The Science Daily article “Biofuels Policy Fails to Achieve Goals” (16 February 2010) boasts a strong argument in regards to the efficiency of biofuels. The main claim being purposed is that the current policies revolving around the use of biofuels make any environmental, energy and agricultural goals unrealistic and unobtainable. The following quote demonstrates the argument trying to be made in this piece of writing.
"The analysis of biofuel policies is shown to be unique compared to all other environmental policy analysis and has implications for biofuels policy worldwide and also for renewable electricity policy. Throughout the world, countries use complicated combinations of mandates and subsidy programs to promote biofuels and the renewable electricity sector. Because these combinations are so complicated, they can often have unintended consequences.”(ScienceDaily 2010)
The main points supporting this article are that the promotion and use of biofuels is a very complicated process and as a result there are some unexpected side effects. As more and more countries continue to implement biofuel policies without sufficient knowledge intensify the issue. In conclusion this article claims that biofuels will in fact do more harm than good towards the environment and agriculture. There is one major issue with this article and that is there is next to no evidence provided from the research conducted that would support the claim made. The article merely purposes this idea and anyone who reads it is expected to believe the information provided.
I disagree with the claim made in this article on several grounds. The first issue being that nowhere in the article are any of the potential pros of biofuels mentioned. The author misleads the readers by only mentioning the negative impacts of biofuels. When dealing with environmental issues such as this one, an accurate conclusion can only be developed once all the pros and cons have been weighed. The biggest worry with biofuels is if they become too widely used then more land will be required to produce them. This would have a negative impact on the environment, resulting in habitat and species loss. If farmers choose to grow biofuel fuel crop instead of harvesting food then food production would decrease leading to an increase in food prices. However there is a possibility that the pros of biofuels far out way its cons. Biofuels hold the potential to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. They produce less greenhouse gasses compared to that of gasoline and diesel thus reducing the effect of global warming. It has also been predicted that biofuels may in fact generate better agricultural development on a global scale. Taking both sides of the story into account would allow the reader to develop a more educated opinion on this matter.
De Gorter and Just are two Professors at the University of Cornell in the Department of Economics. A recent study they conducted was used as the primary source for the article by ScienceDaily. De Gorter and Just (2009) argue that biofuels fail to pass an overall cost-benefit test; they have an adverse impact on food prices and poverty, especially in developing countries and create higher greenhouse gas emissions due to indirect land use changes. According to Jackson (2008) there are two potential methods of generating biofuels without destroying habitats or farmland. The first method suggests using land that is not capable of supporting plant life or using plants that do not contribute to food production. The second although much less realistic method for producing biofuels is to use the food from restaurant chains. Some countries have implemented the use of crops that are of low demand so that developing countries do not struggle even further to supply their populations with the necessary amount of food. If these solutions are put into action less farmland will be required to produce biofuels and as a result countries will be able to meet the demand for food. This in turn will prevent food prices from rising drastically as predicted.
Another argument being made De Gorter and Just is that certain biofuels, when burned have been proven to produce more greenhouse emissions then diesel. The article fails to recognize that these tests are relatively new and may not be 100% accurate. Several other experiments have been conducted and different results have been yielded. As a result this topic has become very controversial and there continues to be much debate back and forth between scientists. This topic will continue to go back and forth because the studies conducted in order to collect this data are very complicated and it seems that whether you are against or pro biofuels there is always a scientist willing to support your theory with conclusive evidence.
Yes, there are still questions surrounding the subject of biofuels seeing as they are still a relatively new technology. Just as with any other new technology it is critical that the user have a general understanding of the product being used. The Science Daily article titled “Biofuels Policy Fails to Achieve Goals, Warn Experts” argues that biofuels are not a good substitute for fossil fuels and will harm both the environment and food production. This however, is not true. A key point to remember is that biofuels must not be labelled the solution to both our rapidly decreasing fossil fuel levels and the emission of greenhouse gases. This is simply too large of an issue for one alternative energy source to be the answer. A quote by Poushali Ganguly says “there is no jury-rigged expedient for weaning ourselves off of fossil fuels and start using biofuel one fine morning though we can hope that in the future we might use a combination of sources, that is, from wind and ocean currents to hydrogen, solar and biofuel meeting our energy needs.” Only through the combination of numerous different renewable energy sources such as biofuels, solar and wind energy, to name a few, will society no longer have to rely on fossil fuels. As it stands now biofuels provide humanity with a chance at decreasing the amount of fossil fuels we consume allowing us to conserve fuel.
References
Ganguly, Poushali. “Pros and Cons of Biofuels.” http://www.buzzle.com/articles/pros-and-cons-of-biofuel.html. Accessed November-10-10.
Harry De Gorter & David R. Just. “The Social Costs and Benefits of Biofuels: The Intersection of Environmental, Energy and Agricultural Policy. Applied Economics Perspectives and Policy AEPP, Volume 32, Issue 1.
Jackson, David. (2008) “Are Biofuels Actually Good For the Environment?” Biomass Authority: The Dirt on Clean, 17 November 2008. http://biomassauthority.com/are-biofuels-actually-good-for-the-environment/. Accessed November-10-10.
ScienceDaily (2010) Biofuels Policy Fails to Achieve Goals, Warn Experts. The Science Daily, 16 February 2010. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100215130339.html Accessed November-10-10.
Words: 1012
No comments:
Post a Comment