Not in so many words, of course, but let me explain.... 

There are few subjects on which George Monbiot is on the clever side of absolutely barking, but he worked out a long time ago that biofuels are not a good idea and he has been diligent in putting this message across.

In today's Guardian he revisits the subject of food shortages and he has some interesting statistics on where the grain harvest is going to:

At 2.1bn tonnes, the global grain harvest broke all records last year - it beat the previous year's by almost 5%. The crisis, in other words, has begun before world food supplies are hit by climate change. If hunger can strike now, what will happen if harvests decline?

There is plenty of food. It is just not reaching human stomachs. Of the 2.13bn tonnes likely to be consumed this year, only 1.01bn, according to the United Nation's Food and Agriculture Organisation, will feed people.

I am sorely tempted to write another column about biofuels. From this morning all sellers of transport fuel in the United Kingdom will be obliged to mix it with ethanol or biodiesel made from crops. The World Bank points out that "the grain required to fill the tank of a sports utility vehicle with ethanol ... could feed one person for a year". This year global stockpiles of cereals will decline by around 53m tonnes; this gives you a rough idea of the size of the hunger gap. The production of biofuels will consume almost 100m tonnes, which suggests that they are directly responsible for the current crisis.

This is interesting because it completely kills the argument that the crisis has been caused by crop failures (inevitably, "linked to climate change"). It's biofuels that are the problem. All good stuff.

So what are we going to do about it? George has the answer for us. It comes in two parts:

[W]e must demand that our governments scrap the rules that turn grain into the fastest food of all [biofuels]. 

No George, for the umpteenth time, the government can't do a thing. They must plead with the EU for a change in policy. They can do nothing unilaterally. So shame on you for avoiding the subject.

And the other? It will come as no surprise to hear that George wants to change people's behaviour. It's all our fault, you see. George's  reckons we should eat less meat. Does it occur to him that meat is only one of the products we get from the carcass of a cow or a sheep? Leather anyone? Wool? Gelatine?

And here's a question George. What are all those lovely organic farms you so favour going to fertilise their fields with, if not a by-product of the meat-raising process?