The NY Times has an article today citing two studies which suggest biofuels are not the panacea that we thought they would be, as they cause more greenhouse gas emissions than conventional fuels.
The studies argue that “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.”
From the AP: “the study said that after taking into account expected worldwide land-use changes, corn-based ethanol, instead of reducing greenhouse gases by 20 percent, will increases it by 93 percent compared to using gasoline over a 30-year period. Biofuels from switchgrass, if they replace croplands and other carbon-absorbing lands, would result in 50 percent more greenhouse gas emissions, the researchers concluded.”
This clearly adds more fodder and controversy to the use of biofuels, especially with recently passed legislation to increase (by six fold) ethanol use to 36 billion gallons a year by 2022. We need to figure this out soon and fast.
1 Response to “Are biofuels all hype?”