asia are not destroyed for the production of palm oil," he said.

In a written response to a European Parliament question, Mr Piebalgs went on to confess that without a scheme EU targets "would supplement the pressure caused by growth in palm oil use and would make an additional contribution to the pressure on tropical forests and peatlands".

Commission declarations that it plans to develop a "sustainability" scheme, similar to one applying to the logging of tropical woods, have been greeted with scepticism.

Chris Davies, a British Liberal Democrat Euro-MP, doubts that any EU measures can be properly policed.

''We haven't been able to halt the supply from rainforests of illegally felled timber so how can we have confidence that sustainability certificates would be worth the paper on which they are written?," he asked.

Bingo.  But don't the rules and certificates make you feel good?

Environmentalists have called on the commission to ensure that biofuel policy does not wreak eco-destruction before setting targets.

''The biofuel policy of the European Commission is a complete mess," said a Friends of the Earth UK spokesman.

He added: "We think these targets are not only not useful but are destructive.

''Abandoning them is the only responsible thing to do." Efforts to agree international eco-standards for biofuel will be on the agenda of an EU-US summit in Washington next Monday.

Many developing countries are opposed, on free trade grounds, to green import restrictions on commodities such as palm oil and America disputes that a problem even exists, making agreement unlikely.

There is an attempted debate about Global Warming in which people like me who demand more research before we offer conclusions and legislation are told two things:

1. First we are belittled as being flatearth creationists who ignore the settled science (which is not settled), and we are demonized as being akin to holocaust deniers.

   And:

2. We are offered the simple sounding and on the surface quite reasonable suggestion that "we should act is if the science was settled just in case, because to do nothing is too dangerous in case the science is proven right".

The problem is that acting on an emotional panic based level leads to bad rules and laws that have unintended consequences…as the EU just discovered.  They pass laws that sound terrific, but actually are unenforceable and actually do more harm then good by contributing to more problems then they fix.

And again, more of a threat is still coming out of Asia, where they are not required by the Kyoto treaty or anything else for that matter, to act in a manner that protects the planets long term interests. 

But that's OK, we can just let them continue to blame America.