Oh dear. This will get the Eco-mentalists in a frenzy!
Bio-fuels are the way of the future, they claim. Far less polluting than fossil fuels, they shout from the roof-tops. Apparently not.
Nobel-Prize winning scientist Paul Crutzen and his team have shed a much needed light on the real cost of bio-fuels. Apart from the common sense observation that growing crops for fuel will push the price of food up and is completely unsustainable on a large scale (we don’t have enough land – pure and simple) he asserts that far from being less polluting, bio-fuels in fact emit up to 70% more greenhouse gases than fossil fuels.
Bio-Fuels - More polluting than Fossil Fuels
One of the biggest problems for bio-fuels is the use of fertilisers on the crops. This creates nitrous oxide, which is almost 300 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than Co2.
It seems that even Friends of the Earth find it hard to disagree. Hannah Griffiths, FOE Bio-Fuels campaigner, said we would be better concentrating on more efficient engines if we want to reduce the levels of greenhouse gases, rather than going down the dubious route of bio-fuels. She went on to say:
“It’s really difficult for companies trying to make a positive contribution,”
“Bio-fuels can seem like a really good idea, but if you look a bit deeper, it’s not as good as it seems.
“We encourage their role and use on a small scale, but we are quite sceptical about whether they can actually positively contribute on a large scale.”
Wow! That’s 2 stories in one day relating to emissions and greenhouse gases that are actually based on common sense and fact.
The world’s gone mad!
Have your say - leave a comment