OK... So everything that needs to be known about solutions to global warming is known.. Then why... ?

Question

... does this study state that biofuels would create nearly twice the greenhouse gas emissions as gasoline?

Researchers said that past studies showing the benefits of ethanol in combating climate change have not taken into account almost certain changes in land use worldwide if ethanol from corn — and in the future from other feedstocks such as switchgrass — become a prized commodity.

"Using good cropland to expand biofuels will probably exacerbate global warming," concludes the study published in Science magazine.

The researchers said that farmers under economic pressure to produce biofuels will increasingly "plow up more forest or grasslands," releasing much of the carbon formerly stored in plants and soils through decomposition or fires. Globally, more grasslands and forests will be converted to growing the crops to replace the loss of grains when U.S. farmers convert land to biofuels.

Don't you think we should KNOW first before we make such huge changes as GW advocates state?

Answer 1

Biofuels seems more like welfare to rich farmers to me.  Most of their conclusions about biofuels exacerbating global warming is nonsense.  I think converting grasslands to farmland would have very little net effect.  In addition, they suggest farmers under economic pressure to produce biofuels will increasingly "plow up more forest or grasslands.  Farmers will only do what makes economic sense.  Their use of the phrase "economic pressure" sounds like it comes from a Marxists that view that sort of thing as a bad thing.  Liberals don't detect these sorts of biases it seems but they sure stand out to me.  It makes any of their claims seem biased.  They don't want a solution to global warming and I will just let the reader figure out what thier real goal is.  That being said, I agree with you.  It is retarded to start proposing solutions when you haven't defined the problem, determined the negative consequences and benefits, and evaluate costs of particular solutions.  Alarmist just declare a problem and want reduction at any cost without objectively looking at the problem IMO.

Answer 2

I don't think most environmentalists advocate ethanol as a primary solution.  Not claiming to be an expert on ethanol, but its sounding like it's not such a good idea environmentaly or economically.

Bush likes ethanol. Ask him.

Car companies need to meet increasing efficiency standards and this helps them at least in the short term. Big Agribusinesses are proponents of it because they sell corn products.

It does at least have the plus that it lessens foreign oil dependency some.

Biodiesels may be better.

Plug in hybrids that are more electric with smaller gas engines are getting good reviews.  The gas engine is more for charging and helping on hills etc.  

A major truck parts company just came out with a drive train for hybrid trucks.

It seems we are going to have to have a mix of gas, ethanol, hybrids, diesels, plug in hybrids, electric cars  for the near term.  A transitional phase.  Ultimately, we could have all electric, but that doesn't make total sense unless the electric grid is clean energy.  And that is totally doable.

We can have a 65% solar electric grid by 2050.

And we can have near 100% solar by 2100.

Here how

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-so...   from Scientific American magazine

The public money it talks about spending is less than we give to oil companies in tax incentives etc.

These are subsidies to the oil companies who are extemely profitable, like Exxon who just reported over $40 billon profits for 2007.

The huge changes, that you question making are necessary anyway.  Even if we are wrong about global warming.  We are already threatening the ecosystems of earth on a global scale.  What don't you understand about that.   Life as we know it cannot go on, under that scenario.  The cooling or warming of the earth does not change that.

It only could add to the problem.

Answer 3

For me personally, with millions of people around the world starving, the idea of using a food crop to power our cars is ASININE.

Answer 4

Whoa there.  Nobody claimed "everything that needs to be known about solutions to global warming is known."

For starters, Bush has been the one pushing ethanol the hardest, and he certainly doesn't know everything about solutions to global warming.

I don't know any "GW advocates" who think ethanol or other biofuels should be a big part of the solution to global warming.  I've always said that biofuels can only be a small part of the solution for this very reason.  The more land we use for growing biofuel crops, the less we have for other purposes (i.e. growing food crops or for forests/grassland/etc.).

Answer 5

<<Don't you think we should KNOW first before we make such huge changes as GW advocates state?>>

NO.  this is what Exxon wants.  Don't do anything.  Don't mess with our profits.

However, that's quite separate from what to do about ethanol.  In fact, Bush's support for ethanol has always been suspicious to me.  Clearly we shouldn't be turning more wild land to agriculture.  If you've watched the price of milk (corn is a primary dairy cow food) lately, it should be quite obvious that there is a problem.

While our use of all kinds of energy is increasing dramatically, and ethanol, or bio-diesel can be part of a bridge, it's not a long term solution.

However, to directly answer your question, actions which help reduce CO2 should start ASAP, well before we know all about everything associated with the problem.

Answer 6

So ethanol was cool for the Enviro's 2 months ago, but now its not cool and Bush's fault..... Amazing

Answer 7

I think the results of global warming are those cars, industrial factories and everything else that use oil or gasoline and wildfires but no one I think have ever thought the result of global warming is the result of over population.  The more people we have the more carbon dioxide we emit due to our needs and the economy factor of supply and demand.  We demand more, industries grow and build factories and need more power to run. We burn forest for us to live and the oxygen giving plants disappear. It’s only up to us to limit out needs to help the earth rebuild its purpose for us living things. We should have to live symbiosis with other earth’s living things. But that's not the case with big companies, it's profits and numbers they count.

Answer 8

AGW and GW cannot be proven due to the enormous lack of data.   120 years of data out of 4 billion?  Come on....

There are no solutions to either AGW or GW because it doesn't exist.

Answer 9

If America could ever get it's act together a rail system would work just fine.We both know that corporate and government greed gets in the way of modernizing the US.We do things by volume and the lack of efficiency...as always post modernization comes after need.Most of Europe had to develop this concept as a necessity from oil dependency.

I'm against clear cutting it doesn't seem to work very well even when managed.Grasslands can be more readily suited for environmental factors then forest.If your worried about the loss of CO2,don't be,the most abundant form of land lock terrestrial CO2 is char.The country has wide open spanses in the Midwest that could possibly benefit. I'm not going to be so bold as to state what those could be.I do know some Midwest farmers leave a certain amount of grain and standing timber to compensate for wildlife needs."But again which type of wildlife benefits the most???"