Fuels Made From Prairie Biomass Reduce Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide

I think this depends on your definition of the length of the Carbon cycle. Many say that bio-fuels don't contribute a net gain to the carbon cycle because they take carbon from the atmosphere when growing, and when burnt they can't release more carbon then they removed. Many people say that fossile fuels dump excess carbon into the environment when burnt, but there is (a growing) community of people who say that the carbon cycle is much longer than we now consider, so that fossil fuels are only returning the carbon that they have removed from the environment (be it millions of years ago).

As for Global Warming, the common thought was that the amount of carbon rising in the environment lead to the global warming. The (growing) community I mentioned above is changing their line of thought that global warming leads the rise in carbon in the environment, the opposite of what the politicians are spouting.

Just some food for thought.

Hi Sleddriver, could you supply a couple of links to substantiate this? The problem is that so much B/S is been sprouted that at the end of the day, confusion runs riot. Arguments for and against both carry some convincing reasoning(to the average man/ lady on the street).

Thanks.

Mongoose,

My apology for the delayed response, but I did not see your post right away.

Anyway, I had some trouble finding links, but http://www.co2science.org/ is a good place to start. Also, there is a thread titled "Global Warming - 55 MYA" in the General Discussion area with a bunch more links. Also, see the reply from seaplaneguy - he had a bunch of links.

Sleddriver