Biofuels are not the answer

The first and most obvious problem with biofuels is that they’re not really solving the pollution problem. At best, it’s a net gain of zero, though admittedly that’s a hell of a lot better than we get out of fossil fuels. Burning biofuels still releases CO2 out of green plants and dumps it into the atmosphere. The fact that it all came out of the atmosphere (as opposed to out of the ground) just means that we break even. That’s not a solution. We need to actively reduce the amount of atmospheric CO2, not just recycle it. The best way to do that (and to make progress regarding many other problems) is to encourage permanent plant growth, not just cut it down every year so we can plant it anew the next year.

But the real problems arise when you get a further step removed from biofuel production itself. The cultivated (and even cultivatable) land is getting divided between fuel production and food production, and which direction the plants go will depend on who’s paying more for it. Which means that merchants will be paying more for both fuel and food, because they have to outcompete the other, which then means that both food and fuel prices for the end consumer will skyrocket.

The solution then is to increase production, which will lower prices. It will also be profitable to bring more land into production, simply because it’s so lucrative. Which then means that more wild land will be put to the plow. Most likely it will have lain fallow in the US, since there’s so little natural growth left, but in Brazil they’re increasing deforestation rates specifically for the purposes of increasing fuel production. That means more CO2 being released, regardless of what type of vegetation is being destroyed, and more annual turnover, meaning less standing biomass, and more CO2 sitting in the atmosphere.

But don’t take my word for it. As usual, I present you with a plethora of links backing up my wild ideas.