E10 debacle: Five reasons against biofuel
1. Biosprit promotes monocultures
"Bio" is the new fuel by no means. Although it is derived from plants such as corn, wheat and sugar beet, but they are in Monocultures with the help of large quantities of fertilizers and pesticides generated. This pollutes soil and groundwater. Really new is the so-called biofuel not: So far, the conventional gasoline is already mixed with five percent bioethanol. Now this proportion should be doubled.
2. Biosprit does not lower CO2 emissions
The biofuel should help to save CO2 and oil. But the environmental balances that have been available so far tend to argue against it. For example, one has to take into account how much energy is needed to produce the plants and the fertilizer and how much greenhouse gas is released. If you sum up everything, you will get, if at all, on tiny savings. Even the mounting of low rolling resistance tires brings more savingssay traffic experts. Not to mention automatic start and stop, more economical engines and a speed limit on highways. But the auto industry is pushing biofuel: it's easier and cheaper than investing in new technologies.
3. Biosprit eats cultivated areas
Whether biofuel leads to the destruction of even more rainforests in developing countries and the conversion of land that is actually needed to grow food is unclear. At present, 90 percent of the biofuel in the EU comes from domestic production. Strict laws are designed to prevent depletion as well. But it is foreseeable that the cultivated areas will soon be insufficient for us. And laws to protect rainforests are often bypassed.
A study commissioned by environmental organizations comes to the conclusion: By 2020, an area the size of Bavaria could be affected by such "indirect land use change".
4. Biosprit is expensive
Biofuel is one of the most expensive methods for climate protection. To save a ton of CO2, experts from the University of Kassel have calculated, must be invested 300 euros. On top of that comes a rising biofuel demand which would drive up high food prices anyway, The result: new famine in developing countries.
5. Biosprit is not alternative
The argument that an EU directive prescribes the new fuel is wrong. The EU is merely demanding that 10% of energy from renewable sources be produced by 2020. When and how the directive will be implemented will be up to each country. You could reach the 10 percent by electric or hybrid cars and solar charging stations. Or by cars that are fueled with biogas. The federal government could immediately reverse the E10 decision and look for alternatives.
For consumers, the advice remains: If you refuel an E10, you can signal the politicians that you are against this nonsensical introduction. It is much more important, however, to opt for lighter and more economical models when buying a car.
