![]() ![]() In scenario (a), direct land use change by cutting down forest or digging up grassland releases a lot of CO2 from biomass and soil, and harms wildlife. It takes a lot of land to grow biofuel feedstock, and that land is either (a) newly converted from forest or grassland, or (b) already used to grow crops for food. But that only makes sense if someone is growing plants in an abandoned parking lot. The basic theory is that any carbon combusted into the atmosphere from biofuels was first sequestered by plant growth, so there’s no net change in atmospheric carbon. Biofuels almost always affect how land is used around the world. It’s similar to the unintended consequences of hydropower stopping salmon from spawning upstream, or windmills killing birds … except way more complicated. How did the story change so much, and what are we supposed to think about things like “advanced biofuels” and “biofuels made from wastes?”īiofuels are confusing because they’re complicated, and they’re complicated mainly because of indirect effects. But biofuels? Over ten years ago the media, the UN, and environmental organizations were telling us that biofuels combat climate change while helping the poor – and now we’re hearing that biofuels are as dirty as petroleum and raise food prices. We all understand that things like recycling, solar panels, and efficient cars are good for the environment. Few environmental topics are as confusing as biofuels. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |