The concept of replacing gasoline and diesel with biofuels may seem like a beneficial plan, but the negative consequences outweigh its advantages. It has been argued that by switching to biofuels the amount of greenhouse gas emissions will be reduced, thus slowing the deterioration of the atmosphere. But the evidence behind this argument is weak and even contradicting. Biofuels have been around for a long time, despite the incorrect assumption that biofuels are a new proposed solution. At one point in time, large amounts of petroleum were unearthed, which caused the switch to gasoline and biodiesel because they were cheaper options (3). Biofuels were used a lot in the past and are in use today around the globe, but the United States has not made the big switch to biofuels. Biofuels should not replace our existing sources because they don't really reduce greenhouse gas emissions, food prices will increase, and problems concerning our sources of land will arise.
Biofuels are known as "liquid fuels" (7) and can be used as an alternative to diesel fuel or gasoline. They are made from plants, or more specifically crops, such as "corn, wheat, sugarcane" and in some cases "soy or palm oil" (7). These resources are converted into a source of fuel as an attempt to reduce the negative effects gasoline and biodiesel are having on our environment. Many countries currently use biofuels as a source of energy. Switching to biofuels would lead to less consumption of gasoline, thus "reduce(ing) some of the dependence on foreign powers for fossil fuels" (1). Not relying as much on other nations could increase the productivity and power of our nation. From afar, biofuels seem like a great solution because they are "renewable resources" (3) that can be used as fuel. The resources used as fossil fuels are slowly depleting because we have continued to rely on them as energy sources for such a long period of time (1).