5 ms·
That's the argument of biofuels as well, correct? If you're growing plants and then burning them, and regrowing them again, the net carbon in the atmosphere did
by Teknoman117 4y ago
That's the argument of biofuels as well, correct? If you're growing plants and then burning them, and regrowing them again, the net carbon in the atmosphere didn't change. This is ignoring
particulate pollution though.
Fossil fuels are an issue because we're pulling up carbon that's been sequestered for eons and putting it back in the air.
- BizarroLand 4y agoYou could even argue that it would be a net negative because plants convert carbon from the atmosphere into their own bodies, so even when they are burned to release the majority of their hydrocarbons they still take some with them in the form of carbon soot and ash. If we could convert all of the excess CO2 in the atmosphere into carbon and oxygen that would be great (maybe a little messy but great)
- jabl 4y ago> That's the argument of biofuels as well, correct? In principle, yes. Though everybody except the agriculture lobby has realized that there isn't near enough arable land on the planet for replacing anything close to current fossil fuel usage.
- ncmncm 4y agoBiofuels are a clear dead end. There is nowhere near enough spare farmland for it to do any good, but it could do unlimited harm. We need to be returning farmland to forest, jungle, and wetland, instead.