"Biofuels Deemed a Greenhouse Threat" http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/08/science/earth/08...
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.
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.
Together the two studies offer sweeping conclusions: It does not matter if it is rain forest or scrubland that is cleared, the greenhouse gas contribution is significant. More important, they discovered that, taken globally, the production of almost all biofuels resulted, directly or indirectly, intentionally or not, in new lands being cleared, either for food or fuel.
The studies above are just the most recent in a series of critiques that make biofuel look like an agribusiness plan to generate profit. Scientists and environmental advocates have been buzzing about the inefficiency of biofuels for quite some time, and its really starting to look like people pushing ethanol really hard are just being willfully ignorant.
So who is pushing it and why? Ed Shultz on Air America Radio. Wired magazine. Steve Alten. Ed Shultz had a scientist on his show who told him point blank that it takes more calories of petroleum to produce ethanol than the resulting calories of biofuel. Shultz just told him that he 'believed' in the product. Wired magazine did a whole issue on the the wonders of switch grass, and when referring to critics of the product, completely avoided any mention of the major criticisms.
That brings us back to "The Shell Game", which proposes that E85 ethanol, 85% biofuel, 15% hydrocarbon, is a legitimate solution to our problem of dependence upon petroleum. It may be a political solution, but not an environmental one. And not sustainable.
E85 is Alten's only product placement in the book, and considering that he's suggesting that we are going to get nuked over having no alternative to petroleum, I'd say he's pushing it pretty hard. He also mentions wind power, but that doesn't really address our need for fuel.
So, anyone want to venture a guess as to why people seem to be having faith in something, against contrary evidence, that they just heard of a couple of years ago. Are people desperate for hope? Desperate to avoid the realities of our dependence upon petroleum? What's the deal?