Negative effects of biofuels

An essay by myself with internal citations

How can society continue to say “Go green” when in reality the only green society creates is a significantly larger amount of greenhouse gasses. While some may argue that biofuels such as ethanol will create a positive effect for the environment and also help the economy, the negative effects of biofuels are not even taken into consideration. New studies prove that ethanol and other biofuels are structurally worse for the environment and refuel a capitalist order that allows for the economy to be put above starving people and in the end will lead not only to global starvation but also to global warming and the loss of bio diversity. Therefore, the United States federal government should stop the research and production of biofuels and maintain the current use of fossil fuels. What the media reports only becomes only a form of propaganda reaffirming the capitalist system that justifies feeding cars with the crops farmers and third world countries produce over feeding themselves and other starving people around the world.
Biofuels are becoming more and more prevalent in the world today. Not only does America continue to advertise biofuels and “going green” but also people everywhere are approving of these ads for biofuels not knowing the negative effects. Even more importantly people producing biofuels are even unaware of the negative effects. A producer of biofuels, Chuck Ward believes biofuels have no negative effects and that they are better for the environment. The current set goal is to produce and use thirty-six billion gallons of biofuels a year in the United States alone by the year 2020 (The Problem With. . . A16). Today there are twelve different types of biofuels, some of the most common being U.S. corn ethanol, Brazilian sugar cane ethanol, soy diesel, and Malaysian palm oil diesel (Knickerbocker n.p.). New studies have proven that biofuels have actually become worse for the environment, and because of these studies, other governments such as the European Union are now trying to ban biofuels in their stand to tackle global warming (Impact of Agriculture 24). Locally cities such as Seattle, Tacoma, Auburn, and Olympia have ratified the Kyto Treaty to reduce global warming, yet America continues to push the use of biofuels, assuring global warming is more likely to happen while destroying any intentions of the Kyto Treaty (Gore 140).

Using biofuels that pose a much more serious threat to the environment is not the answer to reduce global warming or safe alternative to fossil fuels. A great deal of negative environmental factors of biofuels that are not even taken into consideration, such as the loss of biodiversity. Right now in the status quo only 11 percent of farmlands are being devoted to the production of biofuels (Impact of Agriculture 24). For the world more specifically America to keep up with its goal of thirty-six billion gallons a year by 2020 much more farmland will be needed only furthering deforestization in the end leading to the loss of biodiversity.

However, not only will forest be cut down but also grasslands and wetlands will be cleared. Not only does the deforestization and destruction of grasslands and wetlands destroy the plant species but it also destroys many animal habitats making the probability of extinction of certain species much more likely especially for the many endangered species around the world. A study from The Nature Conservancy reports, “Converting rainforest, wetlands, savannahs, or grasslands to produce biofuels in Brazil, Southeast Asia, and the U.S. Creates a biofuels carbon debt’ by releasing seventeen to four-hundred twenty times more carbon dioxide then the fossil fuels they replace” (The Problem With . . . A16). From an ontological point of view, extinction of certain species plants and animals alike only threaten the survival of humans as well only because when one looks at humans, animals, and plants as a whole it is easy to see that all three work as a triangle relation only helping one another. Furthermore, the pollution in the world would only increase by the use of biofuels. One of the hidden factors comes from simply growing the plants used to make biofuels. Farmers today growing these plants for biofuels use pesticides made of nitrogen that end up creating a runoff only furthering the carbon deficit (The Problem With . . . A16). Another problem with producing the plants is monocroping. Studies have shown that large amount of monocroping would increase biodiversity loss through soil erosion and nutrient leaching (U.N. Raises Possible . . . 1).

The next environmental factor would be an increase in global warming. Linking to the loss of biodiversity the carbon deficit would be increased by the destruction of native plants. New studies produced show that these native plants that are being cut down actually absorb carbon dioxide being emitted by fossil fuels (Oliver n.p.). Even if the studies that some like to believe are true that biofuels emit less carbon dioxide when these plants are cut down nothing will be able to absorb that carbon dioxide that is causing global warming in the first place. A study from Princeton University and The Native Conservancy of Plants indicates that biofuels would be one the furthest things away from a silver bullet to global warming and in the end would actually only perpetuate the effects of global warming (The Problem With . . . A16).

The two big ideas in the world today the first being to tackle global warming and second to help Africa yet today Africa is being deforested for the production of biofuels which have proven to increase global warming (Monbiot n.p.). This is an obvious indication that today society is taking backward steps to “going green.” Both goals of the world are in the end actually are being reversed. Former vice president Al Gore reports, “Almost every mountain glaciers in the world are now melting. Many of them quite rapidly. There is a message in this” (Gore 135). Gore seems to be right as there is a message in this. The world today needs to understand what actions they are taking to tackle global warming have a high probability in the end actually speeding up the process.

On top of the carbon deficit being increased green house gasses are being emitted. From a CNN article “Biofuels: ‘Green Gold’ or Problems Untold?” there can be an obvious signal that there are problems untold about biofuels. Studies from this article suggest that biofuels emit and enormous amount of green house gasses (Oliver n.p.). Jan van Aken an expert on global warming reports, “There is more to the environment than climate change, climate is the most important issue, but you cannot fight climate change by deforestization” (U.N. Raises Possible . . . 1). The fact that Aken states links back into the biodiversity loss that biofuels will not be able to fight global warming when deforestization is occurring. Mark Maslin has concluded in his research that the major impacts of global warming will start to occur at the end of the twenty-first century (Maslin 83). This becomes a problem. Whether global warming can become irreversible or not, or whether or not global warming will continue to happen biofuels only perpetuate and further the progress and will assure that the toll of global warming will occur sooner. If there is any chance to reverse global warming, it is to stop deforestation so that plants can be able to continue to absorb any carbon dioxide and greenhouse gasses that fossil fuels produce.

Within the world today people make despicable justifications to feed a car, a secondary need, as opposed to a person’s basic necessity such as food. What causes such as justification is called capitalism. Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal may have described capitalism best when he said, “Competing by cheating has become a way of life for corporations, many of the most reputable of them. Because it’s done by AT&T, MCI, or Sprint people are reluctant to use words, but when all is said and done . . . these are scams” (Sullivan n.p.). Capitalism today is scamming people in poverty everywhere, robbing them of their basic needs. It is sickening to see many fueling their car opposed to helping someone starving just because gas may have risen to a dollar per gallon. People in a developed nation find a justification to care only about their dollar over people in poverty around the world. This rich person is able to resort to majoritarianism putting them self and other rich people above the poor and the ones in poverty. This rich person also lives in a plutocracy causing the wealthy to rule over the minorities in a developing nation.

Not only are people being robbed but food prices are also increasing. A Minnesota University study concludes that some countries are now suffering from a rise in food price because of the demand for crops like corn. These crops are now being produced for fuel instead of these people only increasing the demand. The study concludes that there is an increase in food deficits and fossil fuels only causing these countries to suffer (The Problems With . . . A16).Not only is food prices on the rise but also water prices continue to increase. As water is used to grow biofuel crops, there is less of a supply. With less of a supply of water, just like with food, the demand has increased, therefore increasing the price. In the private sector alone, because of biofuels the water prices have dramatically increased (U.N. Raises Possible . . . 2). Citizens of Africa are now selling their crops trying to keep of with production because capitalism calls for a need to keep the value of the dollar. Instead of these people feeding themselves they are feeding rich people’s cars, these rich people that live in this plutocracy that becomes justified. To produce the world’s goal for biofuels it would take three hundred million acres that could be used to reduce global starvation. Winston Churchill in 1936 may have understood that the world would have consequences such as global warming and global starvation when he said, “The era of procrastination, of half – measures, of shooting and baffling expedients, of delays is coming to its close. In its place we are entering a period of consequences” (Gore 157). Global starvation may have been one of these consequences to which Churchill referred, yet society still lives in procrastination ignoring such consequences.

One answer to global warming, global starvation and the loss of biodiversity is simple, keep the production of fossil fuels. Right now there may be no other alternative. Fossil fuels are obviously better for the environment. When biofuels produce seventeen to two hundred twenty times more carbon dioxide while the plants being cut down absorb the carbon dioxide from fossil fuels there is a clear indication to why keeping the fossil fuels would be a good alternative to biofuels. Also if society really wants to grow these crops why not feed people starving? These crops grown can be used for something so much more useful without having to complexly wipe out lands that would be needed to produce biofuels. One must use ontology to understand that plants animals and humans need land not to be wiped out because humans’ plants and animals work as a triangle relation all protecting each other. Thus the question stands weather or not society is really going green, however the research and productions of biofuels should be halted, while keeping the production of fossil fuels in order to stop this global warming, biodiversity loss, and global starvation, and that is the way to go green.