As the global climate heats up, so does the debate over the effectiveness of biofuels.
Advocates of biofuels claim these ethanol-based fuels release less of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide than conventional gas. However, recently in the scientific research journal Science, two more articles have declared that biofuels are essentially not any better than fossil fuels and may actually be more detrimental to the global environment in the long run.
Right now, biofuel technology is still relatively new, having been around for less than a decade. As such, people should not blindly place their hopes in this supposed remedy before all of the potential impacts of biofuel have been examined.
In late December of last year Congress passed a bill that would require the annual production of renewable fuels be raised to 36 billion gallons by the year 2022. This is roughly five times the amount of biofuels currently being produced in the United States.
It has been proven that fuels made from biomass (which are biological materials that can be used as fuel or for other industrial purposes) release less carbon dioxide than fossil fuels when burned.
Carbon dioxide, of course, is the main culprit behind global warming, so if biofuels can help to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, they must be good, right? Not necessarily.
According to the two scientific papers published in Science, the widespread use of biofuels may have some environmental downfalls. Since the majority of biomass used in producing these fuels comes from corn and sugarcane, there has been a sharp increase in demand for both of these agricultural products, especially corn.
As the price of these two crops rises, more and more farmers in developing countries are motivated to cultivate them and cash in on the growing demand. By doing so, more farmland is being developed.
However, the production of new farmland comes at a price. Because of the need for more farmland to grow these two crops, the destruction of rainforests and scrublands is actually increasing.
As a result, a major producer of our planet's oxygen supply is being wiped out at an even faster pace than usual because of biofuels.
This is a classic example of people placing all of their hopes in one solution before all of the possible outcomes have been thoroughly examined.
Dramatically increasing our nation's use of renewable fuels, as Congress hopes to do, could be disastrous for the environment in the long run.
With all of the farmland that would be needed to support such a plan, what room would there be for the world's rainforests and scrublands?
A new source of biomass would doubtlessly need to be used to supply such a vast amount of biofuel. Otherwise, this renewable energy source may actually be quite harmful to the environment it is trying to save.
There really is no doubt that our planet is fragile, and burning fossil fuels at the rate we are now could end up proving devastating in the long run. An alternative to conventional gas needs to be found, but we simply cannot rely on biofuels to solve all our problems. It may very well help us, but scientists and researchers have been discovering more and more evidence that contradicts this idea.
To depend completely on biofuels could prove to be an extremely dangerous risk in the long run.
With the world population ever increasing and with starving people in third world countries, can we really afford to be burning a food source to run our cars?
With more and more farms cashing in by supplying the swelling demand for biomass to feed our biofuel plants, how many other farms will be left to support our food supply? A simple answer to these questions would be to increase the amount of farmland, but to do that would mean the destruction of natural ecosystems. And this would include those that contribute greatly to our planet's oxygen supply. Perhaps an alternative solution to our alternative solution should be sought out.
Ryan Dashek is a sophomore majoring in biology. Please send responses to opinion@dailycardinal.com.
