“Now that the United States is using 40% of its crop to make biofuel, it is not surprising that tortilla prices have doubled in Guatemala… Just three years ago, one quetzal – about 15 cents – bought eight tortillas; today it buys only four.” This startling development, set out and explored in great detail in the International Herald Tribune on Monday, illustrates one of the main unintended consequences of the huge increases in biofuel incentives, subsidies, mandates and other regulations. I urge readers to take a look at the article.

As regular readers of my blog will know, this is a topic close to my heart. I believe, however, that this message is worth repeating, as some governments and organisations are still in denial. At least partly in order to avoid an unpleasant truth, the re-designed method to estimate the number of people going hungry to bed, no longer captures “the effects of food price and other economic shocks” (Source: FAO, the State of Food Insecurity in the World, Rome, September 2012).

But food prices do matter in the real world of the hungry. As the article states, “the average Guatemalan is now hungrier because of biofuel development,” This is an unacceptable state of affairs and action needs to be taken. I hope readers of this blog agree with me?

“Are biofuels a cure worse than the disease?” This was the provocative but important question posed by Ronald Steenblik, a senior trade analyst for the respected OECD thinktank, who was speaking in a personal capacity at this week’s high level debate on EU subsidies reform chaired by Ms. Sirpa Pietikäinen, MEP and chair of GLOBE EU.

Behind Mr Steenblik’s comment is an assessment of biofuel subsidies that I share – namely, that the unintended social and environmental consequences of biofuels far outweigh the benefits claimed by its supporters.

In last week’s blog post I argued that the reason these negative impacts have gone largely ignored is to do with the vested interests and ‘Realpolitik’ that sits behind biofuels. This week’s discussion, organised by the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), was an attempt to re-establish a dialogue based on evidence, not presupposition.

Are biofuels doing more harm than good? It is a question that stays on the agenda, and I ask my readers to provide their views and facts. This week’s discussions at Doha remind us that tackling climate change can be as complex as it is important.

One such complexity relates to the unintended, negative consequences of well-intended solutions such as biofuels - one of the most divisive and controversial environmental policies.

This is a subject that I have written about several times before on this blog and one that I will be debating next week at the European Parliament during a high level discussion organised by the International Institute for Sustainable Development.

The water-food-energy nexus is a complex concept that is frequently cited but rarely fully understood. However the cost of failing to grasp these connections is measured not only in money, but in human lives.

The impact of extreme droughts on major agricultural production areas, such as those currently affecting the United States, is a stark reminder of this link. Water, which is vital for food, will be less available if food is used to produce fuel instead.

According to a study of the US Department of Energy, up to 9,100 litres of water are required to produce one litre of biodiesel. Add this to the structural overuse of freshwater and temporary drought affecting crops and food prices. The result is clear that biofuel production has had a massive impact on the increasingly fragile water-for-food equation and on the livelihoods of the most vulnerable people in the world.