❓ Donaldson questions the WA government's biofuel funding given concerns about grain use impacting world food needs. Chance acknowledges the issue, noting research funding and ongoing analysis of a Biofuels Taskforce report.
AnsweredQoN 90Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
BIOFUELS — GRAIN USE
I refer to the government’s present position on the use of grain for biofuel or fuel additives such as ethanol, when evidence shows that their use could be a serious threat to much-required world food needs. (1) Is the government providing any funding for biofuel research? (2) If so, will the government reassess any future funding approaches? Hon KIM CHANCE
I refer to the government’s present position on the use of grain for biofuel or fuel additives such as ethanol, when evidence shows that their use could be a serious threat to much-required world food needs. (1) Is the government providing any funding for biofuel research? (2) If so, will the government reassess any future funding approaches? Hon KIM CHANCE
AnswerView source ↗
I thank Hon Bruce Donaldson for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) The issue of grain for biofuels is certainly an interesting one, particularly since the European Union and, more recently, the government of Great Britain have called into question the issue of their commitment to mandate, particularly from the EU. The EU’s position seems to be driven fundamentally by its concern of rainforest devastation as a result of palm plantations replacing tropical rainforests. The British situation seems to be slightly different in that it is also raising the question of increasing grain prices. I think it is the British position that is more interesting because the rainforest issue can be dealt with quite objectively and is fairly straightforward. The issue about grain prices, of course, is more complicated because a number of different factors are contributing to the peaking in grain prices, one of which might be biofuels. I stress the “might be” because I do not think it is. I think there is some issue between the take-up of the US corn crop for biofuels. However, we must remember that the US corn crop is not a human food crop. Fundamentally, the US corn crop goes into the mid-west and feeds cattle. The out-turn of that is fairly highly priced beef, which hardly has an effect on the basic grain prices. The question was about whether the government has formed a view. In fact, since we have received the report of the task force that was established as a result of a Legislative Assembly motion and was chaired by Hon Graham Giffard, we have been analysing that, and a number of changes have happened in the biofuels area. The government is yet to commit to a view in its response to the Biofuels Taskforce, although that question of mandate—the five per cent mandate that was recommended from 2011—arises only if the target of five per cent use by 2010 is not reached. The mandate question is conditional in the recommendations. I do not know what the government’s response to that will be. I am certainly standing behind the recommendations of the Biofuels Taskforce because I believe a mandate is an entirely defensible position. The Western Australian Department of Agriculture and Food has done some research on grain for biofuels and has been a leader in biofuels, although more so with biodiesel than with ethanol. We have committed small amounts of research funding into that area. We are now looking at increasing that research funding, particularly in areas of identification of appropriate wheat varieties for a proposed bioethanol plant in Western Australia to try to breed varieties that may be suitable for that specific end use.
(1) Is the government providing any funding for biofuel research? (2) If so, will the government reassess any future funding approaches? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Bruce Donaldson for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) The issue of grain for biofuels is certainly an interesting one, particularly since the European Union and, more recently, the government of Great Britain have called into question the issue of their commitment to mandate, particularly from the EU. The EU’s position seems to be driven fundamentally by its concern of rainforest devastation as a result of palm plantations replacing tropical rainforests. The British situation seems to be slightly different in that it is also raising the question of increasing grain prices. I think it is the British position that is more interesting because the rainforest issue can be dealt with quite objectively and is fairly straightforward. The issue about grain prices, of course, is more complicated because a number of different factors are contributing to the peaking in grain prices, one of which might be biofuels. I stress the “might be” because I do not think it is. I think there is some issue between the take-up of the US corn crop for biofuels. However, we must remember that the US corn crop is not a human food crop. Fundamentally, the US corn crop goes into the mid-west and feeds cattle. The out-turn of that is fairly highly priced beef, which hardly has an effect on the basic grain prices. The question was about whether the government has formed a view. In fact, since we have received the report of the task force that was established as a result of a Legislative Assembly motion and was chaired by Hon Graham Giffard, we have been analysing that, and a number of changes have happened in the biofuels area. The government is yet to commit to a view in its response to the Biofuels Taskforce, although that question of mandate—the five per cent mandate that was recommended from 2011—arises only if the target of five per cent use by 2010 is not reached. The mandate question is conditional in the recommendations. I do not know what the government’s response to that will be. I am certainly standing behind the recommendations of the Biofuels Taskforce because I believe a mandate is an entirely defensible position. The Western Australian Department of Agriculture and Food has done some research on grain for biofuels and has been a leader in biofuels, although more so with biodiesel than with ethanol. We have committed small amounts of research funding into that area. We are now looking at increasing that research funding, particularly in areas of identification of appropriate wheat varieties for a proposed bioethanol plant in Western Australia to try to breed varieties that may be suitable for that specific end use.
(2) If so, will the government reassess any future funding approaches? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Bruce Donaldson for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) The issue of grain for biofuels is certainly an interesting one, particularly since the European Union and, more recently, the government of Great Britain have called into question the issue of their commitment to mandate, particularly from the EU. The EU’s position seems to be driven fundamentally by its concern of rainforest devastation as a result of palm plantations replacing tropical rainforests. The British situation seems to be slightly different in that it is also raising the question of increasing grain prices. I think it is the British position that is more interesting because the rainforest issue can be dealt with quite objectively and is fairly straightforward. The issue about grain prices, of course, is more complicated because a number of different factors are contributing to the peaking in grain prices, one of which might be biofuels. I stress the “might be” because I do not think it is. I think there is some issue between the take-up of the US corn crop for biofuels. However, we must remember that the US corn crop is not a human food crop. Fundamentally, the US corn crop goes into the mid-west and feeds cattle. The out-turn of that is fairly highly priced beef, which hardly has an effect on the basic grain prices. The question was about whether the government has formed a view. In fact, since we have received the report of the task force that was established as a result of a Legislative Assembly motion and was chaired by Hon Graham Giffard, we have been analysing that, and a number of changes have happened in the biofuels area. The government is yet to commit to a view in its response to the Biofuels Taskforce, although that question of mandate—the five per cent mandate that was recommended from 2011—arises only if the target of five per cent use by 2010 is not reached. The mandate question is conditional in the recommendations. I do not know what the government’s response to that will be. I am certainly standing behind the recommendations of the Biofuels Taskforce because I believe a mandate is an entirely defensible position. The Western Australian Department of Agriculture and Food has done some research on grain for biofuels and has been a leader in biofuels, although more so with biodiesel than with ethanol. We have committed small amounts of research funding into that area. We are now looking at increasing that research funding, particularly in areas of identification of appropriate wheat varieties for a proposed bioethanol plant in Western Australia to try to breed varieties that may be suitable for that specific end use.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Bruce Donaldson for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) The issue of grain for biofuels is certainly an interesting one, particularly since the European Union and, more recently, the government of Great Britain have called into question the issue of their commitment to mandate, particularly from the EU. The EU’s position seems to be driven fundamentally by its concern of rainforest devastation as a result of palm plantations replacing tropical rainforests. The British situation seems to be slightly different in that it is also raising the question of increasing grain prices. I think it is the British position that is more interesting because the rainforest issue can be dealt with quite objectively and is fairly straightforward. The issue about grain prices, of course, is more complicated because a number of different factors are contributing to the peaking in grain prices, one of which might be biofuels. I stress the “might be” because I do not think it is. I think there is some issue between the take-up of the US corn crop for biofuels. However, we must remember that the US corn crop is not a human food crop. Fundamentally, the US corn crop goes into the mid-west and feeds cattle. The out-turn of that is fairly highly priced beef, which hardly has an effect on the basic grain prices. The question was about whether the government has formed a view. In fact, since we have received the report of the task force that was established as a result of a Legislative Assembly motion and was chaired by Hon Graham Giffard, we have been analysing that, and a number of changes have happened in the biofuels area. The government is yet to commit to a view in its response to the Biofuels Taskforce, although that question of mandate—the five per cent mandate that was recommended from 2011—arises only if the target of five per cent use by 2010 is not reached. The mandate question is conditional in the recommendations. I do not know what the government’s response to that will be. I am certainly standing behind the recommendations of the Biofuels Taskforce because I believe a mandate is an entirely defensible position. The Western Australian Department of Agriculture and Food has done some research on grain for biofuels and has been a leader in biofuels, although more so with biodiesel than with ethanol. We have committed small amounts of research funding into that area. We are now looking at increasing that research funding, particularly in areas of identification of appropriate wheat varieties for a proposed bioethanol plant in Western Australia to try to breed varieties that may be suitable for that specific end use.
I thank Hon Bruce Donaldson for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) The issue of grain for biofuels is certainly an interesting one, particularly since the European Union and, more recently, the government of Great Britain have called into question the issue of their commitment to mandate, particularly from the EU. The EU’s position seems to be driven fundamentally by its concern of rainforest devastation as a result of palm plantations replacing tropical rainforests. The British situation seems to be slightly different in that it is also raising the question of increasing grain prices. I think it is the British position that is more interesting because the rainforest issue can be dealt with quite objectively and is fairly straightforward. The issue about grain prices, of course, is more complicated because a number of different factors are contributing to the peaking in grain prices, one of which might be biofuels. I stress the “might be” because I do not think it is. I think there is some issue between the take-up of the US corn crop for biofuels. However, we must remember that the US corn crop is not a human food crop. Fundamentally, the US corn crop goes into the mid-west and feeds cattle. The out-turn of that is fairly highly priced beef, which hardly has an effect on the basic grain prices. The question was about whether the government has formed a view. In fact, since we have received the report of the task force that was established as a result of a Legislative Assembly motion and was chaired by Hon Graham Giffard, we have been analysing that, and a number of changes have happened in the biofuels area. The government is yet to commit to a view in its response to the Biofuels Taskforce, although that question of mandate—the five per cent mandate that was recommended from 2011—arises only if the target of five per cent use by 2010 is not reached. The mandate question is conditional in the recommendations. I do not know what the government’s response to that will be. I am certainly standing behind the recommendations of the Biofuels Taskforce because I believe a mandate is an entirely defensible position. The Western Australian Department of Agriculture and Food has done some research on grain for biofuels and has been a leader in biofuels, although more so with biodiesel than with ethanol. We have committed small amounts of research funding into that area. We are now looking at increasing that research funding, particularly in areas of identification of appropriate wheat varieties for a proposed bioethanol plant in Western Australia to try to breed varieties that may be suitable for that specific end use.
(1)-(2) The issue of grain for biofuels is certainly an interesting one, particularly since the European Union and, more recently, the government of Great Britain have called into question the issue of their commitment to mandate, particularly from the EU. The EU’s position seems to be driven fundamentally by its concern of rainforest devastation as a result of palm plantations replacing tropical rainforests. The British situation seems to be slightly different in that it is also raising the question of increasing grain prices. I think it is the British position that is more interesting because the rainforest issue can be dealt with quite objectively and is fairly straightforward. The issue about grain prices, of course, is more complicated because a number of different factors are contributing to the peaking in grain prices, one of which might be biofuels. I stress the “might be” because I do not think it is. I think there is some issue between the take-up of the US corn crop for biofuels. However, we must remember that the US corn crop is not a human food crop. Fundamentally, the US corn crop goes into the mid-west and feeds cattle. The out-turn of that is fairly highly priced beef, which hardly has an effect on the basic grain prices. The question was about whether the government has formed a view. In fact, since we have received the report of the task force that was established as a result of a Legislative Assembly motion and was chaired by Hon Graham Giffard, we have been analysing that, and a number of changes have happened in the biofuels area. The government is yet to commit to a view in its response to the Biofuels Taskforce, although that question of mandate—the five per cent mandate that was recommended from 2011—arises only if the target of five per cent use by 2010 is not reached. The mandate question is conditional in the recommendations. I do not know what the government’s response to that will be. I am certainly standing behind the recommendations of the Biofuels Taskforce because I believe a mandate is an entirely defensible position. The Western Australian Department of Agriculture and Food has done some research on grain for biofuels and has been a leader in biofuels, although more so with biodiesel than with ethanol. We have committed small amounts of research funding into that area. We are now looking at increasing that research funding, particularly in areas of identification of appropriate wheat varieties for a proposed bioethanol plant in Western Australia to try to breed varieties that may be suitable for that specific end use.
The government is yet to commit to a view in its response to the Biofuels Taskforce, although that question of mandate—the five per cent mandate that was recommended from 2011—arises only if the target of five per cent use by 2010 is not reached. The mandate question is conditional in the recommendations. I do not know what the government’s response to that will be. I am certainly standing behind the recommendations of the Biofuels Taskforce because I believe a mandate is an entirely defensible position. The Western Australian Department of Agriculture and Food has done some research on grain for biofuels and has been a leader in biofuels, although more so with biodiesel than with ethanol. We have committed small amounts of research funding into that area. We are now looking at increasing that research funding, particularly in areas of identification of appropriate wheat varieties for a proposed bioethanol plant in Western Australia to try to breed varieties that may be suitable for that specific end use.
The Western Australian Department of Agriculture and Food has done some research on grain for biofuels and has been a leader in biofuels, although more so with biodiesel than with ethanol. We have committed small amounts of research funding into that area. We are now looking at increasing that research funding, particularly in areas of identification of appropriate wheat varieties for a proposed bioethanol plant in Western Australia to try to breed varieties that may be suitable for that specific end use.
(1) Is the government providing any funding for biofuel research? (2) If so, will the government reassess any future funding approaches? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Bruce Donaldson for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) The issue of grain for biofuels is certainly an interesting one, particularly since the European Union and, more recently, the government of Great Britain have called into question the issue of their commitment to mandate, particularly from the EU. The EU’s position seems to be driven fundamentally by its concern of rainforest devastation as a result of palm plantations replacing tropical rainforests. The British situation seems to be slightly different in that it is also raising the question of increasing grain prices. I think it is the British position that is more interesting because the rainforest issue can be dealt with quite objectively and is fairly straightforward. The issue about grain prices, of course, is more complicated because a number of different factors are contributing to the peaking in grain prices, one of which might be biofuels. I stress the “might be” because I do not think it is. I think there is some issue between the take-up of the US corn crop for biofuels. However, we must remember that the US corn crop is not a human food crop. Fundamentally, the US corn crop goes into the mid-west and feeds cattle. The out-turn of that is fairly highly priced beef, which hardly has an effect on the basic grain prices. The question was about whether the government has formed a view. In fact, since we have received the report of the task force that was established as a result of a Legislative Assembly motion and was chaired by Hon Graham Giffard, we have been analysing that, and a number of changes have happened in the biofuels area. The government is yet to commit to a view in its response to the Biofuels Taskforce, although that question of mandate—the five per cent mandate that was recommended from 2011—arises only if the target of five per cent use by 2010 is not reached. The mandate question is conditional in the recommendations. I do not know what the government’s response to that will be. I am certainly standing behind the recommendations of the Biofuels Taskforce because I believe a mandate is an entirely defensible position. The Western Australian Department of Agriculture and Food has done some research on grain for biofuels and has been a leader in biofuels, although more so with biodiesel than with ethanol. We have committed small amounts of research funding into that area. We are now looking at increasing that research funding, particularly in areas of identification of appropriate wheat varieties for a proposed bioethanol plant in Western Australia to try to breed varieties that may be suitable for that specific end use.
(2) If so, will the government reassess any future funding approaches? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Bruce Donaldson for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) The issue of grain for biofuels is certainly an interesting one, particularly since the European Union and, more recently, the government of Great Britain have called into question the issue of their commitment to mandate, particularly from the EU. The EU’s position seems to be driven fundamentally by its concern of rainforest devastation as a result of palm plantations replacing tropical rainforests. The British situation seems to be slightly different in that it is also raising the question of increasing grain prices. I think it is the British position that is more interesting because the rainforest issue can be dealt with quite objectively and is fairly straightforward. The issue about grain prices, of course, is more complicated because a number of different factors are contributing to the peaking in grain prices, one of which might be biofuels. I stress the “might be” because I do not think it is. I think there is some issue between the take-up of the US corn crop for biofuels. However, we must remember that the US corn crop is not a human food crop. Fundamentally, the US corn crop goes into the mid-west and feeds cattle. The out-turn of that is fairly highly priced beef, which hardly has an effect on the basic grain prices. The question was about whether the government has formed a view. In fact, since we have received the report of the task force that was established as a result of a Legislative Assembly motion and was chaired by Hon Graham Giffard, we have been analysing that, and a number of changes have happened in the biofuels area. The government is yet to commit to a view in its response to the Biofuels Taskforce, although that question of mandate—the five per cent mandate that was recommended from 2011—arises only if the target of five per cent use by 2010 is not reached. The mandate question is conditional in the recommendations. I do not know what the government’s response to that will be. I am certainly standing behind the recommendations of the Biofuels Taskforce because I believe a mandate is an entirely defensible position. The Western Australian Department of Agriculture and Food has done some research on grain for biofuels and has been a leader in biofuels, although more so with biodiesel than with ethanol. We have committed small amounts of research funding into that area. We are now looking at increasing that research funding, particularly in areas of identification of appropriate wheat varieties for a proposed bioethanol plant in Western Australia to try to breed varieties that may be suitable for that specific end use.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Bruce Donaldson for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) The issue of grain for biofuels is certainly an interesting one, particularly since the European Union and, more recently, the government of Great Britain have called into question the issue of their commitment to mandate, particularly from the EU. The EU’s position seems to be driven fundamentally by its concern of rainforest devastation as a result of palm plantations replacing tropical rainforests. The British situation seems to be slightly different in that it is also raising the question of increasing grain prices. I think it is the British position that is more interesting because the rainforest issue can be dealt with quite objectively and is fairly straightforward. The issue about grain prices, of course, is more complicated because a number of different factors are contributing to the peaking in grain prices, one of which might be biofuels. I stress the “might be” because I do not think it is. I think there is some issue between the take-up of the US corn crop for biofuels. However, we must remember that the US corn crop is not a human food crop. Fundamentally, the US corn crop goes into the mid-west and feeds cattle. The out-turn of that is fairly highly priced beef, which hardly has an effect on the basic grain prices. The question was about whether the government has formed a view. In fact, since we have received the report of the task force that was established as a result of a Legislative Assembly motion and was chaired by Hon Graham Giffard, we have been analysing that, and a number of changes have happened in the biofuels area. The government is yet to commit to a view in its response to the Biofuels Taskforce, although that question of mandate—the five per cent mandate that was recommended from 2011—arises only if the target of five per cent use by 2010 is not reached. The mandate question is conditional in the recommendations. I do not know what the government’s response to that will be. I am certainly standing behind the recommendations of the Biofuels Taskforce because I believe a mandate is an entirely defensible position. The Western Australian Department of Agriculture and Food has done some research on grain for biofuels and has been a leader in biofuels, although more so with biodiesel than with ethanol. We have committed small amounts of research funding into that area. We are now looking at increasing that research funding, particularly in areas of identification of appropriate wheat varieties for a proposed bioethanol plant in Western Australia to try to breed varieties that may be suitable for that specific end use.
I thank Hon Bruce Donaldson for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) The issue of grain for biofuels is certainly an interesting one, particularly since the European Union and, more recently, the government of Great Britain have called into question the issue of their commitment to mandate, particularly from the EU. The EU’s position seems to be driven fundamentally by its concern of rainforest devastation as a result of palm plantations replacing tropical rainforests. The British situation seems to be slightly different in that it is also raising the question of increasing grain prices. I think it is the British position that is more interesting because the rainforest issue can be dealt with quite objectively and is fairly straightforward. The issue about grain prices, of course, is more complicated because a number of different factors are contributing to the peaking in grain prices, one of which might be biofuels. I stress the “might be” because I do not think it is. I think there is some issue between the take-up of the US corn crop for biofuels. However, we must remember that the US corn crop is not a human food crop. Fundamentally, the US corn crop goes into the mid-west and feeds cattle. The out-turn of that is fairly highly priced beef, which hardly has an effect on the basic grain prices. The question was about whether the government has formed a view. In fact, since we have received the report of the task force that was established as a result of a Legislative Assembly motion and was chaired by Hon Graham Giffard, we have been analysing that, and a number of changes have happened in the biofuels area. The government is yet to commit to a view in its response to the Biofuels Taskforce, although that question of mandate—the five per cent mandate that was recommended from 2011—arises only if the target of five per cent use by 2010 is not reached. The mandate question is conditional in the recommendations. I do not know what the government’s response to that will be. I am certainly standing behind the recommendations of the Biofuels Taskforce because I believe a mandate is an entirely defensible position. The Western Australian Department of Agriculture and Food has done some research on grain for biofuels and has been a leader in biofuels, although more so with biodiesel than with ethanol. We have committed small amounts of research funding into that area. We are now looking at increasing that research funding, particularly in areas of identification of appropriate wheat varieties for a proposed bioethanol plant in Western Australia to try to breed varieties that may be suitable for that specific end use.
(1)-(2) The issue of grain for biofuels is certainly an interesting one, particularly since the European Union and, more recently, the government of Great Britain have called into question the issue of their commitment to mandate, particularly from the EU. The EU’s position seems to be driven fundamentally by its concern of rainforest devastation as a result of palm plantations replacing tropical rainforests. The British situation seems to be slightly different in that it is also raising the question of increasing grain prices. I think it is the British position that is more interesting because the rainforest issue can be dealt with quite objectively and is fairly straightforward. The issue about grain prices, of course, is more complicated because a number of different factors are contributing to the peaking in grain prices, one of which might be biofuels. I stress the “might be” because I do not think it is. I think there is some issue between the take-up of the US corn crop for biofuels. However, we must remember that the US corn crop is not a human food crop. Fundamentally, the US corn crop goes into the mid-west and feeds cattle. The out-turn of that is fairly highly priced beef, which hardly has an effect on the basic grain prices. The question was about whether the government has formed a view. In fact, since we have received the report of the task force that was established as a result of a Legislative Assembly motion and was chaired by Hon Graham Giffard, we have been analysing that, and a number of changes have happened in the biofuels area. The government is yet to commit to a view in its response to the Biofuels Taskforce, although that question of mandate—the five per cent mandate that was recommended from 2011—arises only if the target of five per cent use by 2010 is not reached. The mandate question is conditional in the recommendations. I do not know what the government’s response to that will be. I am certainly standing behind the recommendations of the Biofuels Taskforce because I believe a mandate is an entirely defensible position. The Western Australian Department of Agriculture and Food has done some research on grain for biofuels and has been a leader in biofuels, although more so with biodiesel than with ethanol. We have committed small amounts of research funding into that area. We are now looking at increasing that research funding, particularly in areas of identification of appropriate wheat varieties for a proposed bioethanol plant in Western Australia to try to breed varieties that may be suitable for that specific end use.
The government is yet to commit to a view in its response to the Biofuels Taskforce, although that question of mandate—the five per cent mandate that was recommended from 2011—arises only if the target of five per cent use by 2010 is not reached. The mandate question is conditional in the recommendations. I do not know what the government’s response to that will be. I am certainly standing behind the recommendations of the Biofuels Taskforce because I believe a mandate is an entirely defensible position. The Western Australian Department of Agriculture and Food has done some research on grain for biofuels and has been a leader in biofuels, although more so with biodiesel than with ethanol. We have committed small amounts of research funding into that area. We are now looking at increasing that research funding, particularly in areas of identification of appropriate wheat varieties for a proposed bioethanol plant in Western Australia to try to breed varieties that may be suitable for that specific end use.
The Western Australian Department of Agriculture and Food has done some research on grain for biofuels and has been a leader in biofuels, although more so with biodiesel than with ethanol. We have committed small amounts of research funding into that area. We are now looking at increasing that research funding, particularly in areas of identification of appropriate wheat varieties for a proposed bioethanol plant in Western Australia to try to breed varieties that may be suitable for that specific end use.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.