Does Ethanol (E 85) harm the environment? Are there any better fuels?

Answer 1

ethanol was a concept to save the Envionment and
QUOTE
The irony here is that the growing eagerness to slow climate change by using biofuels and planting millions of trees for carbon credits has resulted in new major causes of deforestation, say activists. And that is making climate change worse because deforestation puts far more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire world's fleet of cars, trucks, planes, trains and ships combined.

"Biofuels are rapidly becoming the main cause of deforestation in countries like Indonesia, Malaysia and Brazil," said Simone Lovera, managing coordinator of the Global Forest Coalition, an environmental NGO based in Asunción, Paraguay. "We call it 'deforestation diesel'," Lovera told IPS.

Oil from African palm trees is considered to be one of the best and cheapest sources of biodiesel and energy companies are investing billions into acquiring or developing oil-palm plantations in developing countries. Vast tracts of forest in Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand and many other countries have been cleared to grow oil palms. Oil palm has become the world's number one fruit crop, well ahead of bananas.

Biodiesel offers many environmental benefits over diesel from petroleum, including reductions in air pollutants, but the enormous global thirst means millions more hectares could be converted into monocultures of oil palm. Getting accurate numbers on how much forest is being lost is very difficult.

The FAO's State of the World's Forests 2007 released last week reports that globally, net forest loss is 20,000 hectares per day -- equivalent to an area twice the size of Paris. However, that number includes plantation forests, which masks the actual extent of tropical deforestation, about 40,000 hectares (ha) per day, says Matti Palo, a forest economics expert who is affiliated with the Tropical Agricultural Research and Higher Education Center (CATIE) in Costa Rica.

"The half a million ha per year deforestation of Mexico is covered by the increase of forests in the U.S., for example," Palo told IPS.

National governments provide all the statistics, and countries like Canada do not produce anything reliable, he said. Canada has claimed no net change in its forests for 15 years despite being the largest producer of pulp and paper. "Canada has a moral responsibility to tell the rest of the world what kind of changes have taken place there," he said.

Plantation forests are nothing like natural or native forests. More akin to a field of maize, plantation forests are hostile environments to nearly every animal, bird and even insects. Such forests have been shown to have a negative impact on the water cycle because non-native, fast-growing trees use high volumes of water. Pesticides are also commonly used to suppress competing growth from other plants and to prevent disease outbreaks, also impacting water quality.

Plantation forests also offer very few employment opportunities, resulting in a net loss of jobs. "Plantation forests are a tremendous disaster for biodiversity and local people," Lovera said. Even if farmland or savanna are only used for oil palm or other plantations, it often forces the local people off the land and into nearby forests, including national parks, which they clear to grow crops, pasture animals and collect firewood. That has been the pattern with pulp and timber plantation forests in much of the world, says Lovera.

Ethanol is other major biofuel, which is made from maize, sugar cane or other crops. As prices for biofuels climb, more land is cleared to grow the crops. U.S. farmers are switching from soy to maize to meet the ethanol demand. That is having a knock on effect of pushing up soy prices, which is driving the conversion of the Amazon rainforest into soy, she says. Meanwhile rich countries are starting to plant trees to offset their emissions of carbon dioxide, called carbon sequestration. Most of this planting is taking place in the South in the form of plantations, which are just the latest threat to existing forests. "Europe's carbon credit market could be disastrous," Lovera said.

The multi-billion-euro European carbon market does not permit the use of reforestation projects for carbon credits. But there has been a tremendous surge in private companies offering such credits for tree planting projects. Very little of this money goes to small land holders, she says. Plantation forests also contain much less carbon, notes Palo, citing a recent study that showed carbon content of plantation forests in some Asian tropical countries was only 45 percent of that in the respective natural forests. Nor has the world community been able to properly account for the value of the enormous volumes of carbon stored in existing forests.

One recent estimate found that the northern Boreal forest provided 250 billion dollars a year in ecosystem services such as absorbing carbon emissions from the atmosphere and cleaning water. The good news is that deforestation, even in remote areas, is easily stopped. All it takes is access to some low-cost satellite imagery and governments that actually want to slow or halt deforestation. Costa Rica has nearly eliminated deforestation by making it illegal to convert forest into farmland, says Lovera.

Paraguay enacted similar laws in 2004, and then regularly checked satellite images of its forests, sending forestry officials and police to enforce the law where it was being violated. "Deforestation has been reduced by 85 percent in less than two years in the eastern part of the country," Lovera noted. The other part of the solution is to give control over forests to the local people. This community or model forest concept has proved to be sustainable in many parts of the world. India recently passed a bill returning the bulk of its forests back to local communities for management, she said.

However, economic interests pushing deforestation in countries like Brazil and Indonesia are so powerful, there may eventually be little natural forest left. "Governments are beginning to realize that their natural forests have enormous value left standing," Lovera said. "A moratorium or ban on deforestation is the only way to stop this."


This story is part of a series of features on sustainable development by IPS and IFEJ - International Federation of Environmental Journalists.
© 2007 IPS - Inter Press Service


Source: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0322-01.htmand

Answer 2

Ethanol has been discovered to have some nasty side effects!

Pollution from gasoline engines accounts for 10,000 deaths per year in the US alone each year, along with thousands of cases of respiratory disease and even cancer. Ethanol-based fuel E85 (15 per cent gasoline, 85 per cent ethanol) will make matters worse!

While ethanol-burning cars will emit fewer carcinogens such as benzene and butadiene, they spew out 20 times as much acetaldehyde as those using conventional fuel. Acetaldehyde can react with sunlight to form ozone, one of the main constituents of smog, and so increase the risks to people's health. (Note ozone at ground level is bad and does not reach the upper atmosphere).

Ethanol E85 could cause two-and-a-half times more damage!

Greens have promoted the fuel without doing the full science and studying the possible adverse effects. Now science has proved E85 is actually worse - will people listen?

I bet they do not and the world will suffer even more. Worse when the truth eventually becomes clear people will walk away from alternative fuels and there will be an even bigger problem!!!

Answer 3

No. If you want to hear a lots of information about it, watch the Indy 500 on Sunday.

The indy 500 drivers like Danica Patrick love ethanol because they go faster and don't have to stop for fuel as often.

Their motors aren't flex-fuel (they can only use ethanol) the Ethanol gives them more power than gasoline, and better fuel mileage than gasoline because the motors are more efficient because ethanol allows them to use higher compression.

Biodiesel is very good, but if you have a gasoline engine and want to use biofuels you need to use ethanol.

Answer 4

E85 is a small win for the environment in several ways.
Better would be to make ethanol from a different source, like sawgrass which grows with little water in places other things won't.

There are other fuels (biofuels, electric or hydrogen from nuclear power plants), but no one thing can replace fossil fuels everywhere or fast. We need all the tools we can get to fight global warming. E85 is one useful tool.

Answer 5

There is quite a bit of controversy with E85 and there are better fuels. E85 uses corn as a substitute for oil, but as a result the price of corn is greatly increasing (which the farmers are happy about) but many others are not happy about it. Growing corn also requires land, water, fertilizer, pesticides, etc. Therefore the benefits are questionable. One good alternative is natural gas which is clean burning and domestically produced, but it is difficult for the average person to buy unless you live in Cali. Electric cars are best because there are zero tailpipe emissions and powerplant emissions may actually improve over the lifespan of the vehicle. Biodiesel is also good if you can get a diesel vehichle.

Answer 6

there are better fuels, yes.
but ethanol recycles the CO2 that is already in the environment, since it is made from fermentation of biomass.
since e85 still has methanol in it, the methanol is still fossil fuels, which isn't good for the environment. but it is still better than most gasoline currently being used.

Answer 7

There are side-effects, but these can be solved (if corporations see profit in it!)

Better fuels will be developed once we force the Government to adopt that path.

Answer 8

no it doesnt.