"Steve Spence" wrote in message
...
JoeSixPack wrote:

You're either terribly set in your ways or very uninformed. Either way,
you just aren't getting it. When you put carbon into the air faster than
the earth can remove it, the levels rise. The carbon won't dissipate
from the atmosphere any faster just because you are burning biofuels.
Growing more plants for biofuel won't scrub the atmosphere any faster
either. All the cropland is already covered with vegetation.
We have to burn fuel. which fuel would you rather burn, one that is carbon
neutral, or one that is releasing carbon that's been sequestered for
eon's? It seems you are the one who is not getting it.


It doesn't matter if you call it carbon-neutral or not, the CO2 will
continue to rise if you continue to burn carbon-based fuels at the current
rate. The atmosphere doesn't know you switched to your "carbon-neutral
fuel." It continues to take the carbon out of the atmosphere at the same
slow rate that lags behind the rate we put it in. This is what caused the
rise. Growing more biofuel crops doesn't automatically lower the atmospheric
CO2, because there are already plants growing on nearly all the arable land.

You keep saying "carbon-neutral" as if it were a fact that it would reduce
atmospheric carbon in some way. Prove it to us.