Stop Global Warming

Will ethanol prevent more CO2 emissions than would have been absorbed by the trees cut down?

by: thealligator414to clear land for the production of crops for ethanol?

The political importance of corn-growing, ethanol-making Iowa is one reason that biofuel mandates flow from Washington the way oil would flow from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) if it had nominating caucuses.

ANWR’s 10.4 billion barrels of oil have become hostage to the planet’s saviors (e.g., John McCain, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama), who block drilling in even a tiny patch of ANWR. You could fit Massachusetts, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Connecticut and Delaware into ANWR’s frozen desolation; the “footprint” of the drilling operation would be one sixth the size of Washington’s Dulles airport.

To avoid drilling for oil in ANWR’s moonscape, the planet savers evidently prefer destroying forests, even though they absorb greenhouse gases.

Be that as it may, governments mandating the use of biofuels are one reason for the global rise in food prices, which is driving demand for more arable land.
That demand is driving the destruction of forests—and animal habitats. In Indonesia alone, 44 million acres have been razed to make way for production of palm oil.

If the argument for ethanol is that domestically produced energy should be increased, there are better ways of doing that. On the outer continental shelf there is a 50-year supply of clean-burning natural gas, 420 trillion cubic feet of it, that the government, at the behest of the planet’s saviors, will not allow to be extracted.

~George Will in his Newsweek article “The Biofuel Follies”

Adams

• Science question Someone please provide me with a link that would provide the answser to this question? October 22nd, 2009