Slashdot Mirror
Biofuels Make Greenhouse Gases Worse
vortex2.71 sends us to the Seattle Times for an account of two studies published in the prestigious journal Science pointing to the conclusion that almost all biofuels used today cause more greenhouse-gas emissions than conventional fuels if the full emissions costs of producing these "green" fuels are taken into account. "The benefits of biofuels have come under increasing attack in recent months, as scientists took a closer look at the global environmental cost of their production. These plant-based fuels were originally billed as better than fossil fuels because the carbon released when they were burned was balanced by the carbon absorbed when the plants grew. But that equation proved overly simplistic because the process of turning plants into fuels causes its own emissions — for refining and transport, for example. These studies... for the first time take a detailed, comprehensive look at the emissions effects of the huge amount of natural land that is being converted to cropland globally to support biofuels development."
"Doommongers"(do you even know what that means? It means somebody who has a sexual relation to doom, like a whoremonger does with whores.) like the AAAS and NAS(which consist of the most important scientists in the United States, and these two organizations would not say things like what they've said unless we were as close to certainty that can exist in science--we are more sure of it than gravity, but less sure than evolution), and just recently all the companies that have polluted and caused this problem, like GM, BP, Exxon, etc. The only people right now still denying it are Michael Crichton and you.
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
there is another issue: giving money to fundamentalist regimes (iran, saudi arabia) and authoritarian regimes (venezuela, russia)
the west basically funds those who wish to see the downfall of the west via petrodollars. in what world does bankrolling your worst enemies makes sense?
we need to get off fossil fuels because of the environment, yes. but there is also the issue of security. if we stop funding fundamentalism in the middle east, and we stop funding regimes which oppress the rights of their people like venezuela and russia, then we go along way to making this world a better place, with or without more smog
i honestly think the security issue is more important than the environmental issue. it doesn't do our grandchildren any good to inherit a word with a pristine physical environment, and a fascist political one. so gung ho on biofuels, even if they pollute more than fossil fuels by an order of magnitude
but even better, go nuclear and electric cars. then we win at the environment AND security. if we go nuclear and electric cars, we won't have to worry about chernobyl because of the newer failsafe nuclear tech (the staff can just walk away from a pebble bed reactor and it won't ever melt down), and we won't have to worry about the 10,000 year old waste if we use breeder reactors (which also means getting 10x more energy out of the fuel, with a tenth of the waste, that lasts only a century or two, at a much safer radiation profile). by using thorium as well as uranium, we can have enough fuel for centuries (btw: uranium and thorium isn't mostly buried in the land of vile regimes, like oil)
and in a few centuries, we better have fusion finally figured out
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Maybe you "environmentalists" ought to start thinking about denouncing those who claim to speak for you. Your "brand" has become so diluted that most people mistake you for neo-luddites. I also notice that the term "conservationist" is coming back in style. SOME people are abandoning the tainted environmentalist label.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!