Some said that more energy and fuel is used in the production than it is produced
Phosphorous and nitrogen used in the production have negative effect on the environment. Impact can be reduced by decreasing the use of agriculture energy, fertilizers and pesticides.
Question on whether it is justifiable to use agriculture land to grow energy crops instead of food crops when there are so many starving people in the world. In the developed countries that is not a problem, but in the developing ones where we have a large number of people living below the poverty this may lead to a crisis. But there are always areas unused for farming because if their geographical position or infertile soil. They can grow dedicated crops for fuel.
Is burning biofuel more environmentally friendly than burning oil?
Not necessary. Scientists who have calculated the difference in net emissions between using land to produce biofuel and the alternative: fuelling cars with gasoline and replanting forests on the land instead, recommend governments steer away from biofuel and focus on reforestation and maximising the efficiency of fossil fuels instead.
The reason is that producing biofuel is not a "green process". It requires tractors and fertilisers and land, all of which means burning fossil fuels to make "green" fuel. In the case of bioethanol produced from corn - an alternative to oil - "it's essentially a zero-sums game," says Ghislaine Kieffer, programme manager for Latin America at the International Energy Agency in Paris, France.
With the increase in biofuel production, more forests will be chopped down to make room for biofuel crops such as maize and sugarcane. "When you do this, you immediately release between 100 and 200 tonnes of carbon [per hectare]," says Renton Righelato of the World Land Trust, UK, a conservation agency that seeks to preserve rainforests.
