Biodiesels pollute more than crude oil, leaked data show
Submitted by Bob-45 on Sat, 01/28/2012 - 08:21Published 27 January 2012
Greenhouse gas emissions from biofuels such as palm oil, soybean and rapeseed are higher than those for fossil fuels when the effects of Indirect Land Use Change (ILUC) are counted, according to leaked EU data seen by EurActiv.
The default values assigned to the biofuels compare to those from Canada’s oil sands – also known as tar sands – according to the figures, which should be released along with long-awaited legislative proposals on biofuels in the spring.
A spokesperson for the European Commission said she could “not comment on leaked documents, such as impact assessments which have not been published.”
But industry and civil society sources described the data as credible and in line with other studies. One said it would sound a death knell for the biodiesel industry, if published.
read more http://www.euractiv.com/climate-environment/biodiesels-pollu...
The red herring in this article
is that it diverts your attention to "which fuel gives worse greenhouse emissions", while pretending that the basic assumption that any of these so-called "greenhouse gas emissions" affecting the environment is valid.
Which is clearly is NOT valid.
So, it's a rather insidious way of changing the subject to arguing which one is worse, when there is no real indication that either of them actually do anything harmful at all in terms of the "greenhouse effect".
It's a swerve.
Go to the source and looks at what Dr. Frame et al
show in their "models" - a 5% margin of error and negligible nearly influence of CO2. This means that the greenhouse effect is over 90% driven by other factors gases, making the entire Al Gore CO2 alarm claim up there in ridicule worthiness with Gingrich's to the moon Alice.
Besides, if the core of the argument is fossil fuel based CO2, then biofuel CO2 has ZERO influence and ZERO effect on their own climate models...that lead to doom and gloom unless we buy smart cars. Just trying to follow the argument to its logical end…
Which gas? CO2?
Is that doom?
Dr. Dave Frame's (Oxford) climatology model showing GH gases shows 2-7% CO2 influence on GH effect, and if I undestand the CO2 argument, it's subsurface fossil fuels that has Al Gore's head on fire, not surface cycle CO2
...back to my rat killing