Time Magazine: The Clean Energy Myth - Coursework Example

Time Magazine: "The Clean Energy Myth" Introduction: Bio-fuel has been touted as the solution for a cleaner source than fossil fuels to address the issues of the environment and global warming due to carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels for energy requirements, with particular emphasis on the transport sector. In his article “The Clean Energy Scam”, Grunwald, Michael, 2008, argues that the use of bio-fuels would increase carbon-dioxide emissions. (1).Case Study: The concerns on the use of bio-fuel as a gradually increasing replacement for gasoline in the transport sector has gained ground with President George Bush giving his assent to the Energy Independence and Security Act in January 2008.

This act requires the country to work towards the achieving production figures of 36 billion gallons of renewable fuels by the year 2022. The breakdown of this renewable production targets set for 2022 is 15 billion gallons of bio-fuel from corn, 20 billion gallons from cellulose based ethanol and one billion gallons from bio-diesel. (2). Martin, 2008, points out that this emphasis on bio-fuel comes at a time when bio-fuel technology is still in its infancy and that improperly manufacture bio-fuels could add to difficulties rather than solving them.

In addition he provides an interesting twist to the use of ethanol as a bio-fuel, by stating that from corn as a bio-fuel could actually enhance global warming 93 percent over straight gasoline. (3). Brown, 2008, sums up all the risks involved in the emphasis on bio-fuels being witnessed in the developed world of the U.S. and Europe, as farmers destroying ancient ecosystems for the farming of crops for fuel, the possibility of some bio-fuels actually contributing more to the emission of greenhouse gases and than fossil fuels, and the impact of increasing demand for bio-fuels on the prices of grains by increasing their prices. (4). The Grunwald Martin, 2008 article “The Clean Energy Scam” is an expansion of the risk of farmers destroying ancient ecosystems for the farming of crops for fuel pointed out by Brown, 2008, focusing on the destruction of the Amazon forests for the farming of crops.

The destruction of the Amazon forests may have started for timber, but continues because of the economics involved in the farming of agricultural products that have high value. The local population in and around the Amazon forests learned this from the use of the cleared forest land for growing sugar and soy bean and have learnt what economic prosperity means. The emphasis on bio-fuels gives them the incentive to clear more forest land and invest in the farming of corn to cater to the increasing demand for corn to produce ethanol.

There is no easy solution for motivating the local population against the destruction of the Amazon forest and its ecological system economics drives them to it. The emphasis on bio-fuels spells doom for the Amazon forests and the environmental benefits derived from its existence. Forests absorb and retain large quantities of carbon dioxide and may be considered as the carbon dioxide sink. Destruction of the forests and burning them releases the carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. In addition the crops that are grown in its place do not have the capacity of the forests being destroyed for cultivable land, which means that more and more carbon dioxide released to the atmosphere, will remain in the atmosphere adding to the green house effect.

This feature of destruction of green lands for cultivation as other cultivable lands shrink is not a feature that is restricted to Brazil, but seen in many parts of the world. (1). These sentiments are echoed by Searchinger, 2008, who points out that in Malaysia forests are destroyed for growing palm trees for making palm oil and the savannahs are being converted to sugarcane fields all for catering to the increased demand for bio-fuel. The mere destruction of grasslands releases 93 times the carbon saved by the fuel that comes from farmed products of the land indicating the much larger damage that occurs, when forests are cleared for the purpose of farming of corn, sugar and palm trees. (5). The gains of reduced carbon dioxide emission from the use of bio-fuel in place of fossil fuels pale in front of the carbon dioxide that will remain in the atmosphere through the destruction of forests and grasslands for the production bio-fuel.

Conclusion: Evaluation of the role that production of bio-fuel and its efficiency in reducing carbon dioxide emissions shows that in the savings in carbon dioxide through the use of bio-fuel will be insignificant in comparison to the loss of the carbon dioxide absorption capability through the loss of forest and grasslands being destroyed for the production of bio-fuel confirming the "The Clean Energy Myth" of Grunwald Michael.Works Cited1. Grunwald, Michael. “The Clean Energy Scam. Time. 2008.

15 May 2008. .2. Forrest, Laws. “Legislation promotes biofuels, reducing consumption”. Western Farm Press 30.2 (2008): 21-21.3. Martin, John. “Biofuels insights from TMC”. Fleet Equipment 34.3 (2008):12-12.4. Brown, Susan. “Biofuels: the next decade”. Automotive Engineer 33.1 (2008): 27-28. 5. Searchinger, Tim. “Biofuels Raise Carbon Emissions Much More Than Oil”. Business & the Environment with ISO 14000 Updates 19.3 (2008): 14-14.