In Search of Wildlife-Friendly Biofuels

Reader Comments
Back to article

See the unforeseen side affects that government mandated fuel programs are having on the ecology, will the government sponsored remedies for global warming have even graver unforeseen side affects. It is best to go slow on such issues, rather than rush headlong into something which causes more harm.

john of OH 9:16AM October 16, 2009

Here in Minnesota, it is available at more than 350 outlets. It's cleaner-buring in flex-fueled vehicles (FFVs) than gasoline, which is why it is supported by the American Lung Association in Minnesota.

Robert Moffitt of MN 9:07AM October 06, 2009

Nobody has ever made economically viable ethanol from cellulose. Snap! We do know how to displace coal with it in power plants.

Russ of WA 11:02PM October 05, 2009

What about the detrimental effect of ethanol? Not only does the fertilizer used to grow crops for biofuel emit N2O, which is 298X more effective as a GWG than CO2, but ethanol creates significant ozone, and ozone kills. According to the WA State Dept of Ecology any ethanol concentration over 2% means Seattle exceeds EPA ozone attainment levels. And Congress wants us to have E85?
As for CO2, more CO2 means plants grow faster and with greater density. It also means LESS water is needed for irrigation. Earth currently is in a CO2 impoverished level. CO2 used to be as high as 7000ppm. It's now only 380ppm, and if mankind drops it to 150ppm, it means death for almost ALL plants on Earth.
So journalists, ask the tough questions. Don't accept the ecopolitical lines. Don't even accept my word for it. INVESTIGATE! And stop repeating talking points. Isn't that why you went to journalism school?

Randy Dutton of WA 6:12PM October 05, 2009