The Power of Citizen Journalism
 
News» Top News» Latest News» Post News ($) Blogs» Top Blogs» Latest Blogs» Post Blog» Images» Top Images» Latest Images» Upload Images» TV» Groups» View Groups» Create a Group» Live Events» Alerts» Create an Alert» Manage Alerts» How do I ...» Get paid to report news» Post blogs» Upload images» Embed video» Join/create groups» Vote on news & images» Comment & debate»
 

article imageBiofuels Misleading As Green Alternative, Says Nobel Prize Winner

Posted Sep 27, 2007 by  Nathalie C in Environment | 2 comments | 1322 views
Join our team to voice opinions, share images, get paid to report news and more!
Email Print Share
Subscribe to author

Email this article

Recipient email:
Your email:
optional
Message:
optional
A fact that had yet to catch the media’s attention, a Nobel Prize winner finally sheds light on the dark side of biofuels. Paul J. Crutzen explains that the new and heavily praised alternative may in fact contribute to accelerating global warming.
According to study by chemistry Nobel Prize winner Paul J. Crutzen, biofuels, which are increasing in popularity in numerous countries worldwide as a strong and environmentally friendly alternative to fossil fuels, could actually contribute to global warming.

The study explains, Reuters reports, that due to current industrial farming methods, biofuel production actually causes a large number of greenhouse gases to be emitted.

Biofuels, which are derived from plants such as corn, hemp or canola, require producers to use industrial fertilizer which actually increase the output of nitrous oxide, a powerful greenhouse gas.

Nitrous oxide is “300 times more insulating than the commonest man-made greenhouse gas carbon dioxide,” states the Reuters article.

"The nitrous oxide emission on its own can cancel out the overall benefit," co-author Professor Keith Smith told Reuters in a phone interview.

In Europe, the article explains, biofuels made mostly out of canola, could produce between 1 and 1.7 times more global-warming inducing greenhouse gases than conventional diesel.

Corn, mostly used in the United States and in Canada as a base for ethanol fuel, was shown to produce between 0.9 and 1.5 times the global warming effect of conventional gasoline.

Sugar cane, which is used in Brazil, is one of the cleaner options, producing only between 0.5 and 0.9 times as much greenhouse gases as gasoline.

The findings are putting into question the efforts made by many governments in cleaning up their environmental act.

The Reuters report adds that the study did not even take into consideration “the extra global warming effect of burning fossil fuels in biofuel manufacture, or for the planet-cooling effect of using biofuel by-products as a substitute for coal in electricity generation.”

Although Crutzen’s study seems to burn biofuels at the stake, the scientist suggests rather that scientists and farmers work in collaboration to focus on crops which would require little fertilization, such as willows and poplars.

The research team also suggests farmers look for harvesting methods requiring less energy.

"In future if you use low nitrogen demanding crops, and low impact agriculture, then we could get a benefit," said Professor Smith.

Massive production of synthetic fertilizer during the 20th century has almost doubled the amount of nitrogen in the global system, adding nearly 100 million tonnes, Smith also said.
article:234013:9::0
3 subscribers
Subscribe to this thread
  • avatar Posted Sep 27, 2007 by  Bart B. Van Bockstaele
    #1
    I like your article. A lot. I shows once again that the global warming brigade is a short-sighted lot.

    No sane person would say that spewing out any products would be beneficial and something that can continue forever, but we do have take reality into account. That reality is that only about a third of this planet is not buried under water, that enormous areas of this planet are unsuitable for agriculture of any kind, and that the rest needs to be shared with close to 7 billion people, all of whom have to be fed. At this stage of our evolution, this is fundamentally incompatible with conservation and respect for the environment. Adding biofuels to that will create a new agriculture that will necessitate enormous amounts of space. So-called sustainable agriculture is profoundly unsustainable in this context albeit only because of its dramatically lower yields than our modern agriculture that has, let's not forget it, all but eliminated hunger in the west.

    Low impact agriculture, low nitrogen-demanding crops, are desirable. But let's not forget that in order for this to be even thinkable, we also need unbelievably high crop yields. This is the Holy Grail of agriculture. Maybe it would be possible with extremely genetically engineered crops. Ouch, but that also not acceptable, isn't it? No Frankenfoods! Darn.
  • avatar Posted Sep 27, 2007 by  Paul Wallis (Wanderlaugh)
    #2
    As a horticulturalist, I can say that it's a massive waste of nitrogen, too. The nitrogen cycle is vitally important in crop production. Emissions of nitrogen are just useless, even theoretically. Nitrous oxide isn't one of the useful nitrogen compounds. It is possible to grow healthy crops without fertilizer, to start with. Natural nutrients aren't as wasteful.

    Real sustainable agriculture is permaculture, which is a holistic production method based on natural structures.. No waste, no chemicals, no contaminants. Far more productive, and much easier to manage. Healthier plants, too.

    Industrial fertilizers are actually pretty primitive, and soil destroyers. It's like setting fire to the soil. Permaculture uses far more reliable, and more importantly, self sustaining, which is what the term sustainable ought to mean.

Add a Comment

You have to Login or Register to comment


Email:
Password:
Remember meForgot password?