Biofuels Deemed a Greenhouse Threat

[AngryAmish]

"Almost all biofuels used today cause more greenhouse gas emissions than conventional fuels if the full emissions costs of producing these “green” fuels are taken into account, two studies being published Thursday have concluded.

World View: Greg Winter and Libby Rosenthal discuss the downsides of biofuels. (mp3)The benefits of biofuels have come under increasing attack in recent months, as scientists took a closer look at the global environmental cost of their production. These latest studies, published in the prestigious journal Science, are likely to add to the controversy.

These studies for the first time take a detailed, comprehensive look at the emissions effects of the huge amount of natural land that is being converted to cropland globally to support biofuels development.

The destruction of natural ecosystems — whether rain forest in the tropics or grasslands in South America — not only releases greenhouse gases into the atmosphere when they are burned and plowed, but also deprives the planet of natural sponges to absorb carbon emissions. Cropland also absorbs far less carbon than the rain forests or even scrubland that it replaces."

D'oh! Looks like Iowa and ADM have fooled greenies like Waste Management fooled them about recycling.

[sam sarrha]

1. hemp oil would free us from foreign oil, doesn't need fertilizer, has legume bacteria

[Pavulon]

2. biofuel puts money in the pockets of domestic

companies and farmers. Blended diesel is extremely simple and does not cause the exclusionary use of land.

Brazil did it , so can we.

This is all about money and national security. Why should we pay oil revenue to assholes.

[Selatius]

3. Whoops, wrong place.

[RuleOfNah]

5. Brazil has sugarcane.

It is still carbon...

[Pavulon]

6. Other than a nuclear/hydrogen grid

which is years off the best option is to reroute the money. Use of b100 from domestic sources is a great option.

Grain based fuel is difficult because of the impact on food markets. However any option is better than continuing the status quo.

Almost all diesels will run blended diesel. They are a significant source of pollution and consumption.

Decommissioning coal plants and replacing them with reactors will take time. No other generation technology has the capability right now to fill the 500 - 800MW demand and leave no carbon footprint.

[RuleOfNah]

8. Nuclear is a mess.

Sugarcane works because of the extractable energy. Corn is not viable. I hear rumors about grasses, but the remains are the same problem as oil.

Consumption habits are the problem. Those won't change, even after the tipping points. Even I am addicted to electronics, for now.

[Pavulon]

9. The US Navy and France

use reactors heavily. Neither have had criticality incidents. Cutting demand by blending fuels can impact the market. These countries are generally singly resource exporters.

B20 is viable and I run it in my vehicles. I would buy higher blends but they are not available in my area.

[Selatius]

4. We could create many new jobs if we start a program of building mass transit networks.

We're talking about bullet trains and bus fleets and light rail. It'll help lessen the dependence upon cars for travel and also provide lots of new jobs in terms of research and development and mass transit jobs and construction jobs to build the grid.

[Xenotime]

7. It seem like no matter what we do we continue to increase our carbon footprint.