The Renewable Fuels Association continues to question what they call the accounting gimmicks and unproven theories used by environmental activists who seek to undermine the growth of biofuels as a way to displace fossil fuels. RFA continues to be at odds with environmental attorney Tim Searchinger who in a new article appearing in Environmental Research Letters, suggests the climatic effects of using biomass for energy are no different than using fossil fuels.
Searchinger says when biofuels use existing crops they produce no direct carbon benefits. That is, the crops do not sequester any more CO2 than they would have if used for some other purpose. RFA admits this may be technically true if the use of crops to produce biofuels is examined relative to doing nothing. But it is not true when using the crops to produce biofuels is compared to extracting fossil fuels from the ground to produce energy. Comparisons show the benefits of using biomass are blatantly obvious.
RFA points to data which increasingly demonstrates ethanol's superiority over oil and other fossil fuels. The article also rehashes the argument that biofuels could contribute to indirect land use change. RFA notes that argument was discredited by a recent study conducted by Purdue University.
Powered by iNet Solutions Group ©2011 All Rights Reserved.