Politics, News & Issues >
Climate Change
Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedCan biofuels help us reduce global warming pollution and our dependence on fossil fuels?
Title endorsed in part by:
Results so far:
| Yes | 51% | 19 votes | Total: 37 votes | |
| No | 49% | 18 votes |
Yes
by Joan Linney
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesPlants have been turning sunlight into energy since the dawn of photosynthesis. In fact, the fossil fuels we have now were originally made by plants that used sunlight for chemical energy and carbon from CO2, to build their little plant bodies. When we burn fossil fuels, we release that energy along with CO2 from the carbon that's been trapped and concentrated in those plant bodies for so many eons. (This isn't rocket science; sixth graders learn about photosynthesis and how plants store carbon in their cells.) What we're doing by burning all that ancient plant material though, is raising CO2 levels higher than they have been since the Carboniferous period.
Biofuel is simply taking plants that are alive today and using them to convert sunshine and CO2 into energy we can use. Using the sun's energy, they recycle the carbon that is already in the atmosphere - adding no new CO2 that will increase global climate change. There is certainly a place for biofuels in meeting our future energy needs. I am not, however in favor of using food products to produce biofuels. Today's agriculture takes nearly a gallon of fossil fuel to grow a gallon of biofuel. On top of that, it uses perfectly good food that could be used for humans or farm animals. However, there are some biofuels that make use of waste and do not compete with our food supply. Greasecars, already mentioned by one respondent, are great. Used fryer oil should never be dumped-it is a great resource; but how many cars can we actually run on it. The amount of fried food Americans consume is limited (and hopefully decreasing). Using another technology, called cellulosic ethanol production, straw, weeds, wood, and other fibrous plant matter are turned into fuel-grade alcohol with the help of bacterial enzymes. I think there's a lot of promise there. However, there are no big ag chemical companies lobbying for more research like they are for corn-based fuel. Could that be because, when the farmers are able to grow weeds for profit, the Monsantos of the world loose out? I also have hope that biodiesel and other fuels may someday be made from algae. Our local sewage treatment plant is experimenting with using algae for water purification. They allow wild algae to colonize ponds filled with treated effluent, document everything, and experiment with finding uses for the algae. Some researchers are trying to grow specially-hybridized -high-oil-producing algae under artificial light. There is something wrong with that picture. We need to be harnessing the free energy of the sun. (Even if the artificial light is produced via PV cells, they 1) aren't very efficient, and 2) take a lot of energy to build.) Some research suggests that we could clean up our oceans and produce fuel as a by-product!
Global warming has many causes: cow farts, car exhaust, homes that aren't insulated well. It has many symptoms: melting glaciers, hurricanes, wildfires. And it has many small solutions that will have to be added together to make a difference: Biodiesel, Ethanol, recycling, having your home audited for energy use, putting PV on your roof, etc. Of course, the easiest way to cut back on the amount of fuel we use is to drive less! We need people, especially politicians and voters to educate themselves about these issues, in order to come up with solid, science-based policies. We can't afford to throw money around, just hoping that somehow the future will fall into place. Thank goodness there are real scientists like Dr. Chu (energy secretary) to help guide us, but, because this is a democracy, we are all responsible for learning enough about each issue to be able to tell the difference between the scientists who truly care about the future of the planet, and quacks who care only about duping people and making themselves rich.
Learn more about this author, Joan Linney.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
No
There is no such thing as "global warming pollution" therefore that part of the question is a nonsense.
The current studies on global warming reveal that there have been no measurable increases in temperature for over a decade. Measurement for the last 100 years indicate a rise in global temperature of only 0.7 C which has largely been negated by a drop in global temperature the last year or so. Global temperature has been remarkably stable and future predictions favor a continued fall in temperature when correlated to lack of sun spot activity.
If global warming is not happening then it can hardly pollute anything!
I presume that the "pollution" referred to is that which is part of the Green's belief system regarding manmade greenhouse gas (CO2) emissions, which they say causes global warming.
These ideas are bunkum and are derived from the corrupt science propagated by the UN's IPCC and its computer generated climate scenarios
My dictionary defines the verb "to pollute" as to destroy purity or sanctity of, to contaminate or defile (environment).
CO2 gas is NOT an atmospheric pollutant. All life on Earth is dependent on atmospheric CO2 for growth and survival. It is an invisible, harmless gas and is as important as oxygen for life to exist on our planet. Man's production of CO2 is certainly not polluting the atmosphere, nor is there any evidence that it causes global warming.
Is global warming, theoretically, a bad thing? Ask the Russians and Canadians whether they would like a warmer climate! Our agricultural production to feed the world would benefit greatly from a warmer climate. Unfortunately, we are more likely to experience in the future a prolonged cool period which will cause reduced food production and possible starvation for many more people.
Can biofuels help us to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels? This is the second part of the question.
This assumes that our dependence on fossil fuels is a bad thing and should be reduced. Is this a sensible idea? I don't think so.
The popular US biofuels are ethanol and biodiesel. It is well known that corn ethanol production exists only because of government subsidies and is uneconomic without subsidy. Also, it requires more energy (fossil fuels) to produce than what you get out of it for the consumer, so energy wise you are going backwards. So forget ethanol.
Biodiesel, or the use of vegetable oils in place of oil-diesel can be economic in some localities. The Shell oil company is the world's largest buyer and blender of vegetable oils to produce biodiesel. Provided the oil crops can be grown on land that is not suitable for food crops, and doesn't result in widespread deforestation, then the idea is acceptable up to the point of providing a very minor alternative supply of fuel. So called "pollution" (CO2 emissions) of burning both types of diesel fuel is about the same.
Should we be overly worried about the US being dependent on fossil fuels? No. I don't think so.
This is a scare tactic promoted by the Green Movement and associated politicians. They want to be elected to power and impose their bizarre low carbon Green Utopia upon us, using renewable energy, irrespective of the cost to the economy.
Already the US is in difficulties, energy wise, because of the Green Shackles holding back sensible development of its huge fossil fuel reserves (oil, gas and coal). This is a self-inflected constraint. And there is worse to come!
We now have a Discussion Draft of the new climate change legislation proposed by Obama and the new Democrat Government. It is called "The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009".
The legislation is based on the false idea that CO2 is a poisonous gas which should be removed, captured, buried, taxed and so prevented from polluting the atmosphere. This a fantasy of the Green belief system which is derived from corrupted science, and which they hope will not be scrutinized.
Part III is devoted to "Reducing Global Warming Pollution" which I have already explained doesn't exist.
Part IV is about "Transitioning to a Clean Energy Economy". This is another name for the Green Utopia running on renewable energy, namely biofuels, wind, and solar and geothermal energy, all at mandated and subsidized expense, and of not using cheaper fossil fuels, of which there are ample supplies for several hundred years.
Ask them to define what they mean by "clean energy". This would be a great topic for discussion. They are hoping nobody will ask this question.
Americans now have the opportunity of studying this Discussion Draft and deciding whether or not they wish their economy to further nose dive into the quagmire of a primitive Green poverty stricken second rate power with a landscape studded with erratically operating windmills.
Ends
Learn more about this author, Allan Taylor.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- Climate Change
- Can climate change be confronted without active leadership on the part of the federal government?
- Has Greenland's ice sheet reached a tipping point?
- Is the US doing enough to stop global warming?
- Will global warming result in more earthquakes?
- Should the US ratify the Kyoto Protocol?
- Do you believe that changing policy to fight climate change will increase gas prices?
