Can someone help me edit my essay? i want people to add their insights to it...?

Question

Nowadays the common person understands that the environment is at risk due to global warming. From car pollution, factories, to even flatulence weaken our ozone layer and increases global warming. Many politicians are promoting a new form of energy source to aid this epidemic. What they do not realize is that “biofuels”, fuel produced from dead biological materials such as plants, are a greater contribution to global warming rather than a solution. The creation of biofuels adds to the “deforestation”, harvesting agriculture to create biofuels, investments in the “biofuel economy” that increases deforestation, and the product itself “produces more emissions than gasoline”.

A way to delay global warming is planting more trees to let them convert carbon dioxide to oxygen. Rather than planting more forest-life, we as humans are doing just the opposite. Finding another source of fuel causes us to destroy forests and transform them into “palm oil farms”, farms that produce the agriculture necessary to generate biofuels. Not only does this affect the plant life, but also affects the harvests. With less products, prices rise and the continuation of deforestation might extinct the crop forever. As “deforestation accounts for 20% of all current carbon emissions”, we must do something, since that is twenty more percent we do not need.

The idea of biofuels has attracted many investors, which leads to more deforestation. Wealthy tycoons are participating in this business, as they think it is a solution to the global warming problem. Also on the other hand, it is making them a whole lot richer. Because of the large sum investments, any forest life on virtually any country is vulnerable to the production of biofuels. More deforestation results from a “chain reaction” that if one country sells their product at a lower price, another country will undersell them to claim that business. With investments pouring in from left to right, it is a matter of time before there is no forest life left.

With investors still investing in what they call a “solution to global warming”, they still do not understand that the biofuels alone emit more carbon than the dreaded gasoline. There has even been a “study in Science that concluded corn ethanol and soy biodiesel produce about twice the emissions of gasoline”. Sugar cane ethanol does emit so much carbon, but the overall emissions remains in the croplands, which if any case more crops are grown, it would release the carbon.

Global warming is a topic to be reckoned with, as many of the “proposed” solutions trying to slow down the process are actually the cause. Investors do not “actually help”, but “actually help increase deforestation”. Accounting for about one-fifth of the carbon emissions, deforestation will continue due to the fact of rich tycoons. The products alone are definitely a new source of energy, but only increase emissions. Grunwald’s statement, biofuels aren’t the solution to global warming”, but “part of the problem”, shows that we must find another way.

Answer 1

Weak research.  Need to support your claims better.

Answer 2

In modern times, the common person understands that the environment is at risk due to global warming. Car pollution, factories, and even flatulence weaken our ozone layer and increase global warming. Many politicians are promoting a new form of energy source to aid this epidemic. However, they do not realize that biofuels, fuel produced from dead biological materials such as plants, are a greater contribution to global warming, not a solution. The creation of biofuels adds to deforestation, harvesting agriculture to create biofuels. Both investments in the biofuel economy that increases deforestation and the product itself produces more emissions than gasoline.

A way to delay global warming is planting more trees to let them convert carbon dioxide to oxygen. Rather than planting more forest-life, we as humans are doing just the opposite. Finding another source of fuel causes us to destroy forests and transform them into palm oil farms, farms that produce the agriculture necessary to generate biofuels. Not only does this affect the plant life, but also affects the harvests. With less products, prices rise and the continuation of deforestation might lead to the extinction of the crop forever. Since deforestation accounts for twenty percent of all current carbon emissions, we must do something.  That is twenty percent more we do not need.

The idea of biofuels has attracted many investors, which leads to more deforestation. Wealthy tycoons are participating in this business, as they think it is a solution to the global warming problem. On the other hand, it is making them a whole lot richer. Because of the large sum of investments, any forest life on virtually any country is vulnerable to the production of biofuels. More deforestation results from a chain reaction. If one country sells their product at a lower price, another country will undersell them to claim that business. With investments pouring in from left to right, it is a matter of time before there is no forest life left.

While investors are still investing in what they call a solution to global warming, they still do not understand that the biofuels alone emit more carbon than the dreaded gasoline. There has even been a study in Science that concluded corn ethanol and soy biodiesel produce about twice the emissions of gasoline. ??Sugar cane ethanol does emit so much carbon, but the overall emissions remains in the croplands, which if any, case more crops are grown, it would release the carbon.?? (between the ?? i'm not really sure what you're trying to say)

Global warming is a topic to be reckoned with, as many of the proposed solutions trying to slow down the process are actually the cause. Investors do not help slow global warming, but actually help increase deforestation. ??Accounting for about one-fifth of the carbon emissions, deforestation will continue due to the fact of rich tycoons.?? (not sure what you're getting at there) The products alone are definitely a new source of energy, but they only increase emissions. Grunwald’s statement, "biofuels aren’t the solution to global warming”, but “part of the problem”, shows that we must find another way.

what's with all the quotation marks?  i could just imagine someone giving this speach and doing air quotes with their hands every 2 minutes.

I didnt know that about biofuels... its definatly something that needs more publicity.

Answer 3

these days common people  understand that the environment

just the first sentence. good luck!