Biofuels worse than fossil fuels, says expert
Biofuels have become all the rage among many environmental and sustainably-minded advocacy groups as a way to end dependence on foreign oil, limit greenhouse gas emissions, and create a "greener" tomorrow. But Andreas Spath, PhD, an expert in the field of geochemistry, says that biofuels are actually worse for the environment than conventional fossil fuels are.
It is widely believed that fossil fuel reserves will eventually be depleted, and that a viable, renewable alternative is urgently needed in order to avoid the worldwide collapse of a transportation and commerce infrastructure that depends on oil to function. And since biofuels are renewable, largely plant-based and work right now in existing vehicles, proponents say they are an excellent alternative.
But in reality, biofuel production requires massive amounts of land to produce additional fuel crops, and the entire growing, harvesting and refining process ends up ruining the environment and causing more greenhouse gas production than if the world simply continued on with fossil fuels. And biofuel production has also increased food prices across the board.
Corn ethanol, for instance, has shifted much of the U.S. corn production away from food crops and towards fuel crops. The result has been increased food prices, as the monetary incentive to grow biofuel corn is higher than it is to grow food corn. The same is true for sugar, soy, and other crops used around the world for biofuels.
Read more:
http://www.naturalnews.com/030549_biofuels_fossil_fuels.html
No comments:
Post a Comment