Nearly all of the studies that have been used to promote the deployment of biofuels over the past two decades are flawed and need to be redone, according to the findings of a new meta-analysis of more than 100 research papers published on the subject over recent years.
The comprehensive study review — coming to us via the University of Michigan — noted that, in particular, the research purporting to show biofuels as being a “climate-friendly” alternative to conventional fuel use are heavily flawed.
The primary issue with these earlier studies is that “they fail to correctly account for the carbon dioxide absorbed from the atmosphere when corn, soybeans and sugarcane are grown to make biofuels,” according to study author John DeCicco, a research professor at U-M’s Energy Institute.
“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,” DeCicco continued, whose advanced review of the topic is available here.
Speaking on the topic of earlier studies challenging the accepted beliefs about carbon emissions associated with GMO biofuel agriculture, DeCicco stated: “These modeling errors help explain why the results of such studies have remained in dispute for so long. The disagreements have been especially sharp when comparing biofuels, such as ethanol and biodiesel, to conventional fuels such as gasoline and diesel derived from petroleum.”
Read full, original article: Meta-Analysis: Nearly All Studies Used To Promote Biofuels Are Flawed & Need To Be Redone
