> Sorry, but read literally what you are claiming is totally acceptable and does not indicate that we shouldn't be using biofuels. You seem to be saying that bi

> Sorry, but read literally what you are claiming is totally acceptable and does not indicate that we shouldn't be using biofuels. You seem to be saying that biofuel generation including burning as fuel using a net positive amount of carbon. There is no reason it shouldn't. It is a viable strategy if it uses less than the fossil fuel alternative. No, I'm saying it's of dubious climate benefit (compared to fossil fuels), and has outsized environmental externalities besides. https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/us-corn-based-ethanol-worse-climate-than-gasoline-study-finds-2022-02-14/ https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/us-corn-based-e... Not to mention that your goal posts are so incredibly, unbelievably far from where the industry started. Corn-based ethanol was pitched as a bridge fuel to get us to cellulosic, and was supposed to have real, tangible environmental benefits. This also doesn't touch on the fact that the subsidies involved have distorted several climate-relevant markets, most importantly the consumer market for inefficient vehicles in the US. When gas prices go up, demand for inefficient vehicles goes down - US biofuels are giving inefficient cars a huge boost. > I also believe that many types of impact on the environment (for example what you mentioned about topsoil and water quality) should be treated with much lower priority than the greenhouse effect. In some cases I agree - see mining of minerals for batteries. It just happens to turn out that if you look at the whole system, biofuels are a scam from a climate perspective, as well as an environmental disaster in their own right. > This is a matter of opinion though, and I do not live in an area which could be sacrificial in this sense. I live in Iowa, one of the most modified ecosystems on the planet, and ground zero for biofuels.