Fish Wrapper Buries Negative Story On Biofuel

Sometimes the bias displayed by the Fish Wrapper is a little more subtle than other times, but it's still there. Today, for instance, they bury a negative story about the down side of biofuel in a side column on page A6.

UNITED NATIONS (AP) — A U.N. expert on Friday called the growing practice of converting food crops into biofuel "a crime against humanity," saying it is creating food shortages and
price jumps that cause millions of poor people to go hungry.

Jean Ziegler, who has been the United Nations' independent expert on the right to food since the position was established in 2000, called for a five-year moratorium on biofuel production to halt what he called a growing "catastrophe" for the poor.

Scientific research is progressing very quickly, he said, "and in five years it will be possible to make biofuel and biodiesel from agricultural waste" rather than wheat, corn, sugar cane and other food crops.

In their defense, the Fish Wrap did print the entire article on the web site. But how many people will do a search for it (like I did)? Not nearly as many as read it in the print version (if they even notice it where it's buried).

Back on October 23rd, the Fish Wrapper did another longer story on biofuel called "The drive for biofuel". It was actually more even handed in its approach in that it actually presented both sides of the story. But even in this article, the author couldn't resist getting in his shots at those who dare to dissent.

Critics -- including some researchers who've gotten grants from oil companies -- say corn ethanol can result in more greenhouse gas emissions than burning gasoline, particularly if petroleum-based fertilizers are used and coal fires the electricity in the ethanol plant.

Notice that typical little shot liberals are always trying to get in, that Big Oil is always behind those that question global warming? And how many places in the article do you think they identified who funds those that are biofuel proponents? Exactly zero.

Unfortunately for the Fish Wrapper, this isn't always the case. As is normal, the American press would never publicize nagative information about the negative impacts of biofuels. Fortunately, though, the foreign press isn't quite so cowardly. For example, a recent study reported by Britain's Times shows how biofuels are worse than fossil fuels at producing greenhouse gases.

Rapeseed and maize biodiesels were calculated to produce up to 70 per cent and 50 per cent more greenhouse gases respectively than fossil fuels. The concerns were raised over the levels of emissions of nitrous oxide, which is 296 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Scientists found that the use of biofuels released twice as much as nitrous oxide as previously realised. The research team found that 3 to 5 per cent of the nitrogen in fertiliser was converted and emitted. In contrast, the figure used by the International Panel on Climate Change, which assesses the extent and impact of man-made global warming, was 2 per cent. The findings illustrated the importance, the researchers said, of ensuring that measures designed to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions are assessed thoroughly before being hailed as a solution.

But before jumping to the Big Oil accusation,

The research is published in the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics,
where it has been placed for open review. The research team was formed of
scientists from Britain, the US and Germany, and included Professor Paul
Crutzen, who won a Nobel Prize for his work on ozone.

Wow, credible scientists disputing ethanol use using the peer review process? And one even won a Nobel Prize (or does that only count when Al Gore wins it?)

Too bad the Fish Wrapper refuses to give both sides of the story, whether it's the funding of global warming alarmists or the dangers of biofuels.

User login







Syndicate

Syndicate content