Snappy newsletters. Simple Facebook sharing. Spirited comments. Sweet features are waiting… GET THEM NOW!

Biofuel Laws Make No Sense: Scientists

Kyoto Protocols actually encourage harming the environment

By Kevin Spak,  Newser Staff

Posted Oct 23, 2009 10:18 AM CDT

(Newser) – Biofuel laws around the world actually encourage harming the environment, prominent scientists argue in the latest issue of Science. Under the Kyoto Treaty, in laws throughout Europe, and in the bill that passed the US House, biofuels count as carbon-neutral, on the theory that the plants the fuel is made from originally took carbon out of the air. It’s nonsense, scientists say, and ignores the land cleared to grow crops.

The laws encourage cutting down trees to plant biofuel crops, because cutting down trees isn’t treated as an emission. “If you were to cut down the world’s forests and turn them into a parking lot, and take the wood and put it in a boiler—that is treated as a pure way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions,” says one researcher. “Forests are worth more dead than alive.”

A machine cuts cane for biofuel at a plantation in Batatais, Brazil, in this Aug. 28, 2007 file photo.
A machine cuts cane for biofuel at a plantation in Batatais, Brazil, in this Aug. 28, 2007 file photo.   (AP Photo/Andre Penner)
A farmer dries the corn grains in Shenyang, Northeast of China's Liaoning province, Monday, Sept. 24, 2007.
A farmer dries the corn grains in Shenyang, Northeast of China's Liaoning province, Monday, Sept. 24, 2007.   (AP Photo)
« Prev« Prev | Next »Next » Slideshow
To report an error on this story, notify our editors.
COMMENTS
Showing 3 of 21 comments
Unaffiliated
Oct 26, 2009 11:39 AM CDT
@newsrmandan, I've felt the same way about conservatives. Too many of the conservatives that I've met or read cannot take a step back and see the bigger picture. But you're right, the government is not the answer to ALL of life's problems.
Rocket448
Oct 25, 2009 12:08 PM CDT
Newsrmandan has never bothered to check the meaning of liberal or conservative and relies on his limited experience to define the terms. Also, because he's a committed conservative (he thinks -- he's really just a reactionary), he assumes that liberals aren't good people, not as upright or patriotic and certainly not as helpful to others as he is. Its all bunkum and hooey, this definition he offers. I won't go into my definition of liberal because its accessible to anyone with a computer who CARED TO CHECK. Dan has merely demonstrated his lack of comprehension and the extent of his myopia. His foolish "definitions" of liberal and conservative wouldn't get a "D" in a 9th grade civics class.
Rob
Oct 25, 2009 3:25 AM CDT
Did you read my reply? Read again.
 

NEWS FROM OUR PARTNERS
Other Sites We Like:   24/7 Wall St.   |   BuzzFeed   |   Cracked   |   Timelines   |   POPSUGAR Tech   |   Business Insider   |   HuffPost Entertainment   |   NewsOne