The world around us is dying. As we carry on throughout our lives, driving from one place to the next, turning up the heat in our homes, and using electricity, in many cases we are just adding another piece, no matter how small, to the environmental tower that is about to topple. The world that we live in is fragile, our ecosystem is constantly battling with itself to maintain a balance, yet us humans are destroying this balance by trampling over it with a carbon footprint. However, a major part of this environmental dilemma is the use of fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are what the general population uses as an energy source. Unfortunately, these energy sources, which are constantly glorified and sought after, are contributing to global warming and lessening the ozone layer that protects the Earth. However, there is a way that energy can still be produced in less harmful ways, and that is with the development of biofuels. Biofuels are energy sources made from the breakdown of biomasses, such as many crops, cellulosic substances, and even certain types of garbage. Although many believe that focusing the energy of the scientific community on biofuels would be economically damaging and a waste of time, by continuing to develop and research biofuels for the long term, and even some of the more immediate results, would make the research worth the effort. 

Ethanol is the most well known biofuel source in the country. However, ethanol is made from the fermentation of corn, which raises many issues in it production and use. Corn is a major food staple around the world, from underdeveloped to developed countries, and may damage the lives of many people who rely on it as a feedstock if it is dually needed for the biofuel industry as well as for food. With this double pull, the production of corn will either be forced to drastically increase or the price of corn will skyrocket (Johnson, Ford). Underdeveloped countries or countries less fortunate than the US, such as many in Central America and Africa, that may want to have a greener form of energy, may not be able to afford to (Johnson, Ford). If it is a choice of letting the people of a country go hungry or tanking the economy, these countries will more likely than not ignore the biofuel option all together. There are even cases of this in the Midwest, where there was a drought in 2012. The New American journalist, William Hoar, wrote about the drought brought about the rocketing prices in corn, which hurt American farmers who needed to pay for corn feed for livestock but also needed to sell corn to Ethanol producers to keep an income (Hoar). Farmers have considered trying to equal out the loss of corn to the energy industry with soybeans, sunflower seeds and other foods to fill in for corn, but the results would be estimated to lead to a 76% increase in the price of all of these foods by 2020 (Johnson, Ford). This battle, commonly referred to as the Food V Fuel war, is splitting corn farmers between two devils. This does not mean it is impossible for ethanol to be productive however. In fact, Leanne Currie- McGhee, an author on the topic of biofuels and other environmental and assorted research topics, states that Brazil uses sugarcane to produce ethanol, as it reaps greater volumes of product for less crop, and it has replaced 40% of its fossil fuels with ethanol and 85% of its cars are fuel-flex, meaning they can run on gas or ethanol (Currie-McGhee, 12).  With this type of production and national support of a more environmentally sustainable energy program, Brazil declared itself energy independent in 2008 (Currie-McGhee, 12).

Ethanol is also seen as the less successful option compared to regular gasoline and fossil fuels because many arguments against its success point to how heavily the government subsidizes the industry. The ethanol industry is provided many mandates along with the subsidization, and therefore any excellence within the industry can not be properly measured against the system already in place because it is impossible to know whether or not it is competitive (Hoar).  Although the government should support the ethanol industry and help it to become competitive on its own, by giving it the economic upper hand they are potentially turning the consumer market into a political stage rather than letting consumers decide on what product they want to be expanded (Hoar).

Finally, ethanol is not the wisest biofuel to invest in because of the potential harm it may cause the environment.  Emily Cassidy, an esteemed biofuels researcher who is well versed on the topic, found that corn ethanol would produce about 20% more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than regular gasoline would (Big Issues in Energy [A Special Report] --- Should the U.S. End the Ethanol Mandate?). Outside of that, some studies have shown that ethanol can put about 7% more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than regular gasoline. A study done in Sao Paulo, Brazil, which uses a large percentage of ethanol to fuel its country, found that the ozone levels around the country were rising. However, this directly contradicted computer generated models that predicted an increase in the use of ethanol would stop the destruction of the ozone layer (Suderman). Along with that, with the use of more biofuels there is a risk of higher emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) (Johnson, Ford). VOCs are carbon-based substances that have high vapor pressures at room temperature which tend to be found more predominantly in ethanol use (Johnson, Ford). Other environmental risks are how corn is a row crop, which means that it encourages the runoff of pesticides and fertilizers into local bodies of water and the potential of adding carcinogens into the air (Johnson, Ford).

Despite this, a majority of people agree with the Environmental Protection Agency’s analysis done in 2010 that shows corn ethanol to still be cleaner than regular gasoline and that it is better for the environment (Big Issues in Energy [A Special Report] --- Should the U.S. End the Ethanol Mandate?). Other facts show that this claim, in the case of the United States, seems to be more true than the claims made against ethanol. A prime example of how ethanol is better for the environment is provided by taking a look at the Midwest. Research done by the California Air Research Board shows that corn ethanol from a Midwestern producer is about 20% cleaner than regular gasoline (Big Issues in Energy [A Special Report]--- Should the U.S. End the Ethanol Mandate?).  Even though all of these positives are coming about within the ethanol industry and proving that it is, although not the greatest energy path to pursue,still better than fossil fuels,  it is still haunted by its downfalls and the constant support that it has needed throughout the years. With a strong push against further research being thrown into the ethanol industry, the question now is where does the world turn to for clean energy with better results?

There is another option to be looked toward. This option is smarter, has a higher energy output and will, in the long run, be better for the planet. This option is cellulosic biofuels. Cellulosic Biofuels are the answer the world is looking for when debating over whether or not to continue with biofuel research because the potential that they have is endless. A cellulosic biofuel is any energy that can be made through a cellulosic substance, like grass, and many other biodegradable fuel sources. Most simply, cellulose has been the structural support of plants ever since they made the evolutionary move from water to land, and have not changed much within plants for millions of years. Celluloses are broken down by enzymes called cellulases into the molecules glucose and xylose, which can then be turned into energy (Ratliff). With this type of biofuel research being the obvious path for future production and research, many communities are realizing the potential of this up and coming industry and instead of focusing their energies into the energies of the past, have decided to let more funding and research trickle into the production of cellulosic substances for energy.

As of 2007, there were 110 ethanol producing factories in the US, yet despite such an imposing number, the factories were only able to produce about 3.5% of the energy needed in order to run America’s cars (Currie-McGhee, 13). Cars, used daily by a vast majority of Americans, are usually thrown into the spotlight of the fossil fuel debate and are portrayed as culprits to why climate change is occurring so quickly. Whether or not cars are the devil's in the design or not, it can commonly be agreed on that they require a lot of energy and maintenance in order to run. In the Midwest, 40% of the land used to farm corn was switched to growing cellulosic plants, and then the area was taken from a net energy loss to a net energy gain (“Second-Generation Biofuels Can Reduce Emissions). With this fact taken into account, it is very easy to see how with the production of more cellulosic energy, it will be possible to fuel and provide more alternative options for cars that will not continue to destroy the environment. Such a huge leap from the negatives into the positives show the power that these energies carry. To compare this to something more well known, this energy triumph would be equal to a baseball team being down by 3 in the ninth, and the batter then hitting a home run to win the game.

The current issues that are raised to question when reviewing this cellulosic energy is that the cellulases that are used to break down cell walls are both expensive and inefficient into turning these biomasses into fuel. However, many scientists are working with their new funding to create microorganisms in labs that will do the job of breaking down cellulose into glucose and xylose and also ferment the sugar produced by this process into a different kind of ethanol (Ratliff). However, once this task is tackled, the critics begin to protest that this type of energy will be much too expensive. This is most certainly not the case, because the biggest obstacle to overcome with the further development of cellulosic biofuels will be the steep price initially that will dwindle down with more research. Once the expenses that are needed to work on breaking apart the tough cell walls that make up cellulosic cell are covered, the expenses of cellulosic biomasses will be less economically costly and begin to reap in the benefits, as making this kind of energy will be much easier (Ratliff). Along with these obvious benefits, cellulosic biomasses are much easier to grow, grow much faster and use less fertilizer (Ratliff). These benefits do not come with corn, which is a row crop and much more costly. Along with those possibilities, many landfills also contain cellulosic biomasses that could be converted into energy. If waste from landfills were used, it would show that humans are not only capable of leaving their waste to rot and debris over an already dying Earth, but that we are capable of using innovation to recycle materials from one man’s trash into another’s energy source.

The most long term benefit that this age of new energy has to offer is that it will help to keep the Earth from self destructing on itself. With the fossil fuels that are currently used to power society, greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, are seeping into the atmosphere. However the argument against this is that by adding more biofuels into the consumer market the prices of gas will continue to drop and this would prompt people to drive more and emit more carbon dioxide into the environment (Second-Generation Biofuels Can Reduce Emissions).Greenhouse gases keep heat in the atmosphere and smother the world with an extra blanket of atmospheric substance that does not allow heat to escape and causes climate change. This is what makes biofuels the more efficient option even if it prompts more gas use because eventually car companies will have to cater to biofuels to be innovative and to please the consumer market that will demand for cleaner fuel. This would mean that eventually biofuels will be the only way to get fuel in your tank so it is more effective to begin with their gradual intervention into the market and see a brief rise in usage of the pump so that in the long run gas would no longer be a logical option for consumers because of climate change, shifts in pricing, and the marketing of more eco-friendly cars (Atmospheric Science (2002)). Stephen L. Baird, a journalist who frequently writes on scientific topics of debate, stated in an article about climate change that along with these reasons as to why global warming would be detrimental is the huge economic toll it would bring on the world’s economies (Baird). If humans cannot begin to undo the damage that they have caused the Earth sooner than later, whether it be by using biofuels to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or some other means, the damage caused will result in an increase in natural disasters and the destruction of natural resources which cost not only millions of dollars, but potentially millions of lives (Baird).

Alongside of the option of cellulosic substances, there are other types of biofuels that are commonly ignored in favor of ethanol. Biomethane can be used to replace natural gases and generate electricity, heat homes, and power vehicles (Currie-McGhee 14). This, unlike other biofuels is a gas and not a liquid. Biomethane is made from the waste of animals and crops, sewage, or biomasses from waste deposit plants. Through the anaerobic digestion and breakdown of these wastes, biomethane can be captured and used as energy, in a way that could almost be called recycling (Currie- McGhee 13-14). Alongside of biomethane is biodiesel, another alternative to ethanol. Biodiesel is made from vegetable oils, such as rapeseed, soybean, and palm oil, and animal fats. Transesterification is the process of separating the glycerin out of the fat or oil and that is what is used as a biodiesel later in the refining process (Currie-McGhee 12-13). Europe, a continent that strives to put itself on the cutting edge of environmentalism, uses more biodiesel than all of the US because many of the cars there run on diesel and engines don’t have to be redone in order to transfer from one fuel type to the other (Currie-McGhee 13). This energy option should be researched enough where it can also become more widely available in the US too, because there are cars here that could also run on biodiesel as a fuel option. Also, biodiesel can produce electricity, which means it can save people extensive energy use with an excessive yield of pollutants not just on the road, but also at home (Currie-McGhee 13).

With the expansion of the biofuel industry, the global community is making an effort to better how world citizens treat our planet and help to fight against global warming. Brazil, as of 2008, has declared itself energy independent with the use of its own fossil fuels and many uses of alternative energy sources. Along with Brazil, another brilliant example of a country trying to become energy independent is Sweden. Sweden decided to alternate into a fuel system that took its energy from biofuels after the price of gasoline in the country skyrocketed. Sweden gets about 17% of it’s energy from biofuels and the country’s goal is to stop all oil imports by 2020 and only use alternative energy sources (Currie-McGhee 15-17). Along with these shining testimonials, which have shown to improve these countries environmentally friendly reputations, the US Navy and Marine Corps also plan on transitioning to biofuels for energy. The Navy and the Marines plan on getting at least half of their power from non fossil fuel sources by the year 2020, and are investing into biofuel research and development to act as major components in this shift (Stewart).

In conclusion, the image of where to go next in the biofuel industry is becoming increasingly clear. As ethanol research begins to slow down because of it’s lack of effectiveness, the other biomass fuels are finally getting a chance to be further explored in the scientific field. Biodiesel, biomethane, and especially cellulosic substances are proving themselves to be the future of not only the United States, but of the world as people make conscious choices of how they want the environment to be treated. As educated people who will refuse injustice in this world, we have the power to raise the rallying cry in fighting for justice for our Earth,which is being torn into waste. There must be a louder cry for further research into the biomass fuel industry in order for continued progress to be made. It is the voice of the people that will carry on past the ears of politics and corruptness, and in order to protect life as we know it, we must rely on this voice. A voice that, in all of its collective wisdom, realizes the value and potential of this industry and the benefits that it’s expansion will bring about. Therefore, as we march further on into this environmental war zone where greed meets nature, we should look to the words of famous poet Dylan Thomas who once wrote, “do not go gentle into that good night; rage, rage against the dying of the light”. For it is the rage of the people, over the injustices done to our Earth that keep the biofuel industry going, and it is the curiosity of human nature that should keep us fighting for these developments as we look to the light of a  future with a more eco-friendly, biofueled world. 

Works Cited
"Atmospheric Science (2002)." World Book Science Year. 2009. eLibrary. Web. 15 Mar. 2016.
Baird, Stephen L. "Climate Change: A Runaway Train?." Technology Teacher 4(2006):14. eLibrary. Web. 15 Mar. 2016.
"Big Issues in Energy (A Special Report) --- Should the U.S. End the Ethanol Mandate?." Wall Street Journal. 16 Nov. 2015: R5.eLibrary. Web. 15 Mar. 2016.
Currie-McGhee, Leanne. Biofuels. San Diego: Reference Point Press, 2010. Print.
Hoar, William P. "Ethanol mandates = higher prices, hunger pains." The New American 24 Sept. 2012: 41+. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 8 Mar. 2016.
Johnson, Robbin S., and C. Ford Runge. "Ethanol: train wreck ahead? Government policy is stoking unsustainable growth of the corn-based fuel. A more sober, diversified approach is needed." Issues in Science and Technology 24.1 (2007): 25+. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 6 Mar. 2016.
Ratliff, Evan. "Cellulosic Ethanol Shows Promise." Biofuels. Ed. Margaret Haerens. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2012. At Issue. Rpt. from "One Molecule Could Cure Our Addiction to Oil." Wired 15.10 (24 Sept. 2007). Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 7 Mar. 2016.
"Second-generation biofuels can reduce emissions." UPI Space Daily. 13 Jan. 2016: n/a. eLibrary Science. Web. 15 Mar 2016.
Stewart, Joshua. "Biofuels will power Navy's next deployment." McClatchy - Tribune Business News. 16 Jan. 2016 eLibrary. Web. 15 Mar. 2016.
Suderman, Peter. "Awful ethanol: biofuels, busted." Reason Aug.-Sept. 2014: 10. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 8 Mar. 2016.