This may be another study that points out the obvious fact that using biofuels does not cause a net decrease in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere because the plants used to make the fuel would have removed it anyway. However, a quick review of the research paper found that the analysis did not include how much carbon would not be ADDED to the air over time from the burning of fossil fuels. Yes, burning a gallon (or a liter or whatever) of a biofuel will put the same or even more carbon dioxide into the air than burning that amount of gasoline. The difference is that the carbon in a biofuel came OUT of the air to begin with. The carbon from burning a fossil fuel came from underground. Yes, there are issues to contend with when a food crop is used for biofuel instead. Most of the bad press about biofuels is specifically about producing ethanol from corn, but there are many other fuels that can be produced from many other plants. Even the detrimental effects of using corn can be avoided by reducing the overall consumption of meat and high-fructose corn syrup, which would have benefits beyond that of avoiding fossil fuel use. The paper makes excellent suggestions for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in other ways than burning biofuels all of which should certainly be used. Until carbon emissions can be 100+% eliminated through some kind of permanent sequestion, we must do EVERYTHING possible to decrease use of all fossil fuels. sciencedaily/releases/2013/09/130924122455.htm
Posted on: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 17:31:43 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015