Alternate title: Researcher discovers that it is obvious that using fossil fuels to grow biofuels worsens carbon dioxide emissions.
"Almost all of the fields used to produce biofuels were already being used to produce crops for food, so there is no significant increase in the amount of carbon dioxide being removed from the atmosphere. Therefore, there's no climate benefit," said DeCicco, the author of an advanced review of the topic in the current issue of Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Energy and Environment.This is not a "flaw." An assumption that land was not used to grow crops, or that other crops do not take the same amount of carbon dioxide out the atmosphere is plainly and obviously false.
And for all studies to make the same obvious error is not a "flaw." There is no way any researcher can do this as honest error. It has to be a deliberate policy to ignore the obvious.
Once the erroneous methodology is corrected, the results will likely show that policies used to promote biofuels -- such as the U.S. Renewable Fuel Standard and California's Low-Carbon Fuel Standard -- actually make matters worse when it comes to limiting net emissions of climate-warming carbon dioxide gas.Actually, this has been known for awhile. Using petroleum based fuels to grow, harvest, and process the crops has to produce a net increase in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Only someone determined to ignore the obvious would say otherwise.