Critical Analysis of an Opinion Piece

Biofuel: is it the fuel of the future? Or is it a fuel which is out of reach and ultimately one which will lead to increased greenhouse gas emissions? Many people view biofuel as a high tech advanced fuel which will drastically cut emissions, cut cost, and overall be a better fuel for the world to run on. However on the other hand there are those who think it is out of reach, an advancement that shouldn’t be explored, and one which will ultimately lead to a rise in emissions.

The reasons for these thoughts are based around a clear and simple concept that in order to produce biofuel more crops need to be grown and therefore more farmland created, land cleared, and this process will in the end result in more harm than good being done.

In an article written by Debora MacKenzie titled Biofuels will up Euro greenhouse emissions she expresses her concern regarding biofuel and her thoughts surrounding the idea about how emissions will ultimately rise. At first read the article seems fairly legitimate and accompanied by some strong evidence, but once someone takes a critical position and re-reads it, many questions arise and it begins to appear as a weak report, with a lack of any definitive evidence.

The first main grey area within the article is surrounding the independent analysis which MacKenzie credits for concluding that the amount of land needed is not only non-existent in terms of the amount required but also that in order to clear that land and use it would result in more emissions being pumped into the air vs. the ones that would be cut from cars using the biofuel. This would result in a net increase of emissions being released into the air.

The issue with this evidence is that the independent analysis is not cited, and no information regarding who did it, when, etc. is available. To make such a claim, and back it up with essentially nothing greatly decreases the validity of the claim and makes any conclusions or results sprouting from it meaningless in terms of scientific accuracy. Anyone could say a study found this or that, and simply leave out the information about the study so no one could back check it themselves. It seems like the author drew her own conclusions that she knew were maybe a bit off the mark so she decided to hide the source.

Another issue with this publication is that the numbers which are used to represent the amount by which emissions would increase also don’t come from anywhere. It doesn’t say or show where these numbers came from, and in fact for this claim the author doesn’t even attribute the numbers to any study or research (as the above at least did) it just simply says “This would release more than twice as much carbon as Europe’s cars would produce if they stuck with conventional petrol”. It is a blanket statement and doesn’t discuss any external issues which could also play a key role in an emission level increase. This ultimately leads the reader to believe that cars emissions would be 2 times less if they used petrol vs. using biofuel, which I think is misleading.

The last main issue with the article is that external issues and no time line are addressed. There are many things that will affect the amount of emissions in the atmosphere and none are even mentioned. Examples of other things which could affect emission levels are deforestation, urban development, and even in general population growth. Because of these other reasons which are dependent and will emerge with time, this is why no mention of a timeline is an issue. The article talks about short term? Long term? Forever? I can’t tell. It says levels would be doubled with the implementation of biofuel. However it also recognizes that biofuel does cut emissions when used. So this leads me to believe that eventually the levels would even out and that in time the emissions would ultimately be lower once biofuel was established and in place for many years. Yet the article fails to mention or even shine any light on this future hope.

It seems like the author recognizes that in the short term, bio fuel is going to do more harm than good, or at least has the potential to do so, but also knows, yet is hiding, that in the future it will be a better fuel for the world. I would say that it’s an investment in the future. I would say that the author is more worried about short term compared to long term and I would say that because of this selfish view on the issue at hand, she has written the article the way she has, excluding some key bits of information and making it seem as solid as possible by saying things like reports show this, etc but leaves out the source so no background can be done.

There are some strong points in the article, don’t get me wrong. However ultimately I would say it is written with minimal concluding evidence and is just how one person interrupts the biofuel movement. I would like to add that 23 out of 27 EU countries have gone forward with the biofuel initiative so doesn’t it seem like more support it and believe in it as an investment for the future instead of being worried about the short term issues? It is a good piece of writing, opinion is expressed and an argument is presented with some form of support, whether it be good or bad. However I think it follows the precautionary principle a bit too closely because it’s a known thing biofuel helps with emissions.

I personally would rather invest now, take the hit when we aren’t in the red and have some time in case something goes wrong instead of waiting for it to be too late. Biofuel, in my opinion, needs to be implemented and people need to understand the short term possible effects but also the long term potential gains. Knowledge and understanding is power, why not invest in a very hopeful chance?