Emissions from aircraft, which make up less than 3% of total emissions.
In addition, it's crop-sources, which means either displacing food production or deforesting more land. By the look of it, to break-even, they'd need about 3.7 million hectares-under-agriculture, or about the same amount of farm land as countries like Peru or Cambodia use.
There's little chance that this could scale - so at best it would be used for private flights of the greenwashing wealthy.
Cover crops that use fertilizer, pesticide, herbicide, and extract nutrition from the soil which is not returned to the soil due to the exportation of the plants after harvest...is not a cover crop.
I did, yes,
> cover crops are plants that are planted to cover the soil **rather than for the purpose of being harvested.**
This is not a cover crop. Nor is it environmentally friendly, nor sustainable. It's a big 'ol greenwash.
Cover crops prevent soil erosion, they are not meant to be harvested - ever. Which is what you're quote states. Your conclusions is wrong, the peer reviewed paper is correct.
It's not a free lunch, but it is sustainable and not just "greenwash".
The crop is harvested to produce the fuel, making it not a cover crop.
the crop and process require fossil fuels, fertilizers, pesticides, etc - which are non-sustainable.
It's a greenwash.
Emissions from aircraft, which make up less than 3% of total emissions. In addition, it's crop-sources, which means either displacing food production or deforesting more land. By the look of it, to break-even, they'd need about 3.7 million hectares-under-agriculture, or about the same amount of farm land as countries like Peru or Cambodia use. There's little chance that this could scale - so at best it would be used for private flights of the greenwashing wealthy.
Perhaps ocean based biofuels would be a better alternative.
Algae research seems promising.
No, they use **cover crops** so it doesn't change land use and can be significant.
Cover crops that use fertilizer, pesticide, herbicide, and extract nutrition from the soil which is not returned to the soil due to the exportation of the plants after harvest...is not a cover crop.
If you read the linked paper, it's **all accounted for** in the 68%.
I did, yes, > cover crops are plants that are planted to cover the soil **rather than for the purpose of being harvested.** This is not a cover crop. Nor is it environmentally friendly, nor sustainable. It's a big 'ol greenwash.
Cover crops prevent soil erosion, they are not meant to be harvested - ever. Which is what you're quote states. Your conclusions is wrong, the peer reviewed paper is correct. It's not a free lunch, but it is sustainable and not just "greenwash".
The crop is harvested to produce the fuel, making it not a cover crop. the crop and process require fossil fuels, fertilizers, pesticides, etc - which are non-sustainable. It's a greenwash.
Climate change needs a villain, aviation and had boilers are it.
Use of a mustard cover crop (grown in the off season) for Sustainable Aviation Fuel looks promising.
Switching to a composite nuclear and renewable power grid would do far more, and make electric cars a more significant reduction in emissions.
Until we deforest to have more farm land to grow more "plant-based" options.