Biofuel Crops Increase Carbon Emissions
The conversion of forests and grasslands into fields for the plants offsets the benefit of using the fuel, researchers find. Greenhouse-gas output overall would rise instead of fall.
The rush to grow biofuel crops — widely embraced as part of the solution to global warming — is actually increasing greenhouse gas emissions rather than reducing them, according to two studies published Thursday in the journal Science.
One analysis found that clearing forests and grasslands to grow the crops releases vast amounts of carbon into the air — far more than the carbon spared from the atmosphere by burning biofuels instead of gasoline.
“We’re rushing into biofuels, and we need to be very careful,” said Jason Hill, an economist and ecologist at the University of Minnesota who co-authored the study. “It’s a little frightening to think that something this well intentioned might be very damaging.”
Even converting existing farmland from food to biofuel crops increases greenhouse gas emissions as food production is shifted to other parts of the world, resulting in the destruction of more forests and grasslands to make way for farmland, the second study found.
The analysis calculated that a U.S. cornfield devoted to producing ethanol would have to be farmed for 167 years before it would begin to achieve a net reduction in emissions.
“Any biofuel that uses productive land is going to create more greenhouse gas emissions than it saves,” said Timothy Searchinger, a researcher at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University and the study’s lead author.
The studies prompted 10 prominent ecologists and environmental biologists to write to President Bush and congressional leaders Thursday, urging new policy “that ensures biofuels are not produced on productive forests, grassland or cropland.”
Since 2000, annual U.S. production of corn-based ethanol has jumped from 1.6 billion gallons to 6.5 billion gallons — supplying about 5% of the nation’s fuel for transportation, according to the Renewable Fuels Assn., an industry lobbying group.
Federal legislation passed last year calls for production of ethanol to more than double over the next decade. In California, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s proposal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions relies heavily on biofuels.
Food crops such as corn, palm oil, sugar cane and soybeans have so far been the main source of biofuels because they are already grown in abundance and are relatively easy to convert.
The fuels are environmentally attractive because, unlike fossil fuels, they are theoretically carbon-neutral. Carbon is released when the fuel is burned, but a similar amount is absorbed from the atmosphere as the crops grow.
Calculating the actual increase or decrease in carbon emissions has been difficult because myriad factors are involved, such as the energy used to produce the fuels and the varying amounts of carbon released through cultivation.
The biggest source of emissions, by far, comes from land-use changes associated with biofuels, the new studies showed.
Hill’s analysis looked at the amount of carbon in forests and grasslands that is released into the air when soil is overturned and existing vegetation rots or is burned away.
The study found that clearing an Indonesian peatland rain forest to make way for a biofuel plantation — a conversion that is occurring rapidly to satisfy Europe’s rising demand for biodiesel — releases so much carbon that a net reduction in emissions would not begin for 423 years.
Cutting down a tropical rain forest in Brazil to grow soybeans for biodiesel increases emissions for 319 years, the researchers found.
Dedicating existing fields to production of crops for biofuel has the same effect — indirectly.
Searchinger’s study focused on the global ripple effect of changing the use of farmland. U.S. farmers have been replacing soybean fields with cornfields to meet the rising demand for ethanol, lowering the world supply of soybeans and driving up their price.
As a result, farmers in Brazil are clearing rain forest to plant soybeans, he said.
His model estimated that devoting 12.8 million hectares of cornfields in the U.S. for ethanol production would bring 10.8 million hectares of additional land into cultivation throughout the world, including 2.8 million hectares in Brazil and 2.3 million hectares in China and India — much of it former forests and grasslands.
Kenneth Cassman, a professor of agronomy at the University of Nebraska, said the emissions from land-use changes could be countered in part by higher crop productivity. “If you could increase corn yields, you could reduce land pressure,” he said.
In a prepared statement, the Biotechnology Industry Organization said that over the last decade biotechnology has helped U.S. farmers increase yields by 30%.
“With agricultural biotechnology farmers can continue to increase yields of crops to meet the demands for both food and fuel,” it said.
Several scientists said the biofuel industry needs to focus on potential sources such as municipal trash, crop waste and prairie grasses.
The government is also promoting those sources, but there are technological hurdles, and the powerful agricultural lobby has put its weight behind food-based biofuels to boost crop prices for farmers.
“We need better biofuels before more biofuels,” said Alex Farrell, a professor of energy and resources at UC Berkeley who was not involved in the study.
© 2008 The Los Angeles Times
I strongly disagree with the title. The truth is corn ethanol requires the use of tractors on multiple passes on each field, trucks for hauling, and contribute those emissions. In Brazil, they are cutting down rainforest to plant sugar cane for ethanol.
This is not the case at all for a crop like switchgrass. Using crop and lumber wastes for ethanol does not create an emission issue beyond what would be needed if crop and lumber wastes to otherwise be tilled into the ground or disposed. Switchgrass is a perennial prairie grass that is disease, drought and insect resistant. The only emissions come from a couple of passes of a tractor for harvest and hauling to the ethanol plant.
Biofuel from algae REDUCES emissions if they are set up to use emissions from traditional power plants, as has been done in the pilot program in Arizona.
I look at articles like this and wonder if they are not being financed by big coal and oil corporations. The title is a lie if applied to all biofuels.
Certainly there is the potential for an excellent outcome in small ethanol plants located near municipal waste and near prairie grasses and mixed grass and perennials. Likewise, in southern climates, sugarcane conversion to ethanol looks reasonably good. For farmers, it’s hard not to like the wonderful prices we are receiving for our crops, but once again we must work to achieve a bit of sanity in an increasingly insane capitalistic model.
MountainMike, I think the title is appropriate for “biofuel as we know it.” Switchgrass and algae are pipe dreams at this point.
I do agree that some biofuels may be sustainable, if monitored carefully. I myself make 120 litres of biodiesel each week, from the waste cooking oil from several restaurants. But jumping on an unproven bandwagon with massive subsidies is part of the problem, not the solution. If it were even possible for every ethanol plant to change to switchgrass, and every biodiesel plant to change to algae, doing so at such a scale would surely expose problem we had not even considered. Go slow with new technology!
Then there’s the whole matter of maintaining biological productivity. Without artificial fertilizers made from fossil fuel, soil will wear out if crops are continuously taken, but nothing given back. You cannot continue to harvest switchgrass nor algae, year after year, without putting nutrients back into the soil and water.
There are natural cycles that we are ignoring or denying to our peril.
mountainmike-the problem is that while the potential for biofuels is good, current outcomes are mostly bad and increasingly, I would argue, very bad. With land prices and food prices skyrocketing and vast land clearing and it’s huge many-layered associated costs, trying to find anything positive in this mess is difficult.
The discussion of bio fuels seems to me to have consistently omitted the most productive crop of all : HEMP. This is due in part to politicians paranoia in even mentioning it as a viable crop, but the truth is that hemp has many advantages over corn, soy, and even switchgrass. It is a nitrogen fixer, which means that it can be grown year after year with minimal input of nutrients, it thrives on a multitude of soil conditions, its fiber and oils have literally thousands of applications, and it makes a dynamite viscous fuel. One huge problem that this article touches on is deforestation which is removing the lungs of the planet, leading to a host of environmental problems. The paper industry has long fought hemp in favor of further deforestation, but the truth is that hemp will produce 4 times as much raw fiber for paper as a 75 year old forest, with less energy in harvesting and considerably less impact on ecosystems. One thing to note is that no matter what crops are being grown, farmers seem to be ignorant and resistant to the reality that monoculture crops of any kind are bad for the environment. Diversity is the key to sustainability, which means that we need forests and wetlands in addition to crop lands. If farmers in the U.S. were allowed to replace their huge fields of corn with hemp, they’d be doing their own soil a favor, and the benefits of hemp would soon become apparent. Cotton is the most pesticide-ridden crop in the world, it too could be replaced with hemp. And hemp cannot be used to hide a marijuana crop, as has been commonly argued.
As most of the biofuel is converted using gas or coal fired plants, it is another bonanza for big oil and big coal. It takes twice as much carbon to make the fuel as one saves by using the fuel. That may be one of the reasons that oil, coal and gas bought huge futures in corn, etc. They win both ways. They sell more coal and oil for the plants, and get higher prices for the crops. As usual, win-win for big business, lose-lose for the earth and the biosphere.
As land gets diverted to crops for the production of ethanol (and away from food), instead of clearing forest to grow more food we could transition to a vegetarian diet that requires less land to produce the same number of calories for human consumption.
Western countries consume more of their fare share in both meat and fuel. We can curtail a little in both so as not to be drastic in either one, and so as not to continue increasing atmospheric CO2.
Beware trolls telling you it is impossible and/or it can’t be done. Case in point: Coskata Inc., recently partially funded by GM, has a scientifically proven process for producing celluosic ethanol at less than $1.00/gallon from non-human feedstock. GM’s part is important, since its strategy is to produce half of its vehicles to use e85 by 2012, thus depending on a constant source of ethanol by then. The announcement of GM’s involvement and Coskata’s (stealth) breakthrough is rumored to have royally pissed off big oil, because they had just initiated a campaign that celluosic ethanol wouldn’t be viable for at least 10 years, and that use of human food as feed stock was wasteful and uneconomic. Look back to the comments previous to this one to see that campaign in action. Then Google Coskata and read about them and their process. I have no association to Coskata or GM, but am enthusiastic for their success, and for others like them that will play a significant role in freeing us from energy dependence from the middle east and big oil (think $40 billion profits by Exxon alone).
What is also not mentioned is the wide jump to soy that has been pervasive in our food products that can grow man boobs and decrease masculinity. Soy should not be used for food or bio-fuel. It is good for making ink and other things such as paint perhaps, and that is it. With all the things that are being put into our food and perservatives, MSG, and other forms of it such as tortilla yeast, yeast extract, and these other things that cause inflamation and over-eating, it’s obvious that this is not out of mere incompetence. Farmers need to be woken up and it’s not going to happen with big petro-chemical industrialized agri-business!
Hopeful Brewer, you have hit the nail on the head. It is unfortunate that the majority of North Americans have their head up their ass on Hemp. No doubt this is a result of the decades of mis-information and outright lies perpetrated about hemp by those whose interests (Oil, Textile, Pulp & Paper) lay in maintaining the status quo. One important fact omiited by Hopeful Brewer is that the yeild of 4 times per acre of forest is that the hemp crop can be produced every year. Over a 75 yearr period that is 300 times the amount of fibre.
“soy that has been pervasive in our food products that can grow man boobs and decrease masculinity”
References please?
“it’s obvious that this is not out of mere incompetence”
So…it’s some sort of conspiracy to ‘feminize’ the world? Interesting…Again, provide references if you have them.
Sorry for the comedy break. Back to biofuels now.
Deathtotyrants, this whole stinking mess is the result of technology. If you want to solve a problem, you have to seek out the root cause ie over consumption (of the earth’s renewable and non renewable resources) fueled by too many people, too much personal consumption, and too much inequity.
Until we address the root cause, our problems will not only not get solved but will increase at an ever faster rate (as is happening now.)
Let’s be honest, most of the farmers who grow corn for ethanol are doing it for the money and really don’t give two hoots about the environment, even though they are happy to take a pat on the back for helping with the energy crisis. Unfortunately, for them and the rest of us, it’s looking like there is a decided downside to bio- fuels; specifically the tax subsidies, the energy used for production, and now these new studies on increased CO2. We thought for a while we were getting a free lunch.
The woeful lack of any knowledge of carbon chemistry or even the simplest understanding of the laws of thermodynamics on this thread would be hilarious if it weren’t so sad. The use of so-called bio-fuels will not reduce carbon emissions and the consequences thereof one iota. What do you think plants are anyway? And what do think burning them or their byproducts are? This pathetic attempt to maintain the whole car-truck-road based economy solves absolutely nothing and, in fact, acts as a palliative to all the rubes so eager to ignore the destruction of the atmosphere so long as they can drive down to the mall and buy some junk from China.
Hemp Anyone?
If you go to the Wilson School website, you can see Searchinger’s credentials and prior research & publications. He looks like pretty much a white-hat kind of guy, judging by the information available. Speculation about Big Oil funding this research has no factual basis.
Welcome to the new cash cow for the corporations.
There is a right way to produce biofuels, different ways for different regions actually, and if you’re going to research the topic you ought to be looking for the right way. Then you can frame things in terms of that. In other words, you can compare fossil fuels with right-way-biofuels AND you can compare the capitalist’s slash and burn methods with right-way-biofuels. But if you’re going to compare capitalist slash and burn with .. um nothin really uh duh, then what are you accomplishing?
The right way to do biofuels includes the following: 1.) heavly restrict clearing of native growth, 2.) heavily restrict total biofuels production, 3.) all biofuels production using permaculture methods (this eliminates all synthetic inputs including irrigation water and “intellectual property”, ensures soil and ecosystem preservation, among other things), 4.) all biofuels production using top yielding native species, 5.) all biofuels production by small independent enterprises, 6.) food production takes precedence.
The fact is that when done right, biofuels places no strains on ecosystems or human food security. Permaculture methods ensure that the biofuel plantation sequesters at least as much carbon as the natural ecosytem, because that is one of the design criteria. People can get involved in the design of the permaculture methods, to ensure all the criteria are met. There are different designs for different regions. Get with the local experts and let them know about the worldwide coalition for ensuring that biofuels are done the right way. All the capitalist methods have to dumped. They’re useless.
Still skeptical about food security? The beauty of the progressive way is that we are usually solving ten problems with one solution. The permaculture approach to biofuels is also the approach to food production - in fact you will typically have several food & fuel species interplanted in the same field. What that does is preserves the ecosystem and maximizes pathogen protection.
Let’s see. Fuel from food. What a good idea. I live in Maine and right now it is -10 degrees F. If I take the food from my refrigerator and cupboard and start heating my house with it. Which will I do first? Starve to death or freeze my ass off?
The best bio-fuels are produced in the human body. They can be used for walking or riding a simple machine called a “bicycle”. For all you commuters out there, better have a back up plan and learn how to plan for the reduced-fuel future. I read a study on how people live with such near-sightedness, it stated that 75% of Americans would die of starvation if the trucking fleet stopped running tomorrow, because they rely so much on food that travels an average of 1500 miles to get to them. Only 1% of people are actively engaged in food production, and most of those are single crop industrial farming. Learn how to grow your own food, dig up that stupid lawn! Wake up!
There are more than 500 million acres of farm land in the U.S. We are not clearing rainforest to grow crops. With cellulose ethanol, you use the crop STALKS and not the crop to create the fuel. The same land, the same water, the same fertilizers, the same tractors that you use now to grow the crops that you already grow. Instead of using the food for fuel, you use the plant material that we do not use for food for fuel.
only HEMP sheeples is the solution for the American farmers
wake up
www.earthpeoplefoundation.org for links to real data and info
I’m afraid this bio-fuel scam will take off and use valuable land which grew food is now making food for vehicles. This will result in millions of Africans already near starvation dying. It’s genocide wrapped up as a device to reduce global warming.
For all those bought into the idea that biofuels will reduce global warming I suggest you go back to Chemistry 101. The amount of carbon released into the atmosphere will actually increase with biofuel production, distillation and use. The whole thing is just an effort by the corporate state to paint itself green.