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.

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?