Alternative to Fossil FuelsEssay Preview: Alternative to Fossil FuelsReport this essayThere is an alternative to fossil fuels, which is biofuel. This fuel is thought to be environmentally- friendly, as it is made from crops like palm, maize, sugar cane, and soya, the materials that do not have the negative impact on environment. Seventeen countries grow crops on a large scale, and the number of “crops growing” countries is increasing. Even though this new fuel is claimed to be carbon- neutral and environmentally- friendly, there are still numerous concerns about its effect on the environment. Supporters state that it is best to adapt to environmentally- friendly biofuel, while opponents, challenging biofuels impact on the environment, argue that it is best to follow the current situation, until the better solution comes. Biofuel is a competitive alternative to fossil fuels, but there is not such a need for a country to adapt to this fuel, unless this country is running out of fossil fuels or does not have it at all.
Supporters of biofuel claim that, in theory, biofuel is carbon- neutral, in other words do not emit carbon dioxide. However, their opponents, in particular Wang (2007) argues that carbon dioxide emission of biofuel exists, and it is rather greater than the carbon dioxide emission of fossil fuels. Consequently, it should be stated that while such uncertainties exist, the final verdict about biofuel cannot be made. It is possible rises in prices of biofuel could benefit farmers in developing countries, as assumes Davis (2009), but according to Scott (2009) only large farmers would benefit from rises of prices and small farmers would not. Even though several countries use biofuel, not for all countries this idea seems attractive. In summary, biofuel is a great solution for the countries that do not have biofuel, and there are not persuading reason for countries that have fossil fuel to stop using it.
The Future
Biosecurity: A new framework is needed to ensure biosecurity standards are established for the development of biofossil fuels in all countries. This is done through various sources, usually in conjunction with a specific legislation (e.g. the Renewable Fuels Directive, the Renewable Portfolio Standard, and the Food and Drug Regulations). We suggest an international consensus mechanism that should include the use of biosecurity standards for the development of biofuel, starting from the Paris Convention on biosecurity. As stated earlier, biosecurity standards should aim to be as complete with any significant exceptions as possible, but these should focus on specific issues of concern for all countries. Furthermore, while the need for biosecurity standards is limited, they should be the norm in developing countries at least in large part because, as has been stressed by the International Monetary Fund in support of a B2B biosecurity programme, these should follow the same rules (see, e.g., Davis and Scott 2009, p. 1213). This would mean that countries should not have to adopt any new emissions trading systems at the end of 2014 and, if they do, at least until 2030. We would also like to reiterate some points that should be considered when making recommendations. One issue is whether there will be a change in the regulatory structure, as well as the use of technical measures which are also being considered. For example, although there is no certainty that biofossil fuels will be available to consumers during the coming years, the level of price-sensitive and high production required for such technologies and the number of products being produced within the market makes these matters of great interest to many consumers. For instance, as the price of biosecurity will fall below $10 for a biocave, this will reduce its production capacity for both carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), making it a more cost competitive solution to the global climate problem than in other sectors. In a similar way, biofuels will be introduced as a solution to the environmental problem by ensuring that biofuel produces CO2 rather than water. In other words, there is a need for better regulation of the use of biofuels, including from a regulatory point of view, but also the use of technical measures as well. There has been much debate on this topic, with different approaches being proposed. It should be noted that the European Union and its Member States are the only two nations still in the discussion of making biofossil fuels legal (not to mention the world’s most populous country of 35% of population. Although the proposals are not widely supported by every party, they do seem feasible with this type of approach and at least in Europe). The main focus needs to be on addressing the technical and logistical challenges that accompany industrial growth. In this respect, it seems more important that the EU adopt its own proposals in order to move toward a greater common energy economy, such as at the World Trade Organization.
Another major factor determining whether or not biofuels are legal is whether they also contribute to the national power grid (Fig. 2), thereby lowering the risk the market might take a step into a market that is not in its control so to speak (i.e., the one that could become the basis for regulation). While this is undoubtedly an area of disagreement over technical issues involving the use of biofuels (e.g., whether they would reduce air emissions or not), the technical issues that the EU is currently dealing with are important. As we have stated above