Studies Say Biofuels May Increase Global Warming

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

Environmentalists have been going crazy for biofuels. They want us all to power our cars with corn oil because the oil we have in Alaska is black and no body likes the color black. A new European study is showing, however, that biofuels may cause more damage than good. 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.

Cnsnews.com is covering the story and tells the following:

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.

The European Bioethanol Fuel Association and the United-States Renewable Fuels Association in a joint response condemned the OECD report as one-sided and biased.

They said the report failed to note that farm productivity was increasing dramatically, and that the recent jump in food prices were caused by increased demand in China and the current drought in Australia.

The two associations said the paper ignored the fact that nations were pursuing biofuels in order to reduce oil consumption and counter climate change.

Jeremy Tomkinson, head of the National Non-Food Crops Center in Britain, said Wednesday that the OECD report appeared to focus on “first generation” methods of producing biofuels.

More advanced, “second generation” technology would relatively soon come into use, he said. This could use non-food plants, would need less fertilizer and would produce a whole range of useful by-products.

Tomkinson said he was unfamiliar with the paper by the team led by Crutzen. But he said the British government was currently funding several research projects into growing crops with non-nitrogen based fertilizers.

According to the National Non-Food Crops Center, by next year eight plants in Britain will be producing 1.3 million tons of biodiesel.

Giles Clark, editor of the Biofuel Review publication, said he was surprised at the emotion that the biofuel debate generates.

Accusing both sides of selectively quoting reports to back their position, he said it was time for a calmer debate on the subject.

Related Posts
Tags: Global Warming