
Here's an inconvenient truth our global warming obsessed media seem certain to withhold from the public: biofuels produce more greenhouse gases than oil and gasoline.
Fortunately, as has been noted by NewsBusters before, foreign press outlets are more willing than ours to present the facets of this issue that go counter to the prevailing climate change agenda.
As such, Britain's Times reported Saturday (emphasis added throughout, h/t's Don Surber and Glenn Reynolds):
Rapeseed and maize biodiesels were calculated to produce up to 70 per cent and 50 per cent more greenhouse gases respectively than fossil fuels. The concerns were raised over the levels of emissions of nitrous oxide, which is 296 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Scientists found that the use of biofuels released twice as much as nitrous oxide as previously realised. The research team found that 3 to 5 per cent of the nitrogen in fertiliser was converted and emitted. In contrast, the figure used by the International Panel on Climate Change, which assesses the extent and impact of man-made global warming, was 2 per cent. The findings illustrated the importance, the researchers said, of ensuring that measures designed to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions are assessed thoroughly before being hailed as a solution.
Amen. In fact, that last sentence is exactly what global warming alarmists around the world are continuing to ignore.
After all, the solution to the "nuclear problem" decades ago was coal. Hypocritically, those who fear-mongered this issue enough to prevent the construction of nuclear facilities back then are pointing fingers at coal powered ones today.
Doesn't this suggest quite strongly that grass on the other side of the fence may not be as green as it appears, and that this time we shouldn't make the same mistake of assuming that change is good for change's sake before we have examined all of the costs and the benefits?
Fortunately, unlike American media which typically only quote alarmists in such reports -- much as the Associated Press disgracefully did Saturday -- the Times cited people who were actually concerned about biofuels:
"One wants rational decisions rather than simply jumping on the bandwagon because superficially something appears to reduce emissions," said Keith Smith, a professor at the University of Edinburgh and one of the researchers.
Maize for ethanol is the prime crop for biofuel in the US where production for the industry has recently overtaken the use of the plant as a food. In Europe the main crop is rapeseed, which accounts for 80 per cent of biofuel production.
Professor Smith told Chemistry World: "The significance of it is that the supposed benefits of biofuels are even more disputable than had been thought hitherto."
It was accepted by the scientists that other factors, such as the use of fossil fuels to produce fertiliser, have yet to be fully analysed for their impact on overall figures. But they concluded that the biofuels "can contribute as much or more to global warming by N2 O emissions than cooling by fossil-fuel savings".
[...]
Dr Franz Conen, of the University of Basel in Switzerland, described the study as an "astounding insight".
"It is to be hoped that those taking decisions on subsidies and regulations will in future take N2O emissions into account and promote some forms of 'biofuel' production while quickly abandoning others," he told the journal's discussion board.
Dr Dave Reay, of the University of Edinburgh, used the findings to calculate that with the US Senate aiming to increase maize ethanol production sevenfold by 2022, greenhouse gas emissions from transport will rise by 6 per cent.
Think this study will be covered by the New York Times, the Washington Post, USA Today, or any of the television news outlets in the States?
Or how about by Seth Borenstein over at the Associated Press?
No, I don't either.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.





















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
I give up
September 23, 2007 - 12:24 ET by jay_1975These fear mongering idiots who are so hyped to stop climate change are getting worse every day. Have they ever once stopped to think that by trying to stop climate change that they will ultimately cause more harm than good? They think that in 150 years we have disrupted the climate cycle of over 4 billion years. That just shows how full of themselves they truely are. Our time here on earth is nothing compared to her total history. CO2, water vapor, methane, they were all here before us and at differing levels throughout history, yet now we seem to know exactly how it all fits together through flawed computer models. Ten years from now it will be that "global warming" has caused the temperatures to drop as predicted by Dr. Timothy Ball. But no, the left nuts choose to listen to Gore since he is an academic genius (trying not to puke).
when are they going to learn, glob warm is caused by stooopidity
September 23, 2007 - 13:32 ET by lunaticcringeradioglobal warming is a political scam, a sky is falling scare tactic, to scare people into socialism.
mankind can't even make it rain or snow or warm up or cool down in places where we could effectively control the weather for benificial purposes. yes i know we can seed clouds but i'm talking about creating and controling the weather on a micro level(relative to the global climate). so this whole lie that mankind is changing the planet is a load of crap. the two largest contributing forces to climate change are the sun(cue kevin regan: da big yellow one is da sun) and ocean currents that are affected with undersea geological changes. i am so humble in mankinds abilities that i would attribute less than .5% of climate change to mans actions.
so after making my obvious stand on the reality of global warming, everything that we see regarding climate change in politics is purely that, politics. global warming and it's skewed data is a political pick to wedge agendas into your life that you wouldn't otherwise accept, and all of it based on a false bogeyman monster under your bed scare tactic lies. for liberals global warming is a religious sect of socialism. the goal of global warmists is not the nobel goal to save the planet, it is a plan designed to kill capitolism, it is a path to destroy the dominant superpower that liberals are jealous and envious of....america, because america has shown that it can succeed in the very ways that socialists have hated and defied for lifetimes.
but of course because i don't believe global warming exists by man it's obvious to the global warmists that i just want to pollute and ruin the environment to destroy the planet for financial gain.
lunaticcringeradio
at least Y2K had a deadline
September 23, 2007 - 13:54 ET byat least Y2K had a deadline
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
ah yes i forgot about y2k
September 23, 2007 - 16:10 ET by lunaticcringeradiothat was a fun one to hear nuts talk about on the old art bell show
and let us not forget, y2k was solved by who, the private sector, not the government. once again capitolism trumps big government, but according to hillary privatization in not a solution for anything.
lunaticcringeradio
Greenhouse Gases?
September 23, 2007 - 13:59 ET by Lame CherryMr. Sheppard by your even using the term "greenhouse gases" is promoting an untruth. There is no such thing as "greenhouse gases" as the term was coined by NASA ilk to "explain Venus" warming. Venus is not hot because of atmosphere, but by it being too close to the sun. The sun warms all the planets and their position in relation to the sun is what controls their temperature.
The same in this is true of "fossil fuels" which is another term created by this globalist media out of Europe at the behest of the Rothschilds who also brough us Karl Marx. This same ilk seized upon the work of a relative of mine in Charles Darwin when he was suffering from delayed stress when a child he adored died.
Fossil fuels were not created at all by dinosaurs, but have been proven are a renewable earth produced resource created by deep earth heat and pressure turning carbon into oil and natural gas.
All of these terms from greenhouse gases to Darwin are lies. One only has to look at the FACT that gases are not created in any form as they already exist in the earth.
I will REPEAT THIS THAT THE GASES ALREADY ARE PRESENT IN THE EARTH and no new gases are ever formed. CO2 for example is naturally stored by the natural earth regulation system as carbon or some other forms such as calcium carbonate. The White Cliffs of Dover are an example of earth self regulation as God intended. That is a depository of too much element housed by the earth for a future need.
Same with nitrous oxide is but a compound of natural nitrogen and oxygen which already exist. It is a misnomer to focus on one product producting nitrous oxide. It is like a scientist exclaiming, "Oh my water is produced when ice is melted." Of course it is, but at the same time no new water is created. It always has been there and the earth did not end.
Corn or soybeans simply absorb natural elements, combine them and then release them either in bio fuels or in natural methane decomposition as that is the way God set the earth up to cycle and work perfectly. There is no creation of anything new or released. If it was not corn it would be grass or weeds produced by the ground in a measure to absorb rainfall so floods do not occur.
So there can not be more "greenhouse gas" or any element or combination of elements released "more" than the other. Crude oil is simply stored natural gases just like corn is stored natural gases. One can not put more gases into the atmosphere than the earth will tolerate in God's balance. There is always a check and balance working.
Whenever anyone starts letting down their guard and using globalist propaganda, they have added to the problems free people being slowly enslaved by this system meant to destroy Christian liberty and Republican forms of government.
Thank you for your time and God bless.
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
LC
September 23, 2007 - 14:31 ET by Noel SheppardLC,
With all due respect, I think you're not accurately representing the skeptical view here. Virtually all scientists on both sides of this debate acknowledge that our atmosphere, which is composed of a variety of gases and water vapor, does indeed act as a form of greenhouse, and that without it, the planet would be MUCH warmer during the day and MUCH cooler at night.
With that in mind, the debate lies more in which of the gases plays a larger role in determining climate, and whether man's contribution to the amount of said gas is at all relevant. Furthermore, does this greenhouse effect play a larger role in climate change than other issues such as solar activity? ns
Lame Cherry, For whatever
September 23, 2007 - 14:46 ET by alamojbLame Cherry,
For whatever it is worth, I have to agree with Noel about the greenhouse gases. The Earth-Luna (moon) system is aproximately 93 million miles from the sun. At times the moon is maybe a quarter of a million miles closer or farther from the sun than Earth due to its orbit around Earth. This is just a small fraction of the total 93 million mile avg distance to the Sun, however. But its Temp swings are much greater than Earth's. Yes, I am aware that it has a two week long "moon" day.
Also, note deserts here on Earth. They get hot during the day and cold at night. This is because of the relative lack of a powerful greenhouse gas called "water vapour." Something many in the global warming camp try to ignore.
Lame Cherry, Your
September 23, 2007 - 15:19 ET by hydrodynDMLame Cherry,
Your description of what determines a planet’s temperature is incorrect. Yes, temperature drops as you get farther from the sun because the intensity of radiation drops with the inverse square of distance. However a planet’s atmosphere (or lack of) also plays a part in determining the planet's surface temperature.
Venus has a larger mean global temperature than Mercury does despite being farther from the sun as a result of the way Venus’s atmosphere interacts with solar radiation.
Similarly, Mercury exhibits the largest contrast in temperatures of all planets between the side facing the sun and its dark side because it has almost no atmosphere.
Regarding your comment about greenhouse gases (or whatever you want to call them): first, yes gas molecules can be created from constituent atoms. As a simple example, you can create O2 from water with a little current.
Second, you seem to be ignoring the fact that a gas will react with solar and terrestrial radiation differently depending on where it is – whether locked in a solid or free within the atmosphere.
Hmm.
September 23, 2007 - 20:12 ET by amilaDude you have any idea how stupid you are? Your first paragraph is reeks of
ignorance.
"Mr. Sheppard by your even using the term "greenhouse
gases" is promoting an untruth. There is no such thing as "greenhouse
gases" as the term was coined by NASA ilk to "explain Venus"
warming. Venus is not hot because of atmosphere, but by it being too close to
the Sun. The sun warms all the planets and their position in relation to the
sun is what controls their temperature."
Uh.... Venus is hotter than mercury. Venus is roughly 870 °F and mercury is roughly
800 °F. Hmm wait a minute here. WAIT ONE DAMN MINUTE! NASA says that Venus is the 2nd planet, and Mercury is the 1st!!! OMG. You know what this means right? WOW YOU JUST DISCOVERED SOMETHING NEW! According to you, Venus is the
first planet in the solar system!!!!! WOW, with that kind of a brain, I'm very
certain it's those damn liberals who are keeping you from becoming world’s
greatest scientist. OH RIGHT, you're not a scientist, the only time you ever
were close to being a scientist was when your parents told you you can be
anything you wanted.
C'mon
September 23, 2007 - 21:32 ET by jay_1975Do we need to belittle people to get our point across? Simply arguing on facts should suffice. If the other person does not get it, do not stupe to the old left wing stand-by by putting someone down. Please, let's all keep it civilized.
Uh, aren't you the same
September 23, 2007 - 22:23 ET by amilaUh, aren't you the same person above who called people idiots and pretty much labled a lot of people, "...the left nuts...".
Your point about keeping it civilised, however, is taken. Sorry about that. So here are the civilised versions of the temperatures, 465 Celsius for Venus, and 426 Celsius for Mercury.
amila
September 23, 2007 - 22:31 ET byhi welcome to NB
the civilized temps would be Kelvin
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
fine! you got me.
September 24, 2007 - 07:24 ET by amilafine! you got me.
I don't know
September 23, 2007 - 14:53 ET by krismcsherry.....how to get morally through to these people. I gave up writing letters to the editor of the local newpapers. They don't listen but they're quick to print Seth Borenstein's crazy predictions. The scarier the better while the rest of the paper covers repeats of repeats of the same old topics like the mess of public education, big union whining and Britney Spears.
Keep at it, Noel. Perhaps someday the news that biomass is not as great as Bush and other politicians who've crammed it down our throats think it is will reach a greater audience.
http://www.cgfi.org/cgficommentary/ecologist-increased-use-of-biomass-fuels-criminal
biofuels
September 23, 2007 - 15:16 ET by CharooosanI wonder how Daryl Hannah is going to take this revelation that Biofuels are actually worse than the regular oil/gasoline we use. She's rejected the oil/fuel (fossil fuel) that we use, and for five years has been using biofuels for her 1983 El Camino. I can't wait to hear what she has to say about choosing the wrong form of fuel.
what about poor one sheet of toilet paper sheryl crow
September 23, 2007 - 16:54 ET by lunaticcringeradioshe had all her tour busses converted to biofuels. the boney assed hippy chick is polluting more because she made a decision based on emotion instead of fact. they base fault in the mental process of liberals.
and on the topic of one sheet of toilet paper, who the hell can clean anything up with one sheet of toilet paper. well maybe if you don't eat a damn thing skinney ass broad maybe you can. the only conservative that i can think of that could challenge her one sheet rule is ann coulter. ok i'm dangerously close to falling into my talkshow crude humor, i'm stopping here.
lunaticcringeradio
Purposes of Global Warming propaganda...
September 23, 2007 - 15:45 ET by Parker12271. Create a false monster to distract the voting public from the real monster of Islamo-Nazism (an issue that Republicans currently hold a political edge on).
2. Push the Leftist Luddite fantasy of "going Tribal" (I hear bongos thumping somewhere), by accusing global trade of causing global warming. (All those millions of starving people pulled out of abject poverty in the last 15 years by thriving import/export systems - let 'em rot).
3. Dismantle the evil oil/auto industry and price much of the public out of private car ownership (into bomber friendly "sardine can" subways) by mandating auto-pilot enviro-cars costing a minimum of $40,000 dollars each.
Parker see the first two posts
September 23, 2007 - 15:51 ET byon todays open thread. But lets worry about the bogus AGW, shall we?
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Nice links botg
September 23, 2007 - 16:03 ET by Parker1227I'm with you. We have common sense on our side, but the Left has a legion of wacko "professors" pushing propaganda into the ears of the next generation.
Keep fighting the good fight.
But do it in the mainstream as much as possible.
I love NB, but its a bit of an echo chamber.
yeah i get the echo chamber
September 23, 2007 - 16:11 ET byyeah i get the echo chamber thing
still the ability to prepare here is a great thing
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Bio fuels suck
September 23, 2007 - 16:37 ET by bigpapaand are not the answer,,,
Milk is over 4 bucks a gallon now, up almost 2 dollars,,
All grocery staples are going up and will continue..
How does that help the "poor" democrat voter???
Imagine what will happen in
September 23, 2007 - 18:25 ET by danboImagine what will happen in the 3rd world. How many people will starve. Warmers keep talking about bio fuels. Saying we can stop people to not plant. That only goes so far. It's costing us at the grocery store, now. There isn't that much land paid to grow nothing.
When Hitler was forced to go to bio fuels in a major way; people starved. They'll starve again. Thanks to those who want to save us from something that probably isn't a problem.
The environmenrtalist don't care if people starve. Their stomachs are full.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
danbo
September 23, 2007 - 21:57 ET by krismcsherryThe environmenrtalist don't care if people starve. Their stomachs are full.
Right on. That's the bottom line.
"Where wealth and progress gives people the luxury of choice, the policies and preferences of the environmental elite are easy to stomach. When it comes to actually having something to put in their stomachs, people in developing countries such as those in Africa can't afford to live by lofty standards." ---Stella Dulanya
This is going to be "news"
September 24, 2007 - 08:49 ET by Senior ChiefThis is going to be "news" for Bill O'Reilly and his guest, Daryll Hannah on last week segment's of Patriot and Pinhead. Hannah was Bill's kind of patriot for she uses biofuel for her old uatomobile for so many years when she became an environmental guru. With this news, hope BOR will recant his tag on Hannah and deliver her the news that she's now a "pinhead"...
Study Finds 90% of Greenhouse Gases
September 24, 2007 - 11:05 ET by mattmEmanate from the mouths and anuses of Globalarmists.
N2O
September 24, 2007 - 21:48 ET by SPRENI might be mistaken, but I believe that nitrous oxide N2O is also known as laughing gas. Isn't this ironically appropriate?
Maybe if everyone starts using it as a biofuel, we'll all have a much better sense of humor.
Isn't it truly delicious that these biofuels only provide 70% of the BTUs of gasoline but much more GHGs. How long till people realize any time the government gets involved in something it will get very screwed up. Remember MTBE? Well, here's their replacement.
There should be accountabilities that hits these mental giants personally. They shouldn't be allowed to screw everything up and then walk away. They sure don't allow anyone in the private sector to do so.
greenhouse "Effect"
April 23, 2008 - 13:30 ET by mbuelwe do have a greenhouse layer, but the weather system is much more complex than the simple CO2 or methane enhanced greenhouse warming.
1) CO2 is a miniscule part of the greenhouse layer. Methane is larger, but it's role is still subjugated to the largest component of the greenhouse.
2) By and large the Water Vapor in the greenhouse holds FAR more energy from the Sun than either CO2 or Methane. But that leads us to point 3.
3) We can look at Mars and Venus as climate examples. Neither has another key component to our relative climate stability. large and deep oceans. Venus and Mars probably both had oceans in the distant past. Both were probably also volcanic Venus' closer proximity to the sun, with increased volcanism, lead to a dense water vapor in the atmosphere trapping heat. Mars didn't have a thick enough atmosphere, and when the Sun evaporated the oceans, the majority of the water probably escaped into space.
4) Even if the increased greenhouse warming leads to short term warming, it won't lead to long term warming due to the depth of our oceans. Greenhouse warming is reflective, and infrared. Infra energy only penetrates down about 10 - 20 M. That's not enough energy to warm the oceans, which is the only way the Earth is going to become significantly warmer.