The greenies have shot themselves in the foot so often, they should be paraplegics by now. Their stupidity, once it is exposed, does not affect their course. They are zombies, marching on undeterred by facts or knowledge.
For example, the catalytic converter was found out to produce sulfur dioxide, which is more detrimental to our environment than carbon monoxide. Did this stop the 'saviors of the earth'? No, they just made a law that we could take the Alaskan oil, which has a high sulfur content, and exchange it for lower sulfured content petroleum from other parts of the world. This just resulted in pumping SO2 onto other parts of the world. But they got their catalytic converters through. That is the the important part to them. Change mankind's course, that is what it is all about. It doesn't matter that it doesn't benefit mankind, it means that the greenies get their way.
Relax flushie, as the source you link to states (as does the original paper), the result comes entirely from 'a computer model' reason for which you can reject the conclusions as you usually do when climate scientists' models show warming and you claim that 'computer models do not work' or something along those lines.
Come on, be consistent for a change!
PS The article as well as the paper it refers to, is 6 years old. You really need to update your knowledge a bit.
You are reading posts put on the Internet by the oil companies. They have an army of shitshovellers working night and day to prove that burning oil doesn't produce toxic byproducts.
Ethanol from corn is not a good fuel for cars, mainly because it turns food into fuel. Further, automobiles are very inefficient movers of people.
However, Mark Jacobson is a poor source for environmental data and assessments. Many of his papers are politicized to the point he has to publish them in non-peer reviewed magazines like Scientific American.
Any combustion creates toxic products. The real problem is our automobile dependence, not what fuel we run them on.
DK
An interesting article. I didn’t realise that gasoline was responsible for 10,000 deaths each year in the US alone. Globally and over time that would mean that gasoline has killed millions and millions of people.
The sooner we can break our dependency on fuels that kill and maim millions of people the better. Perhaps we should be doing more to develop completely safe power sources such as hydrogen fuel cells – you put water in and get power and water out. Ford have already developed a 50kW fuel-cell that’s smaller and lighter than a typical engine in a compact car.
Imagine what would happen if the government stopped subsidising the fossil fuel industry and diverted just a fraction of that money to developing alternatives. With the US providing up to $280 billion a year in subsidies to fossil fuels, massive savings could be made with money invested in jobs and the economy whilst developing clean and safe power that could be utilised throughout the world. Millions of lives could be saved, trillions of dollars invested elsewhere, millions of jobs could be created.
Didn't know this, perhaps it's not such a good idea.
Biofuel Combustion Found Even More Toxic Than Gasoline Combustion.
Is this true?
Have the Green Fascists shot themselves in the foot yet again?
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Biofuel-Combustion-Found-Even-More-Toxic-Than-Gasoline-Combustion-52379.shtml
