Presented without comment.
(media.communities.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (30)
sorted by:
Biofuel, is far more emitting than fossil fuel.
Which are you using. So you grown stuff, turned it into food, or fuel. You consumed food, creating waste, emissions, then you're using a toxic fuel. You haven't recycled, you've wasted, it is causing far more emissions. You are burning waste. Fossil Fuel was acquired off of recycled plants and animal matter, it came out of the ground. The planet produced it, with some added refining.
In every single comparison biofuel emits far more than fossil fuels. But at least you incinerated your trash, not once, not twice, but about 3 to 5 times more.
So in Clown World. Uk and German buses operating on biofuels are deforestating the Amazon, buying Brazilian sugar cane, soy to make biofuel for their stupid buses. Some narrative. How about the potato, or fat fryer, fat? What about woodchips compared to coal?
From what studies?
Studies, you won't find on legacy media. But instead have to use common sense to find.
Read my replies. So you deforested, contrary to the narrative, producing and growing agriculture, after resource heavy production you turned crops into biofuel which you're now burning. But with fossil fuel the planet had already recycled it, converting plant and animal matter into a fossil fuel after refining is burnt as fuel. OK the toxicity is an issue which is cleaner. But which common sense is emitting more. Which is costing more? What is more efficient?
The toxicity is highly questionable once considering the other factors. The fact becomes biofuel hasn't done anything else. But there is some recycling of waste being burnt anyway. Not once, or twice, but remarkably more.