News 
 National Rural News 
 Agribusiness and General 
 General 
 Biofuels reduce worldwide greenhouse gas emissions 

Biofuels reduce worldwide greenhouse gas emissions

13 Dec, 2009 03:00 AM
A NEW report shows biofuels have reduced worldwide greenhouse gas emissions more than 50 per cent in 2009.

S&T Consultants Inc., an internationally recognised energy and environmental consulting firm, has released a report that demonstrates world biofuels production in 2009 has reduced global GHG emissions by 123.5 million tons.

That represents an average reduction of 57% compared with the emissions that would have occurred from the production and use of equal quantities of petroleum fuels.

Bliss Baker of the Global Renewable Fuels Alliance said this proved again that biofuels production and use was already playing a vital role in reducing harmful greenhouse gas emissions across the globe.

Baker said biofuels were and must continue to be on the front line of the Climate Change fight.

The report estimated that in 2009, world ethanol production of 73.7 billion litres reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 87.6 million tonnes.

And with global biodiesel production forecast to be 16.4 billion litres, GHG emissions would be reduced by 35.9 million tonnes.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
We need to replace the food production currently displaced by biofuels a lot more than we need to reduce CO2.
Posted by Arden, 14/12/2009 6:57:10 AM
So why aren't the Australian governments offering better subsidies to business to develop and produce biofuels, and assistance to individuals to purchase biofuels and use alternative energy? Because they are not genuine about this, there is some other reason? Control? Been plenty of that in the last 15 years or so. Very few people in the wet tropics of North Queensland have changed to solar - not much point if solar doesn't work for 6 months of the year. But we have had the use of huge amounts of land stolen from us, supposed to be for greenhouse advantage but really to allow Australia to meet its Kyoto agreements. More control? If not, why haven't we been compensated?
Posted by Concerned Northerner, 14/12/2009 7:10:16 AM
Hello, I am unable to find on Google any information on S&T Consultants Inc. and their report. Would Farmonline please post on these comments the web address of S&T Consultants Inc. This is important as such a report is meaningless without information on the source.
Posted by Two Bob, 14/12/2009 8:01:10 AM
Editor's note: A copy of the report, including contact details for S&T, can be found at this link: http://www.globalrfa.org/pdf/120809_final_report_ghg_emissions_biofuels_1.pdf
Posted by Michael Thomson on 14/12/2009 9:50:15 AM
Hello, You can find the report quoted at the Global Rewnewable Fuels Alliance site. You can quickly see that sugar cane ethanol abates much more GHG than grain ethanol. Sugar cane shows 21 units GHG emissions with 72 units avoided. Grain shows about 55 units GHG against 48 avoided. It is ridiculous that ethanol from both feedstocks are lumped together in this article. A typical ploy from the grain ethanol advocates. It is obvious we should be supporting sugar cane ethanol and the development of second generation ethanol and avoiding using grain for ethanol. This is the problem with the NSW E10 mandate. It can only be filled with grain ethanol. Minister Tony Kelly and Co. just haven't the wit to see this fact.
Posted by Two Bob, 14/12/2009 8:33:28 AM
I would be interested in the details of this report - maybe the global financial crisis has had an impact by increasing energy efficiency & reduced energy use. Biofuels - created by deforestation in other countires - are the appropriate checks & balances in place in their analysis. Readers be wary - all is not gospel
Posted by You're joking, 14/12/2009 9:07:38 AM
The more complicated usage of words does not equate to higher intelligence, only navel gazing. Climate change believers are experts at this form of dialogue. Many years ago I had to make a decision on in-house finance so after listening to our industry leader on tough times ahead I went to see our CEO on future prospects. After 20 minutes of positive spin I asked the only relevent question to me "are we going to make more money or less" to be told "less" and also I was the only person to want a simple yes or no. Most get lost in the telling of the tale because you never show your ignorance by asking questions.
Posted by Richie 10, 15/12/2009 3:12:05 AM

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
Related Coverage
ARTICLES
10 December, 2009
11 December, 2009
13 December, 2009
MULTIMEDIA
10 December, 2009
11 December, 2009
POLL
Q: Which do you think is the best method for reducing Australia's carbon emissions?

Emissions Trading Scheme
(8.7%)

Carbon Tax
(11.7%)

Laws regulating behaviour
(7.7%)

Direct Govt investment in renewable energy
(42.9%)

Direct Govt payments for emissions reductions
(5.2%)

None of the above
(23.8%)

Total Votes: 762
Poll Date: 06 December, 2009

Most popular articles

ELDERS NEWS MREC FW



North Queensland Register







Weather brought to you by:

Weatherzone

Classifieds

Front Page

Current Issue
Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Advertising Terms | Copyright © 2012. Fairfax Media.
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...