Oft-hailed over the past few years as a panacea for our nation’s energy and agriculture woes, biofuel has had a tough week. According to two independent studies published in the journal Science yesterday, almost all of the biofuels used today actually emit more greenhouse gases than do fossil fuels if we count the “full emissions costs,” as the NYT calls them, of their production. These “full emissions costs” refer to the carbon emissions that occur as farmers worldwide respond to higher prices-from higher demand and limited farmland resources-and so clear grassland or forests in order to make way for cropland. In spite of the numerous benefits biofuels offer-offsetting carbon, supporting the agriculture industry-both studies warn that the resultant carbon emissions eclipse the carbon savings that biofuels provide.
One study, penned by a scientist from the environmental group The Nature Conservancy and researchers from the University of Minnesota, concluded that the conversion of natural environments-whether rainforest or savannah-to cropland for biofuels would increase global warming for decades, and even centuries. Meanwhile, the other study, written by researchers from Princeton University, Woods Hole Research Center, and Iowa State University, as well as an agriculture consultant, found that use of corn-based ethanol-which the US government has so keenly advocated-would double greenhouse emissions over the next 30 years and increases the amount of GHG in the atmosphere for 167 years. Considering the latest energy bill, which decrees the annual production of 36 million gallons of ethanol by the year 2022, it’s not surprising that the recent spate of discoveries prompted a group of 10 of the U.S.’s most prominent scientists to send a letter to President Bush and Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, recommending biofuel policy reform.
The criticisms proposed by these two studies are hardly new, however. A Smithsonian study, from early January 2008, declared that corn-based ethanol, among other biofuels, would actually perpetuate global warming more than fossil fuels would. But what has truly grabbed the media’s attention is the fact that these two studies are the first to thoroughly investigate the emission effects of biofuel development and the clearing of vast swaths of land that have accompanied it-to uncover, as one of the researchers put it in the Washington Post, the “hidden environmental cost of producing biofuels.”
Perhaps we can view this “backlash” (or, should we say, natural scientific questioning) from the biofuel hype over the past few years as a warning to us of the dangers of hype towards anything relating to the environment. Like people are doing increasingly with news related to climate change and policies to mitigate its effects, we ought to find ourselves listening to the scientists-weighing the two sides and ultimately coming to a solid truth-rather than allowing ourselves to get too caught up in the excitement of something new, fresh, and possibly miraculous.
The drama is just beginning to unfold, so keep tuned in, Getsolar readers.
I was just having a discussion about this with a group of friends. None of us could really figure out why biofuel is getting the media, government, and financial support it is getting when, as you point out, Connie, it is one of the worst possible alternative energy sources out there. It isn’t cheaper. It isn’t better. It isn’t easier–except in terms of making use of existing systems of production and distribution, which does count for a lot (especially when you own the production and distribution systems!). Solar, wind, and geothermal are renewable, where biofuel is not; they require far less energy to produce; and they don’t come with the same lofty environmental price tag. Let’s hope we can get the government to recognize this before corn or switchgrass-based ethanol assumes too large a segment of the market to shoulder back out. Funding going into this non-renewable energy source could be very well spent elsewhere, on more sustainable solutions to the energy crisis.