Now the biofuels are shown to be worse for the air than gasoline, will liberals finally come back to reality?

Question

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article2507851.ece

Bio-fuels do not contribute in any way to anything worthwhile. How can it be good to burn then if they a) speed global warming rather than reduce it b) increase poverty by making food around the world more expensive c) take money away from legitimate research d) cause environmental havoc from increased farming and e) are no more renewable than oil.

Oil is just as renewable as corn. Oil is made a by a natural process that is ongoing, and on a much, much larger scale than corn. Corn just happens to be something that you can replicate quickly on a small scale while damaging the environment. What's so good about it?

To the arrogant man below who calls himself Socrates, you might want to do an experiment in your own home. Take some ice, put it in a glass, fill it with water and let it melt.

You'll notice that the water doesn't rise.

Answer 1

Liberalas come back to reality???
LOL

Thanks I needed a joke today.

Answer 2

Frankly, I'm glad to hear that. Using corn and soy beans for fuel is causing our food prices to go up radically. A ridiculous choice for an alternative as far as I'm concerned.

There are vehicles in France running on compressed air, yet we opt to use grain. I do understand that using compressed air to fuel a car will not add maximum growth to the economy, however, we still need other types of fuels for many other things, but vehicles add the most pollution to the atmosphere.

Food for use as fuel would not be a liberal's choice and the need for alternative fuels has been a well known fact for at least 30 years. It has nothing to do with being liberal.

Answer 3

I'm one liberal who was never in favor of bio-fuels. The best energy sources (solar, hydroelectric, wind, electromagnetic, geothermal...etc.) will never be developed not because of liberals, but because of the profit motive in capitalism which won't allow for free energy sources. Someone has to make some $s off of it. Here's a reality check for you. Sea ice in the arctic melted off this summer roughly the same area as California and Texas combined. Those wacky scientists are predicting no arctic sea ice in the summer by 2030. Might as well buy that Humvee. In a couple decades things will be very different no matter what we do.

Answer 4

Most liberals don't actually support bio-fuels as the ultimate solution -- and many don't even see them as a short-term solution. At best, bio-fuels have the advantage of being renewable, unlike oil which is finite and dwindling.

But just because something else is worse -- that is not reasonable grounds to continue burning fossil fuels.

So, "come back to reality" -- what reality? Because the belief that oil is our only option is certainly not the reality.

Answer 5

The point missed in the article is that whilst these biofuel crops are growing they are absorbing CO2. In fact simple logic says they absorb as much carbon as they emit on burning since the carbon they contain originates from the CO2 in the air. The point about Nitrous Oxides was addressed by the first person who commented on the article just under the story. It can be fixed.

Answer 6

Rapeseed oil and maize yes, but only those two. The article suggests other fuels are more likely to be used in the future. It looks like a trial and err thing. Once something is found out to be not as predicted we go to something else. It is called science.

Answer 7

Hrmmm, interesting...Thanks for the link.

Why are you saying it's the liberals fault, it's just scientific progress. Scientist's are looking for alternatives to gasoline. Why do you have make this issue political?

Answer 8

And what relatity would that be give up ?

"Cut and run" because there is clearly nothing better than oil ?


Does it say Exxon on your undies or somthing ?

Answer 9

Liberals, reality? Those two words are opposites. Liberals deal in fairy tales.

Answer 10

ban all cars.