New study finds "biofuels" do more harm then good against "global warming"

[forrestunifreak]

Studies Say Biofuels May Increase Global Warming
By Kevin McCandless
CNSNews.com Correspondent
September 27, 2007

"London (CNSNews.com) - Biofuels may do more harm than good in the drive against "global warming," according to two new European studies.

Most biofuels cause more environmental damage than ordinary gasoline, according to a paper released this month by a team of scientists led by Nobel Prize winner Paul Crutzen.

Biofuels, liquid fuels made from plants, have been touted in recent years as being both environmentally friendly and a way to reduce America's reliance on imported oil.

However, since nitrogen is found in most crop fertilizers, the use of biofuels also produces nitrous oxide (N2O), a gas thought to be much more harmful to the atmosphere than the carbon dioxide (CO2) produced from fossil fuels.

Using air samples from ice formed in pre-industrial times and other data, the team calculated that between three and five percent of the nitrogen used in fertilizer eventually winds up as emitted N2O, rather than two percent as previously thought.

As a result, they said replacing gas in cars with many biofuels would not help efforts to combat global warming and would most likely produce a rise in global temperatures.

With corn ethanol, the negative effect of the new N20 emissions would be up to 1.5 times greater than the positive effect resulting from a drop in CO2 emissions as a result of biofuel being used rather than gas.

Keith Smith, a scientist at the University of Edinburgh who worked on the paper, said Wednesday the benefits of biofuels had been thrown into doubt and that more research was needed on the subject.

Another report released this month, this time by advisors to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in Paris, questioned the wisdom of giving large subsidies to biofuel producers.

Biofuels were not likely ever to become a major energy source, the authors said. Furthermore, crops previously grown for eating were now being grown for fuel, and this would eventually drive world food prices up by 20-50 percent, they argued.

Pointing to a study earlier this year by the OECD and Food and Agriculture Organization, the authors said “growing use of cereals, sugar, oilseeds and vegetable oils to satisfy the needs of a rapidly increasing biofuels industry is one of the main drivers” of expected food price rises."


(From http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.a...20070927a.html. Commence onslaught of people whining that CNSnews.com lies and cheats, etc.)

[Goats_On_Unicycles]

Yeah, I've never been a huge booster of biofuels on the whole.
I've heard about the pesticides before and the crops that are gown for fuel instead of food.
Beer is more expensive now that they're growing more corn instead of barely. :p

I've met some people who design electric cars and they've pretty much sold me on electric. :D

[john_childs]

A quick Google News search shows that Reuters has also picked up on the story.

Many biofuels have more climate impact than oil

BEIJING (Reuters) - Most crops grown in the United States and Europe to make "green" transport fuels actually speed up global warming because of industrial farming methods, says a report by Nobel prize winning chemist Paul J. Crutzen.

The findings could spell particular concern for alternative fuels derived from rapeseed, used in Europe, which the study concluded could produce up to 70 percent more planet-warming greenhouse gases than conventional diesel.

It's funny, but it keeps coming around that the best energy solution wrt global warming is nuclear power. Drive an electric car or a plug-in hybrid that gets its electricity from a nuclear power station and you have an environmentally friendly vehicle. An electric car would be fun to drive and would have acceleration response better than my current Subaru. Electric cars can be quite zippy in stop and go city type acceleration.

[harper]

For decades I have been an advocate of nuclear power as the clean, safe, and inexpensive alternative to fossil fuels. Regardless, the holes left in the two cited articles arguing against biofuels are larger than the southern hemisphere ozone depletion and are indefensible. This is shabby pseudo-science journalism at its best. What a colorful collection of omitted and mismatched facts.

[Danni]

Wind farming, hydro farming, solar farming, nuclear, and making our homes green is the way to go here.

[dangerlaef]

I thought Bio-fuels were about reducing our dependance on oil, not about reducing emmisions?

[toddw9]

Originally Posted by dangerlaef

I thought Bio-fuels were about reducing our dependance on oil, not about reducing emmisions?

exactly what I've always thought. I never would have dreamed that biofuels could possibly be better for the environment. The primary purpose of biofuels is that they are made from a renewable resource; not that they are environmentally friendly.

[john_childs]

Originally Posted by dangerlaef

I thought Bio-fuels were about reducing our dependance on oil, not about reducing emmisions?

Well that's an inconvenient truth.

[GILD]

Originally Posted by toddw9

The primary purpose of biofuels is that they are made from a renewable resource; not that they are environmentally friendly.

Surely being from a renewable resource makes them enviro-friendly?
On some level at least?

[wickedbob]

I always figured they would be just the same or worse. I mean all the transporting of transporting you have to do and such.

[Borges]

That was a good article, and I recommend that you all read the part that forrestunifreak didn't quote.
That's where you'll find the pro-biofuel answer to the report, and the part that accuses both sides of quoting reports selectively.

[gabetheunicycleman]

**random fact time**
some people argue that biofuels are bad for your car and make it run slower and worse etc. using methanol as opposed to gasoline makes you car run better. most, if not all performance cars (nascar, nhra, etc.) use methanol. however now that i think about it, that is probably to do with stopping engine knock. so i may or may not be right

[GILD]

Originally Posted by Borges

That was a good article, and I recommend that you all read the part that forrestunifreak didn't quote.
That's where you'll find the pro-biofuel answer to the report, and the part that accuses both sides of quoting reports selectively.

What I find most interesting about Forrest posting this link is that I'm quite sure Forrest used to argue rather vociferously against the reality of climate change.

It would seem that he's now changed his tune, no?

[GILD]

Phew.
I don't normally post anything without a link or some form of back-up.
Just paranoid I guess.
After I made the previous post I suddenly got worried.
What if I remembered wrong and slandered young Forrest with my baseless allegations?
I had to come back to hit a search and check it out.

I didn't remember wrong.

Originally Posted by forrestunifreak

Global warming is a FAKE.Made up.An absulute joke.NO SUCH THING!!!!!!!!!
If i had time( ) i could link tons of articles scientiffically proving global warming WRONG.in fact,in 1 week,i will.

Originally Posted by forrestunifreak

Wow, it amazes me how people can blindly keep on believing all that evolution crap....Without any evidence. The same people who love to grumble about 'global warming.'


I'm through with all this debating. It doesn't get anywere.

Originally Posted by forrestunifreak

are those pictures towards the end supposed to scare my weak mind into being afraid of cars and some ice falling down?

I laughed out loud though.

You know, I acctualy read an article were these wacky global warming looneys said that we were acctually causing gloabl warming by cleaning up the enviorment TOO MUCH, removing the polutants and stuff so that the suns radiation was hitting earth harder and thus making it even hotter out there.

Originally Posted by forrestunifreak

Global warming is a big Fat global joke. Doesn't anyone rember a word like 'fluctuation'? What about 'average tempeture over a certain period off time'?

Originally Posted by forrestunifreak

If a tree falls in the woods, and there's no enviromentalist around to hear it, is it still caused by global warming?

So, it's good to know that Forrest's come around, accepts the undeniable scientific reality of climate change and is getting involved and even posting threads about activities adding to this danger faced by humanity.

Welcome Forrest, just say know.

[Gilby]

Originally Posted by GILD

So, it's good to know that Forrest's come around, accepts the undeniable scientific reality of climate change and is getting involved and even posting threads about activities adding to this danger faced by humanity.

It doesn't mean he switched, he's just pointing out an article that shows that overreaction to an unproven problem can be dangerous and counterproductive.