« US Air Force Selects Rolls-Royce for Adaptive Aircraft Engine Project | Main | Volkswagen To Stick With B5 Maximum For Now »
Study: Global Biofuel Use Could Emit 9x More CO2 than Conventional Gasoline and Diesel
17 August 2007
Researchers at the University of Leeds (UK) and the World Land Trust have concluded that up to nine times as much carbon dioxide could be emitted using biofuels compared to conventional gasoline and diesel because biofuel crops are typically grown on land which is burnt and reclaimed from tropical forests.
In a report in the journal Science, the authors conclude that protecting and restoring natural forests and grasslands is a much better way to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
This study shows that if your primary concern is reducing carbon dioxide emissions, growing biofuels is not the best way to do it. In fact it can have a perverse impact elsewhere in the world. The amount of carbon that is released when you clear forests to make way for the biofuel crop is much more than the amount you get back from growing biofuels over a 30-year period. You can’t convert your car to run on biofuel and keep on driving and think that everything will be OK. You are turning a blind eye to what’s happening around the world and that in fact, you could be making things much worse.
—co-author Dominick Spracklen of the School of Earth and the Environment at the University of Leeds
The study compared the amount of carbon dioxide emissions that would be saved from entering the atmosphere by growing biofuels with the amount saved from slowing deforestation and restoring forests over a 30-year period.
The study also found that converting large areas of land back to forest provides other environmental benefits such as preventing desertification and regional climate regulation. The conversion of large areas of land to make biofuels will place further strains on the environment, the study concluded.
European Union member states have pledged to replace 10% of transport fuel with biofuel from crops by 2020 in an effort to reduce reliance on imported oil and reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Meeting the EU target would require an area larger than one third of all the agricultural land in Europe to be used for growing biofuel crops, assuming no imports.
Over a quarter of CO2 production globally comes from transport and moving to carbon-free transport fuels presents some of the most difficult technical problems. While there are solutions like hydrogen in the offing, it will probably be 30 years or more, before the bulk of transport fuel could be replaced. Liquid biofuels offer a superficially attractive option because they can be used by existing cars and lorries and use the existing fuel distribution system. Powerful agricultural lobbies have seized on this as a substantial growth opportunity and governments see it as way of reducing dependence on oil imports or as a large export opportunity. In Europe, biofuels are seen as a way of meeting the EU “renewables” obligation. We believe that the current rush into biofuel production is misguided—it is a risky and ineffective strategy for reducing CO2 levels and it is destroying natural habitats rich in biodiversity.
—co-author Renton Righelato, on World Land Trust’s biofuels policy
Resources:
Renton Righelato and Dominick V. Spracklen; “Carbon Mitigation by Biofuels or by Saving and Restoring Forests?”; Science 17 August 2007: Vol. 317. no. 5840, p. 902 DOI: 10.1126/science.1141361
August 17, 2007 in Sustainability | Permalink | Comments (36) | TrackBack (0)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/20905709
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Study: Global Biofuel Use Could Emit 9x More CO2 than Conventional Gasoline and Diesel:
Comments
Sounds like a wake up call.
Posted by: marcus | Aug 17, 2007 10:40:37 AM
This study sounds like soundbite FUD to bolster the last spasms of fossil-fuel use. Obviously, the devil is in the details. There are sustainable and carbon-neutral ways to make biofuels, and there are heinous ways to make them.
So what else is new? We need to do it right if we want the benefits. Duh.
Posted by: BlackSun | Aug 17, 2007 10:46:17 AM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6949861.stm gives more information.
The authors say that 2nd generation biofuels may be much more promising. These are based on lignocellulosic material, so you could have forests producing biofuel.
As with many new "green" technologies, they're not green at the moment, but Government (or EU) backing is useful to spur the science to make them green.
Californian wind turbines of the 70s weren't green, but they helped develop the technology. Likewise Germany's current subsidies for solar power are questionable in the short term, but long term help push the technology.
Posted by: Alex | Aug 17, 2007 10:49:24 AM
As Marcus said:
"This study sounds like soundbite FUD to bolster the last spasms of fossil-fuel use. Obviously, the devil is in the details. There are sustainable and carbon-neutral ways to make biofuels, and there are heinous ways to make them.
So what else is new? We need to do it right if we want the benefits. Duh."
Exactly. The most interesting thing here is that it made it into 'Science'.
Posted by: JoeySoCal | Aug 17, 2007 11:23:04 AM
No one ever suggests that one method of production be used to make biofuel. First generation ethanol will obviously be more "expensive" than second and third. What this report apparently believes is that a marginal increase in CO2 for a short period of time is worse than the millions of tons of toxic pollutants eliminated by transition from oil.
Much ado...
Posted by: gr | Aug 17, 2007 11:28:56 AM
The rainforest burning is a one-off or surge that irons out over a longer time horizon. The authors use 30 years; why not 100 years? Some might not agree that hydrogen is an alternative. While the biofuel industry may not have grown as quickly without the target, as oil depletes even higher demand may arise naturally. Instead of the hydrogen pie-in-the-sky the authors should address the sunk cost of millions of cars and trucks and some other way that could replace EU farm subsidies.
Posted by: Aussie | Aug 17, 2007 11:31:25 AM
What Butterball Turkey, Tyson chicken and all the other huge food processing companies can do to make biodiesel out of animal food waste is actually a viable approach.
The focus needs to be in making fuel out of things that would otherwise be thrown away.
None of this works at all if we don't significantly reduce consumption, getting every fortune 500 to sponsor a "one day work from home" via internet could pull huge numbers off the roadways.
Most significantly we need to take a leadership role in reducing energy usage; let's put a conservationist in the White House?
Posted by: | Aug 17, 2007 11:36:12 AM
This is going to get quoted 10 times as much as the rebuttals for years. Same as the one study saying corn ethanol used 20% more energy than it produced. Never mind that there were plenty of reasonable qualms with the assumptions.
For instance...even worst case scenario, someone burns down a rainforrest to grow jatropha, palm oil or sugar cane; what's the time horizon? Wouldn't a decade or two of crops eventually make up for the initial massive Carbon release?
What about best-case scenario? Look at GreenFuel Technoogies using algae bioreactors to capture 80% of the CO2 in smokestack emissions. Look at the dairy someone else is building in Arizona that will capture the methane from the animal waste, then ferment the waste into ethanol, then feed the remaining waste to algae ponds for more biodiesel. Oh, by the way, they also produce milk, which they were going to do anyway.
Aspens, switchgrass, and miscanthus sequester carbon in their root structures, so they are actually carbon negative. A lot of them will be cultivated on marginal lands that would not release 9x as much carbon as the fuel produced.
All that having been said, what kinds of policy and market-based steps can be taken to minimize loss of rainforest in the pursuit of biofuels?
Posted by: HealthyBreeze | Aug 17, 2007 11:42:44 AM
Yet another irrelevant study.
Biofuels do not grow in rainforests.
Posted by: Gio | Aug 17, 2007 11:43:36 AM
To be precise: sugarcane in Brazil grows 1000 miles South of the Amazon.
It's stunning to see such a credible journal as Science allowing such a weak study.
Sorghum: grows in the Sahel.
Jatropha: grows in the desert.
Pongamia: grows in the semi-arid tropics.
Sand Willow: grows in the desert in Mongolia.
Cassava: hates rainforests.
Groundnuts: grow in the Sahel.
Coconuts: grow on non-forest coast-lines.
Sweet potato: hates rainforests.
Corn: grows in Canada.
Rapeseed: grows in Canada.
Miscanthus: grows in non-forest tropics.
Arundo Donax: grows in grasslands (*is* grassland)
The list is endless. Not a word about these crops in the 'study'.
Conservationists are rapidly making themselves irrelevant in the biofuels debate.
Posted by: Gio | Aug 17, 2007 11:48:29 AM
Why do we need to destroy forests to make biofuels? Can't we make biofuels for what available (agriculture waste, sewage, garbage, flue gas, etc) and grow forests at the same time?
Posted by: | Aug 17, 2007 11:53:13 AM
@ Gio -
correct, but some nations do cut down virgin rainforest to make room for agricultural production - or have done so in the recent past. Indonesia is an example. Most, if not all, of the stored carbon is rapidly released into the atmosphere by fire.
To illustrate the argument, think of a forest as a carbon recycling machine. Plants die, decompose releasing CO2. The land they occupied is taken over by other plants that grow using the nutrients released, CO2 from the atmosphere, rain water and sunlight. When a forest is in dynamic equilibrium, i.e. its biomass is roughly constant, the vast majority of the carbon in its cycle is sequestered in the form of living vegetable matter. Left to their own devices, trees live for a very long time.
Of course, forest fires can and do occur naturally. The carbon that is suddenly released is re-sequestrated as the affected area recovers its tree cover, but that takes decades. However, if you start growing crops for food, animal feed or non-food agriculturals like biofuels on the cleared land, the affected area never gets a chance to recover its tree cover. Because crops are harvested one or more times a year, their carbon cycle is much shorter. That means each carbon atom spends a much smaller fraction of the cycle duration sequestered in living vegetable matter.
The net result is a net release of carbon into the atmosphere due to cycle acceleration. The research referenced above is a warning to policymakers: biofuels do not reduce CO2 emissions if forests have to be burnt down to clear the land. The warning does not apply to land that is already tropical savannah. It obviously also does not apply to the open ocean in tropical latitudes, it's just that no-one has figured out how to harvest the incident sunlight there just yet.
Another issue related to ramping up biofuel production to very large scaels is the impact this will have on surface albedo. Atmospheric GHG concentrations are not the only parameters affecting climate change.
Posted by: Rafael Seidl | Aug 17, 2007 12:24:43 PM
Gio : Excellent piece of info.
After using 5 billion gallons of Ethanol, the gas prices are hovering around 2.70 and it hit a high of 3.23 ( all time record, even factoring the inflation ).
If that much Ethanol is not used, then the gas prices could go even higher.
BTW, Brazilians have already started the production of Cellulosic Ethanol from Waste.
In the future, all the waste (Agro, Food, Animals, etc) could be converted to some
type of Bio-fuel whether its Bio-gas.
Some oil company could have sponsored this type of study.
Posted by: Max Reid | Aug 17, 2007 1:21:58 PM
Since sun light is the basic source of most energies, it is difficult to justify so many multi-stage (mostly inefficient) processes to convert sun light into vehicle physical movement and other uses.
Sun light being so overly abondant (and long lasting) we could afford to use lower efficiency, lower cost, direct converters to transform it into plain electricity to feed our fully electrified transportation vehicles, homes, HVAC, lights, commerce, industries etc.
By doing so we could get rid of a lot of CO2 creating ICE machines, coal power generating plants, GHG, noise, Oil and Gaz imports, oil wars etc while liberating plenty of arab lands for the production of essential food for future generations.
Biofuels uses would be restricted to special applications such as airplanes, and could be produced in very limited quantities from existing unwanted wastes.
The final solution is all azimuth electrification using electricity form the Sun, Wind, Waves, Hydro, Geothermal and up-to-date Nuclear plants.
Let's not waste time and energy trying to prolong the life of old inefficient, polluting technologies such as ICE vehicles and creating more crop fed biofuels.
Posted by: | Aug 17, 2007 2:47:40 PM
Rafael, I completely agree with you in this topic.
In Argentina we are seeing a speculative and crazy race for land that implies deforestation due to expectatives of higher prices of crops for biofuels.Bush in a recent visit to Brazil fed that expectatives.
Now our congress is treating a law that protects native forests, but it is in some sleeping-state.I expect our senators are not waiting their "fees".
Here, there are a lot of factories making biodiesel from soy with a low energy return rate (for every Kcal of biodiesel obtained you have to spend 0.7 Kcal), with canola (colza) rates are a little better but far from being sustainable.
Posted by: Mario | Aug 17, 2007 6:00:05 PM
Biofuels - emblematic of an insane society.
Posted by: jack | Aug 17, 2007 9:06:58 PM
The only kind of biofuel that is ecologically sustainable is from biowaste that is destined to be thrown away. Otherwise, fuel crops will raise the price of food and will make this politically unpalatable.
A more sustainable alternative is to synthesize H2, CH4, or NH3 from solar energy directly without going thru the inefficient photosynthetic pathway via chlorophyll. There are still enough oil, gas and coal reserves left to allow us a gradual transition to totally synthetic fuels from renewable energy, IF we are committed to make the transition STARTING TODAY!
Or, use solar or wind electricity directly to recharge BEV or PHEV. But, unless you can recharge your BEV during the day while at work, you will still need backup chemical fuel source for electrical generation at night, except when the wind is blowing hard some nights, but there times when the wind is not blowing at all.
Posted by: Roger Pham | Aug 17, 2007 10:21:39 PM
When I first read this report my reaction was much the same as most of you, outrage. However I've just read the same report in my local newspaper, big difference. My local newspaper leans a bit to the left and it included a little extra wordage; quotes from the authors and such. The changes to the text were small but the changes to the spin were huge.
Maybe instead of questioning the motivation of the authors we should question the motivation of the editors from Science?
Posted by: ai_vin | Aug 18, 2007 8:29:33 AM
I'm writing to Science to tell them they have lowered their standards beyond belief. This is a piece of propaganda for a conservationist. The "study" is totally flawed. The vast bulk of biofuels have no impact on forests.
Making it look as if there's only a choice between deforestation or conservation is intellectual bigotry.
I'm done with these conservationists.
Posted by: Gio | Aug 18, 2007 12:25:59 PM
I think many of you miss the point here. If the reason for using biofuels in the first place is to lower CO2 emissions, you are better off planting forest in those fields than crops. Simple as that - tearing down forests is not the prime issue here.
So its also obvious that if your main concern is peak oil or energy independance (which I assume is the case for most of you), you aren't going to be very happy with such a policy suggestion. Also, economically, a farmer isn't going to get much of an income from converting his fields to forest - unless carbon offset credits can be given (and perhaps this should be seriously considered). However that is besides the point since these considerations are not addressed in this report and the authors do not pretend to do so.
Posted by: marcus | Aug 18, 2007 5:09:44 PM
Marcus, you are wrong.
Mid- to high-latitude forests (i.e. all forests outside the humid tropics) are net carbon contributers.
But the conservationist doesn't mention this. That's why the entire 'study' is fake.
Here:
Study from the Carnegie Institution’s Department of Global Ecology and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory:
Temperate forests may worsen global warming, tropical forests fight higher temperatures
A later study confirms this:
"Is deforestation the solution to climate change?"
Just published last week:
Decade-long experiment suggests limitations to carbon dioxide 'tree banking'
Plant a tree and save the planet? Let's think again.
The study is a fraudulent piece of propaganda by a conservationist who refuses to use science to back up his statements.
All biofuels, except for palm oil (the only deforestation crop), are *better* than planting trees when it comes to lowering carbon emissions. Converting grasslands into sugarcane is better; planting sorghum in the Sahel is better than planting acacia; growing corn in the U.S. is better than planting pines.
Posted by: Gio | Aug 18, 2007 6:50:22 PM
By the way, Marcus, I do agree with your other points: liquid biofuels were not invented to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Brazil's large biofuel program started in the 1970s, long before anyone had heard of climate change.
They were invented because:
-they are cheaper than oil
-they are renewable and their production can be carefully planned (not 'explored', no need for 'wildcats')
-because they bring jobs to millions
-because they bring energy security and cut reliance on imports
The fact that they substantially reduce greenhouse gas emissions is just a lucky addition.
Posted by: Gio | Aug 18, 2007 9:12:40 PM
I recently read this- http://www.straight.com/article-104791/the-sin-of-air-travel -in one of our local rags.
It says a lot about 'reforestation.'
A must read IMHO.
Posted by: ai_vin | Aug 19, 2007 8:00:16 AM
I agree Gio that there seems to be some doubt about the net effect on temperature of temperate forests. However I still think several people missed the point with their responses to this article! BTW you seem to use the word conservationist as if it is derogitory in some way. What does conservationist mean to you? To me it simply means someone who would like to conserve biodiversity and wilderness. It doesn't necessarily mean someone who goes to any length to achieve this.
Posted by: marcus | Aug 19, 2007 10:22:33 AM
I guess what I am trying to say is that labelling the authors "conservationists" seems to me to be way of trying to tribalize people into waring factions over this issue. I don't think that approach is very accurate or constructive since surely there are those such as myself who hope biofuels will slow global warming and at the same time appreciate wilderness and biodiversity. It also seems to be a case of hijacking a rather moderate and general term to try and marginalize all those interested in wilderness and biodiveristy. Is that your aim?
Posted by: marcus | Aug 19, 2007 10:43:31 AM
@Marcus, I think it is good to have some clarity in a debate as important as this one. And yes, many conservationists have gone at great lengths to abuse scientific data to make a dishonest case against biofuels. This is not the first time. Without wanting to sound paranoid, I think they are waging a concerted campaign.
In that case, I think it is opportune for everyone to clearly state which position they take in a discussion. I think differentiating is often a good thing - it sharpens a discussion.
There's no derogatory meaning in the word conservationist. But I would not hesitate to use it to denote a particular view on reality; after all, conservationism is a highly political ideology, often of a reactionary, eurocentric kind. Indeed, as a marxist, I have a problem with conservationist ideologies.
In the biofuels debate, conservationists are taking a clear position, journalists follow them, and scientists try to look at things in an objective manner. These differences are very outspoken. I think they should be stressed in order to have an honest debate.
Posted by: Gio | Aug 19, 2007 6:03:52 PM
Gio, I read the study from Carnegie and Lawrence Livermore, it can be interpretated in various ways, for example it depends on what you consider temperate climas.
In the south hemisphere we have very hot, sunny and long summers up (or down if you want) to 40° latitude and our trees do their job of carbon capture very well, in winter most of them leave fall their leaves and sun light reflection increases.In both cases trees cool the clima.I suppose that the study only considers perennial foliage trees.
By the way , most of the forest under danger is near the tropical zone, and these are the trees we have to preserve or replant.
The New Guinea initiative of compensation could be a good alternative.
About Brazil practically all the country is over the tropic of Capricornio.
Posted by: Mario | Aug 19, 2007 6:36:21 PM
I like Greenpeace and Sierra club for protecting the whales and the environment, and thier arguments on biofuels don't worry me, so far they don't seem to be all out against biofuels (like they are with GMO or "frankenfoods" as they call it, a propaganda point that really pisses me off) but state logical arguments for biofuels to be made in such a way that does not take out forest and foods. Gio could you show us evidence that "conservationist" are all out against biofuels?
Posted by: Ben | Aug 19, 2007 6:46:27 PM
Gio, what is this conservationist ideology? As someone who likes the outdoors I value both biodiversity and wilderness. As a scientist and biologist I also understand the fact that we are part of the global ecology and that we also depend on this ecology for our survival. Does this make me a conservationist?
I hate to always quote wiki but I think their description is fairly accurate in that the word "conservationist" paints a pretty broad picture.
"Conservationism embraces a spectrum of views, ranging from anthropocentric, utilitarian conservationism to radical eco-centric green eco-political views which advocate the total preservation of forest resources and which seek to establish a radically new relationship between humanity and nature. "
For "clarity of debate" why don't you define exactly what segment of the "conservationist" population you are talking about? For even better "clarity" why don't you just leave out the sweeping generalizations all together.
Posted by: marcus | Aug 19, 2007 10:37:38 PM
I think the study was pointing out some externalities that need to be factored in regarding the growth of traditional agri-business ethanol. Their business model is a prime example of what Einstein meant by "Problems can never be solved by thinking on the same level that produced them."
If temperate deforestation is the answer and not the problem then why not this; Convert all the corn into ethanol so that more people in the third world die off. Then they won't be around to deforest the tropics.
Posted by: Mark | Aug 20, 2007 8:38:45 AM
@Marcus, to me conservationist ideology is an ideology which, when faced with an unresolvable contradiction between the immediate survival of humans and the protection of nature, consistently chooses nature over humans.
The examples of this logic are plentiful, with numerous conservationist campaigns resulting in the death of millions of poor people. Conservationists are largely responsible for not allowing third world farmers to import GM food from Europe, which would however have guaranteed their immediate survival.
Likewise, they prefer to protect a patch of rainforest because it houses a particular species, over the immediate survival of humans who want to slash-and-burn their way through because they need to grow food to feed their starving children.
The list of examples of 'genocides' is sheer endless.
I think, honestly, that conservationism ranks amongst the more cruel ideologies ever witnessed in the era of modernity.
Posted by: Gio | Aug 20, 2007 5:42:22 PM
But Gio, given wikipedia's definition I am a conservationist that does not hold that ideology. Further, its obvious most other conservationsists according to the definition also don't hold this extreme ideology. You have gone and labelled all those who care about the environment as crazy extremists. This tactic of yours doesn't solve debates, it starts fights.
Posted by: marcus | Aug 21, 2007 12:38:58 AM
I do not like Greenpeace and Sierra Club because they do not protect the environment. They are a hungry pack of lawyers and fund raisers whose only purpose in life is to enrich themselves by playing to the gullibility of Ben.
The semi-arid forest of western North American are very unhealthy because of well meaning management practicalities. Local environmentalists, some are Sierra Club members, know part of the solution is to thin out the biomass. If they try, Sierra Club lawyers, who do not know the difference between old growth rain forest and semi-arid second and third growth semi-arid forests; will stop them in court.
Posted by: Kit P | Aug 21, 2007 4:52:04 AM
Gio:
It may be true that many biofuel plants can be grown outside of rainforest. However, there are two points about that:
1. Biofuel production will displace food production (as we are already seeing in terms of corn ethanol and corn price increases). Food production could then be expanded into rainforest sites.
2. We don't have to worry just about rainforest, but other forest lands that could be displaced for biofuel or food production.
Posted by: bbm | Aug 21, 2007 9:38:22 AM
Kit P, I think its obvious that overall these groups do a lot more good than harm for the environment despite your negative example.
Posted by: marcus | Aug 22, 2007 6:28:26 AM
Nice story! Can I use this for my blog? gr, remcowoudstra
Posted by: making biodiesel | Jul 7, 2008 12:56:48 PM
