Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Evaluating Biofuels
The Consequences of
Using Land to Make Fuel
Tim Searchinger
The German Marshall Fund of the United States
© 2009 The German Marshall Fund of the United States. All rights reserved.
No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means without permission
in writing from the German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMF). Please direct inquiries to:
About GMF
The German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMF) is a non-partisan American public policy and grant-
making institution dedicated to promoting greater cooperation and understanding between North America
and Europe.
GMF does this by supporting individuals and institutions working on transatlantic issues, by convening leaders
to discuss the most pressing transatlantic themes, and by examining ways in which transatlantic cooperation can
address a variety of global policy challenges. In addition, GMF supports a number of initiatives to strengthen
democracies.
Founded in 1972 through a gift from Germany as a permanent memorial to Marshall Plan assistance, GMF
maintains a strong presence on both sides of the Atlantic. In addition to its headquarters in Washington, DC,
GMF has seven offices in Europe: Berlin, Bratislava, Paris, Brussels, Belgrade, Ankara, and Bucharest.
Brussels Forum is an annual high-level meeting of the most influential American and European political, corpo-
rate, and intellectual leaders to address pressing challenges currently facing both sides of the Atlantic. Partici-
pants include heads of state, senior officials from the European Union institutions and the member states, U.S.
Cabinet officials, Congressional representatives, Parliamentarians, academics, and media. For more information,
please visit www.brusselsforum.org.
Evaluating Biofuels
The consequences of using land to make fuel
March 2009
Tim Searchinger*
The German Marshall Fund of the United States
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Biofuels and the Competition for Land . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Avoiding Competition for Land . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Financial and Efficiency Concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
The Future of Biofuel Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
*Tim Searchinger is a transatlantic fellow with the German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMF) where he
focuses on trade and development, agriculture policy, and the environment. He is also a research scholar and lecturer at
Princeton University. Before joining GMF, Mr. Searchinger was co-director of the Center for Conservation Incentives at
Environmental Defense where he supervised work on agricultural incentive programs.
1 Introduction
In 2008, the developed world relearned the ancient prices have come down, and some people following
lesson that food is not inherently plentiful and press reports would believe the problem is over.
cheap. It also began to learn a new lesson that in But crop prices are now fluctuating from 50 to 100
an era of global warming the productivity of land percent higher than prices around the turn of the
is based not merely on its capacity to generate food century, and continued expansion of biofuels is
and fiber but also to store carbon. Using land for likely to maintain tight crop markets that can again
one purpose involves serious tradeoffs with the trigger huge price increases if weather falters in any
others. Biofuels helped generate the conditions for particular year. By the end of 2008,
this education. at least ten major
At the same time, academics (including this author)
Spurred by subsidies and mandates of various began estimating formally what environmentalists technical institutions
kinds, biofuel production began to grow rapidly in in developing countries had concluded on their had released
the United States and Europe in the 1990s and by own, that devoting productive cropland to fuels in highly cautionary
2007 provided 1.8 percent of the world’s transport the United States and Europe would drive farmers to harshly critical
fuels (OECD 2008b). Studies emerged claiming around the world to clear more land to replace reports on biofuels.
that the world could meet half or more of world the food. This clearing threatens not only valuable
energy needs and still feed its people even while habitats but the release of large quantities of carbon
devoting much of its agricultural land to produce dioxide (Searchinger 2008a; Fargione 2008). Plants
bioenergy (National Research Council 2000; and soils hold at least three atoms of carbon for
Fischer 2001; Hoogwijk 2004). At the end of 2007, every atom in the atmosphere, and land use change
the U.S. government imposed and the European has contributed around 20 percent of carbon
Commission proposed even larger mandates for dioxide emissions in recent decades (Watson 2001).
oil companies to mix biofuels into their sales of These papers argued in essence that biofuels were
gasoline and diesel and to do so quickly. For many helping to solve the energy side of climate change
people, realizing the potential of biofuels depended only by making the land-use side worse.
only on the degree of world commitment and the
limited time it would take scientific researchers to By the end of 2008, at least ten major technical
find cheaper and more efficient ways of making institutions had released highly cautionary to
ethanol from biomass rather than food crops, in harshly critical reports on biofuels. In addition to
particular from new breeds of rapidly growing the World Bank and FAO, they included the Joint
grasses and trees. Research Center of the European Commission,
the European Economic and Social Committee,
Yet even by the end of 2007, world cereal prices and national technical agencies in the United
had more than doubled from levels between 1999 Kingdom and the Netherlands (for a summary, see
and 2002, while vegetable oil prices had roughly Searchinger 2008d). These institutions called on
tripled (FAO 2008, Figure 1). As prices rose yet developed countries to change their policies.
further in the spring of 2008, the poor in many
developing countries rioted, reputable agencies The challenges to biofuels mostly derive from this
such as the Food and Agriculture Organization competition with food and forest, yet other critics
(FAO) and the World Bank attributed a significant have challenged also their high economic costs
part of the price rise to biofuels, and the press in and their relatively modest inherent efficiencies
the United States and Europe took notice. With compared to other renewable fuels and other uses
the global recession and good harvests in 2008, of biomass. As these criticisms have mounted,
Evaluating Biofuels 3
The consequences of using land to make fuel
defenses have of course emerged. While impacts of
biofuels on retail food prices in the United States
and Europe have sometimes been exaggerated, and
while the precise mix of land use effects is hard to
predict with certainty, the many technical agencies
have concluded correctly that biofuel policies
should proceed carefully and should focus on those
Biofuel policies sources of biomass that do not divert the productive
should proceed capacity of land. Despite this emerging consensus,
carefully and it is not at all clear that government policies will
should focus on reflect this emerging view.
those sources
of biomass that
do not divert
the productive
capacity of land.
The world is a big place with roughly 1.5 billion The theoretical potential of biofuels to reduce
hectares of cropland, 3.5 billion hectares of greenhouse gas emissions depends on the capacity
grasslands or savannahs, and 4 billion hectares of of plants to take carbon dioxide out of the
forests (depending on definitions) (Watson 2001). atmosphere and store it as carbon in their tissues.
Each of these lands takes up carbon from the When cars burn fuels made from plants, they
atmosphere and provides benefits to mankind. But only put that carbon back into the atmosphere.
the carbon takes different forms, and the amount of By contrast, burning gasoline and diesel takes
carbon these lands take up, i.e. their productivity, carbon out of underground storage in the form The dominant
varies greatly. The vast bulk of biofuels today derive of crude oil and adds it to the atmosphere. Apart questions for
from the output of the world’s highly productive from all the energy and other emissions involved biofuel policy
lands, in particular its good croplands in the with producing biofuels, conventional calculations
today focus on the
United States, Europe, and Latin America. Using therefore view biofuels as carbon neutral.
costs and benefits
productive lands for biofuels, whether productive of
Lifecycle analyses explicitly show this uptake of of devoting
food, timber products, or carbon storage, competes
with other uses. The dominant questions for biofuel carbon in plants as the source of biofuels’ potential productive land
policy today focus on the costs and benefits of greenhouse gas benefits. A lifecycle analysis for to biofuels, rather
devoting productive land to biofuels, rather than to biofuels compares the greenhouse gas emissions than to other
other human needs. from biofuels with those from gasoline or diesel human needs.
fuel in the different stages of production and use.
A. F
undamental importance of land to the Table 1 sets out the emissions from the GREET
greenhouse gas equation model used commonly in the United States and
the model used by the British government. Row 1
With the U.S. election of Barack Obama, the shows the emissions involved in growing the biofuel
leading U.S. and European heads of state are plant, such as the tractor fuel and fertilizer, and for
now all committed to large, quick reductions in the gasoline side, the emissions from mining the
greenhouse gas emissions. Whatever other motives crude oil. Row 2 shows the emissions from refining
lie behind biofuels, biofuels are unlikely to prove the plants or crude oil into ethanol, gasoline, diesel,
acceptable over the next several decades unless they or biodiesel. Row 3 shows the emissions from
dramatically reduce greenhouse gases. Indeed, many burning the fuel in a vehicle, and these emissions
world leaders, including Obama, have proposed an are essentially identical for biofuels and fossil fuels.
80 percent reduction in greenhouse gases by 2050. Adding up these three columns in row 6 shows that
Because some sources of greenhouse gas emissions in these stages alone biofuels from crops produce
can be controlled only to a limited degree, and others more greenhouse gases than gasoline, and biofuels
will avert control at all, those new energy sources that from cellulose produce roughly the same emissions
can be developed will have to be virtually emissions- as gasoline. But critically, conventional lifecycle
free to achieve anything approaching that goal. analyses award biofuels a carbon credit for the
carbon taken up by the plants incorporated into the
Land use plays a critical role in calculating the
biofuel, shown in row 4, which is what generates
greenhouse gas benefits and costs of biofuels.
the greenhouse gas benefit as shown in row 7.
Unfortunately, we now know that previous
calculations of greenhouse gas benefits were Unfortunately, growing plants for biofuels requires
highly flawed because they provided a one-sided land, and that land is not brought into existence
accounting of the use of land. to grow biofuels. If not used for biofuels, land
Evaluating Biofuels 5
The consequences of using land to make fuel
Understanding the role of land in comparing greenhouse gas emissions from biofuels
and conventional fuels
Why calculating land use change just means accounting for the costs of using land as well as the benefits
Table 1. GREET and U.K. default values CO2 emissions for various fuels, grams (CO2 equivalent)
per mega joule of energy in fuel
GREET GREET
GREET Corn Biomass GREET
Gasoline Ethanol Ethanol Diesel
1 Production Emissions 4 24 10 5
2 Refining and Retail Transport 15 40 9 11
3 Combustion 72 71 71 68
Land Use Benefit carbon removed from air by
Land Use Effects
4 0 –62 –62 0
plants used for biofuels
Land Use Cost emissions from cropland
expansion to replace crops on land diverted
5 0 104 111 0
to biofuels (as estimated by Searchinger et al.
2008a/Searchinger & Heimlich 2008)
Evaluating Biofuels 7
The consequences of using land to make fuel
credit biofuels with the carbon taken up in plants Yet, most hectares productive enough to produce
grown on that land. Without this carbon credit, average U.S. corn yields would also regenerate into
biofuels show no benefits. If land use is to be trees if left alone.2 That would sequester carbon
counted, the question must be whether using land dioxide in the branches, roots, and soil for decades
for biofuels generates a net benefit, not a gross one. at a probable rate of 7.5 to 12 tons.3 Using that spare
Just as a proper economic study of biofuels cannot hectare for corn ethanol would therefore increase
assume that land comes rent-free, so a greenhouse carbon dioxide in the air compared to leaving
Most hectares gas accounting cannot assume that land comes it alone and allowing it to regenerate into trees.
productive enough carbon free. Unless lifecycle analyses calculate land Biofuels in the tropics have a similar result. One
to produce use on a net basis, including both benefits and study calculated annual biofuel savings of sugarcane
average U.S. corn costs, they are crediting biofuels with a gain only for at the high end at roughly 9 tons per hectare
yields would also moving carbon from one box to another. per year, and palm oil at 7.5 (Gibbs 2008), but
regenerate into reforestation rates in the tropics probably sequester
B. The carbon opportunity cost carbon dioxide at rates of 14 to 28 tons per year
trees if left alone.
(Righelato 2007).
Using that spare Because biofuels are essentially a land use strategy,
hectare for corn the land’s carbon opportunity cost provides the Converting an existing mature forest to produce
ethanol would simplest, and in many ways best, method for ethanol is typically worse. Depending on the forest
calculating whether the strategy reduces greenhouse type, the forest would give up from 355 to 900 tons
therefore increase
gas emissions. This method compares the carbon of carbon dioxide within a few years, which means
carbon dioxide in
savings from using land to make biofuels, which is 12 to 30 tons per year over 30 years.4 If the hectare
the air compared
based on the gasoline and diesel fuel they displace, were to come out of younger, regrowing forests,
to leaving it alone with the carbon savings of leaving land in its the up-front loss of carbon would be lower, but
and allowing it existing use or using it in other potential ways. the transition would also sacrifice ongoing carbon
to regenerate
sequestration from the regrowing trees of probably
into trees. To illustrate this cost, imagine a hypothetical
at least 7 tons per hectare per year. In either case,
spare and bare hectare of good U.S. land in the
using the land for biofuels sacrifices more carbon
Midwestern United States (a hectare is 2.47 acres),
a hectare that society can direct into one use or
another. If used to grow corn for ethanol at the corn 2
Many corn acres are in land that was originally prairie, which
yields expected in 2015, and accounting for the generates large carbon sequestration benefits as well as potential
forage for animals, but without deliberate effort today to install
value of food by-products, that hectare will replace fire on the landscape, most corn acres would regenerate as forest.
enough gasoline to save three tons of carbon 3
The lower figure represents an average annual carbon seques-
dioxide according to the most commonly used tration of re-growing European evergreen and deciduous forests,
“GREET” model (Searchinger 2008a).1 incorporating disturbances such as fire and harvest as estimated
by Dr. Richard Houghton at the Woods Hole Research Center
and includes wood harvests (Searchinger 2008a, Supporting
Online Materials Table D-9). A survey of carbon studies of forest
plantations in the United States estimated average sequestration
rates of more than 13 tons of carbon dioxide per year, similar
to figures cited by the IPCC (Jackson 2004; Watson 2001)—and
1
According to GREET, the hectare’s worth of ethanol saves 1.8
while plantation forestry concentrates carbon in harvestable tree
tons of carbon dioxide, but the process generates distillers grains
stock, there is no reason to believe it sequesters more carbon
that provide an amount of animal feed equivalent to four tenths
overall than natural regeneration.
of a hectare of corn according to some recent analysis (Klop-
fenstein 2008). In effect, because only 0.6 hectares of good corn 4
These figures represent a range of temperate and tropical
land is really being used to save 1.8 tons of carbon dioxide, one forest types based on figures cited in Gibbs (2008), Searchinger
hectare saves 3 tons. (2008b) and Fargione (2008).
Evaluating Biofuels 9
The consequences of using land to make fuel
already contributes 17 percent of the world’s total Reduced food consumption
greenhouse gases (Barker 2007), and allowing more
land to retain more carbon is the only way to address All three effects from biofuels occur because
this challenge. Using productive land for biofuels diverting crops or cropland raises prices, triggering
inherently makes this challenge harder to solve. a market response. As one market response,
demand for crops declines. The last 18 months have
C. W
hat happens when biofuels divert reminded us why increased crop prices are not a
existing cropland good idea.
The biofuel mandates of the United States and Europe Between 2000 and the spring of 2008, world cereal
both exclude biofuels from feedstock grown on newly- prices rose 300 percent and vegetable oil prices
cleared forests and many grasslands. Champions by 400 percent (FAO 2008a). Reasonable weather
of biofuels usually agree that emissions from such calmed panicked markets by the fall, and the
direct changes in land use should count in global worldwide economic recession has further lowered
warming accounting. The dispute lies in whether prices. As a result, news accounts suggest that prices
and how to calculate indirect land use changes when have collapsed. But even in the midst of the global
biofuels divert existing cropland. Although the recession in the winter of 2009, rapeseed oil and corn
opportunity cost analysis provides a useful way of prices, primary biofuel crops, have remained more
understanding these costs, it does not answer what than 50 percent higher than in 2000-2002.8
will actually happen to world land use. This answer
requires economic models, and estimating land use To the extent biofuel critics have blamed these rises
change due to biofuels has touched off a wave of in crop price for increased retail food prices in
different modeling efforts. To date the analyses all the United States and Europe, they have probably
show significant emissions from land use change exaggerated. Crop prices are a small fraction of
(e.g., Gurgel 2007; Hertel 2008; OECD 2008b), but in the retail food prices paid in grocery stores, and
varying amounts. Should these differences matter? an even smaller fraction in restaurants. But the
impact on the poor in developing countries is
As a policy matter, perhaps not. Diverting cropland large, particularly on the roughly one billion people
to biofuels7 can only have three kinds of results: one, who live on $1 per day or less and who are likely
the food is not replaced; two, the food is replaced by already chronically malnourished, and the three
plowing up new cropland from forests or grasslands; billion who live on less than $2 per day (Runge
and three, farmers replace the crops by boosting 2007; FAO 2008b). The one billion poorest spend
yields on their existing land. The different economic more than half and sometimes up to 80 percent
models may predict different combinations of the of their incomes on food, and eat low in the food
three results, but they all represent serious costs, and chain, so doubling the price of crops and vegetable
the more productive the land devoted to biofuels, oil has a harsh effect. Some of that effect shows up
the greater these costs will be. in decreased food consumption and malnutrition.
Other effects show up in reduced income for
7
As noted, for many biofuel crops, a significant amount of food other necessities. Those poor farmers who have
value remains. For example, biodiesel uses only the vegetable oil significant crops to sell benefit from higher prices,
generated by soybeans and rapeseed, leaving the valuable meal
for livestock. Ethanol from corn or wheat creates a whole new
residue that also has feed value. For each hectare devoted to one
of these biofuels, only a part of the hectare is truly diverted from 8
Data from the International Monetary Fund online for rapeseed
food production. oil Rotterdam delivery and from the Chicago Board of Trade.
Evaluating Biofuels 11
The consequences of using land to make fuel
which even in a recession are significantly higher roughly the same amount of carbon overall.9
than long-term averages. Large annual increases in Expanding into drier lands sacrifices less carbon
biofuels called for by government policies also imply per hectare, but because yields are lower (at least
continuing tightness in world markets and therefore without irrigation), more land is needed. Using a
a high risk that poor harvest years or other factors mature, carbon-rich forest sacrifices more carbon
could again touch off extraordinary price increases up front, but using a regrowing forest foregoes
similar to those in the spring of 2008. more carbon sequestration over time. The different
Higher crop prices land uses will not always balance out entirely, and
imply that some of Higher crop prices imply that some of the crops some lands are exceptionally rich in carbon, such
diverted to biofuels are not replaced, which as peatlands, but there is a kind of “conservation
the crops diverted
dampens greenhouse gas emissions. How much of productivity” principle: The better the land
to biofuels are
depends on the amount of the reduction in food, used for biofuels, the more biofuels but also the
not replaced, and one recent model analysis of corn ethanol
which dampens higher carbon cost of converting that land from its
for the California Air Resources Board finds that alternative use.10
greenhouse gas perhaps half of the diverted food (after accounting
emissions. To most for by-products) is not replaced. Most model 9
A great deal of cropland in Eastern Europe was abandoned in
people, however, analyses find smaller impacts, and at least one the 1990s. If that were to revert half to forest and half to grass-
land and a hectare resequesters 75 percent of its original carbon
these reductions leading economist has marveled at the small by 30 years from now, the cost of devoting that hectare to bio-
in demand reduction in demand that occurred despite the fuels equals 328 tons according to estimates of original carbon
stocks of European forest and grassland presented in Tables D-9
are probably sharp rise in prices in 2007 (Westhof 2008). To and D-10 of Searchinger et al. (2008b). That figure is roughly the
a worse result most people, however, these reductions in demand same as the 337 tons per hectare released on average from the
mix of forests and savannahs converted in Latin America in the
than agricultural are probably a worse result than agricultural 1990s (Searchinger 2008a).
expansion because too large a share of these
expansion 10
One recent paper, using a crop tillage model, found that land
reductions falls on the world’s most unfortunate. converted from grassland and forest to cropland would actually
regain and even add soil carbon quickly if planted using no-till
Agricultural land expansion and a winter cover crop (Kim 2009). (No-till drills a hole for
a seed and drops in the seed without turning over the soil.)
At a minimum this modeled result does not correspond with
In a second response to diverted food, farmers the differences in soil carbon typically found in croplands and
expand cropland or pasture. This expansion releases grasslands in the United States and elsewhere. New studies have
also cast serious doubt on a critical premise behind the model
carbon dioxide as discussed above. “Expansion” due that no-till farming builds soil carbon: studies that look at the
to biofuels in some regions may also include keeping whole soil profile do not find benefits on average (Baker 2007;
Blanco-Canqui 2008). No-till farming also tends to trigger more
cropland in production that would otherwise revert to releases of nitrous oxide, a powerful greenhouse gas, which by
forest or grassland. some estimates would largely eliminate the greenhouse gas sav-
ings from the conventional estimated soil benefit of no-till (Dux-
bury 2008). Although any increase in nitrous oxide contribution
The amount of carbon released from new cropland would last for more than 100 years, even occasional plowing
depends on the type of land converted, but several would probably release much or all of the increased carbon
factors work to balance out the significance of from no-till if it does occur (Grandy 2007). In total, serious
doubts about soil carbon gains from no-till, the easy loss of any
where the expansion occurs. For example, land gains that do occur, and the increase in nitrous oxide all make it
expansion in Brazil into rainforest and savannah unlikely that no-till farming by farmers who convert grassland
and forest will significantly reduce the greenhouse gas emissions
sacrifices higher levels of already stored carbon, but associated with agricultural expansion. This paper (Kim 2009)
bringing recently abandoned cropland in Eastern also failed to recognize that loss of soil carbon is only part of the
carbon cost. For example, because the sacrifice of grassland also
Europe back into production sacrifices more future sacrifices some meat or dairy production, it will trigger at least
carbon sequestration, and each may sacrifice some further land use change to replace that food and associated
carbon loss.
Evaluating Biofuels 13
The consequences of using land to make fuel
waters (Vitousek et al. 1997). Agriculture already predicts that cereal and oilseed yields will
consumes 85 percent of all the freshwater grow at 0.8 percent per year based on recent
consumed by people, causing great harm trends (Trostle 2008), cereal yields would
to aquatic species and creating competition need to grow at twice that rate by 2020 just to
with other water needs (Foley 2005; Ambler- feed the population without plowing up more
Edwards 2009). In many countries, there is forest and grassland.12 Requiring that biofuels
little or no potential irrigated water left, and supply 10 percent of the world’s transportation
Many controllable mining of groundwater threatens existing fuel by 2020, which has become a ubiquitous
factors could in irrigation. Shortages have already caused the national policy, would essentially require that
theory change UN to organize attention to the freshwater cereal yield growth rates triple the USDA’s
the world land crisis (UNESCO 2006), problems which current projection to avoid land use change.
use situation for climate change is expected to exacerbate. Meanwhile, growth rates for oil seeds would
good or bad, but Intensifying agriculture implies greater have to double present growth rates, rates for
reliance on chemical inputs and irrigation sugarcane would have to increase sevenfold, and
if those factors
water and will exacerbate these problems. rates for palm oil yields would have to increase
are independent
threefold.13 The world’s capacity to boost yields,
of biofuels, they • Some of the methods of intensifying agriculture at least within a limited time, is not unlimited
neither make will increase greenhouse gas emissions as well. and itself represents an opportunity cost.
biofuels a better For example, data gathered by the Iowa Soybean
strategy nor a Association indicate that while on average Put simply, the world already needs to find ways
worse one. farmers today use only around one pound to stimulate this productive capacity to reduce
of nitrogen per bushel of corn, it takes eight greenhouse gas emissions from land use change.
additional pounds of nitrogen to produce one Using that capacity to replace food diverted to
more bushel of corn (Iowa Soybean Association biofuels makes it much harder and much less likely
2005). Nitrogen use generates nitrous oxide, that the world will be able to avoid significant
a powerful greenhouse gas, and boosting ongoing deforestation as it makes more food for
yields through additional nitrogen in the more people.
U.S. Corn Belt may trigger more greenhouse
gas emissions than replacing food through D. Doubts about the land use challenge
additional cropland use around the world.11
Defenses against these land use concerns have
• Because the present rate of yield increases emerged over the last year. In my view they are not
is not adequate to avoid the need for more convincing.
cropland around the world, the world already
needs to boost yields dramatically to avoid 12
The growth rates presented in this paragraph are based on
further deforestation. For example, while calculations by Ralph Heimlich and the author using projected
world food demands by the OECD and FAO for 2017 (OECD
the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 2008a), extrapolated to 2020, and FAO data on yield growth
rates for different major crop types from 1996-2005.
11
According to Searchinger et al. 2008a, land use change caused 13
These calculations prepared by Ralph Heimlich used a
emissions of 104 grams of greenhouse gases, CO2 equivalent for scenario for world biofuel demand developed by Etech4 for the
each mega joule of corn ethanol (a unit of energy). If instead “Gallagher” review in the U.K., a scenario that projects future
that corn were replaced through extra fertilizer in Iowa, the biofuel sources at rates mostly proportional to current produc-
additional seven pounds of nitrogen per bushel at a 2 percent tion sources but with a growing share for sugarcane ethanol. It
rate of formation into nitrous oxide would generate 132 grams of also uses projected increases in food demand from OECD 2008a
greenhouse gases, CO2 equivalent. through 2017 and extrapolates them to 2020.
Evaluating Biofuels 15
The consequences of using land to make fuel
soybean production in the United States came back production, by seven million acres, opening up
at the expense of other crops. Meanwhile, soybean more U.S. cropland than predicted by economic
production in Brazil has yet to surge ahead. Ethanol studies in 2007. Meanwhile, rapid cotton expansion
defenders claim these developments cast doubt on in India and China have kept world cotton prices
indirect land use change. down and have led to much larger reductions in
U.S. cotton acreage than predicted by analysts as
Partly, the distinction may reflect the time horizon. farmers shifted to soybeans, corn, and other more
In the short term, many other factors can influence profitable crops. These market responses still
market responses: a high Brazilian currency involve expansions of agricultural land, such as
exchange rate and a soybean disease outbreak replacement of CRP grasslands, yet the shifts may
have limited the recent expansion of soybeans differ from prior predictions. Ultimately, markets
in Brazil. But precise market responses may also have to respond to biofuels in one of the three ways
prove unpredictable because of government and described above, and land for biofuels expansion
other market developments. In the United States, will be one of these responses. The fact that precise
the U.S. Congress reduced the Conservation responses may be hard to predict is not necessarily a
Reserve Program (CRP), which holds land out of cause for comfort.
The many biofuel studies from international and potentially provide most of the U.S. transportation
European technical agencies that emerged over the fuel (Perlack 2005). Roughly two-thirds of that
last year recognized that biofuel competition over biomass would avoid competition with land as it
land expresses itself not merely in greenhouse gas consists of crop residues, the wood left behind in
emissions, but also in hunger and in environmental logging operations, and other forms of waste. Some
impacts from additional agricultural intensification, of the world studies that have focused on biomass
and that all are undesirable (Searchinger 2008d). potential have also found huge theoretical potential
With differing degrees of vehemence, each study for using timber and agricultural residues, although Much of the
recommended that biofuel policy should focus mostly in the developing world (Hoogwijk 2005). case for biofuels
on feedstocks that do not significantly compete If these studies are correct, then there is even less has relied on
with alternative land use needs. In the U.K., for justification for promoting biofuels that compete
the potential
example, the “Gallagher Review” by the Renewable with other land use needs.
availability of
Fuels Agency broadly canvassed expert opinion,
Waste and residual biomass also has the advantage waste biomass.
commissioned technical reviews, and concluded:
“Although there are high levels of uncertainty in that it is cheap or free. Studies at Purdue University Waste and
the data, the science and in the modeling of the and Iowa State, among others, have calculated that residual biomass
indirect effects of biofuels, the balance of evidence corn stalks will provide a much more economical also has the
shows a significant risk that current policies will source of biomass than planting perennial grasses advantage that it
lead to net greenhouse gas emissions and loss on the good cropland of the U.S. Corn Belt—in part is cheap or free.
of biodiversity through habitat destruction” as because ethanol demand for crops is pushing up
well as “rising prices” of concern for the world’s the price of that good cropland. Exceptional forest
poor (U.K. RFA 2008b). The RFA and these other supplies may also occasionally become available. In
agencies have drawn a distinction not just between Canada and now parts of the United States, rising
food crops and biomass, but between feedstocks temperatures have allowed pine bark beetles to
that use productive land and those that do not. kill millions of hectares of pine forests. Using that
As the Gallagher Review recommended, “Policies biomass before it burns for biofuels would provide
must therefore be focused upon ensuring that many benefits.
agricultural expansion to produce biofuel feedstock Utilizing these wastes still raises major logistical
is directed toward suitable idle or marginal land and environmental challenges. For example, timber
or utilizes appropriate wastes, residues, or other harvest waste is only available after a harvest, which
noncrop feedstock.” at best occurs only on multi-year cycles. To keep
What is the potential and what are the challenges of a biofuel plant running, it must therefore have
these alternative feedstocks? access to a range of forest wastes within a tight
drawing radius. That raises particular questions
Waste biomass about using timber waste from federal lands, and
many conservationists have feared that supply
Much of the case for biofuels has relied on the problems would lead to pressures to harvest actual
potential availability of waste biomass. In the trees to keep biofuel plants running. Small-scale,
United States, the Department of Energy has helped mobile ethanol facilities would be most desirable.
make the case for biofuels by estimating potential Crop residues, such as corn stalks, would provide
biomass at over a billion tons, enough potentially a steadier supply to a biofuel plant, but new
to make over 100 billion gallons, which could collection systems must evolve to harvest them and
Evaluating Biofuels 17
The consequences of using land to make fuel
bring them to a plant. Crop residues also play a vital Unfortunately, no one has yet produced a map
role protecting against soil erosion and maintaining identifying specific good examples.
carbon and nutrients in soils, and crop residues
worldwide already provide household energy One research group at the Carnegie Institution
use, building materials, and bedding and feed for has analyzed potential biomass from abandoned
animals (Smil 1999). Keeping harvests of residues agricultural lands that have not yet reverted to
to acceptable levels and in association with proper forest, using that as one definition of marginal
Former forests management presents a significant challenge. land (Field 2008). If 100 percent of the biomass
converted to generated by each such hectare were transferred
Municipal waste may hold the most promise at 100 percent efficiency into biomass energy,
grazing provide
because it is already concentrated and may come the study estimates such lands could provide 7
perhaps the most
with the additional financial reward of a tipping fee percent of the world’s primary energy needs today,
promising set of for getting rid of it. One analysis at Berkeley put the including more than 20 percent of the transport
lands. potential for ethanol from municipal waste in the fuel. But it will take at a minimum 50 percent of the
United States at 2 to 9 percent of 2003 U.S. gasoline energy in this biomass to turn the other energy into
demand (Jones 2007). a liquid fuel. And in light of the dispersed spread
of these lands, it would be remarkable if 20 percent
Marginal land could be economically utilized for biomass. This
analysis, therefore, suggests that viewed realistically,
Attention has alternatively focused on using
this definition of “marginal lands” could perhaps
“marginal land.” The Indian government has
yield 2 percent of the world’s transport fuel.
called for the conversion of millions of hectares of
“wastelands” to biofuel production. The Roundtable Another more forgiving approach to “marginal
on Sustainable Biofuels, a broad multi-stakeholder land” focuses on the world’s grasslands and
dialogue, has held workshops on identifying savannah. Grasslands and savannahs occupy 3.5
marginal lands. Yet to provide a large greenhouse billion hectares, well more than twice the world’s
gas benefit, lands must be marginal not merely cropland. Yet, these lands are mostly quite dry, and
from an agricultural standpoint but also from any nearly all grazed, which means they already provide
carbon-growth standpoint, such as forest. And food. As a broad category, there is no inherent
that raises a question. If lands are marginal for reason to believe these lands would be more highly
these other purposes, why would they be highly productive of biofuels than they are of carbon for
productive of biomass? Most “marginal lands” are other purposes. Many savannahs also have great
dry, and even drought-tolerant biofuel crops, such biological value. Brazil’s Cerrado has more than
as jatropha, produce much lower yields in dry areas. 7,000 plant species, 44 percent of which are found
Many “marginal lands” are used by some of the nowhere else (Klink 2005).
world’s poorest people. Many of India’s wastelands
are not physically capable of growing anything, and Former forests converted to grazing provide
forestation presents another important option for perhaps the most promising set of lands. These
those that are (Balooni 2007). The most promising lands receive enough rainfall to grow biomass
lands for biofuels would be those that have suffered well, but as a whole are underutilized even though
high soil degradation that undermines their use they supply meat and dairy products. Much of the
for food crops, but that might be amenable to case for biofuel production in Brazil rests on the
fast-growing grasses or newly-engineered trees. broad availability of such low intensity cattle lands.
Evaluating Biofuels 19
The consequences of using land to make fuel
4 Financial and Efficiency Concerns
Evaluating Biofuels 21
The consequences of using land to make fuel
5 The Future of Biofuel Policies
Despite the welter of concerned studies that came for accounting for emissions from indirect land
out in 2008, the European Union in December use change by the end of 2010, but whether that
enacted a directive that requires each country to mechanism is ultimately incorporated into the
consume 10 percent of its transport fuel by 2020 in directive is subject to future decision-making.
the form of renewable energy. That might include
renewably-produced electricity but probably means These approaches raise the question of whether
biofuels for the most part. This law joins the Energy incorporating changes in land use into greenhouse
Independence and Security Act passed by the gas calculations provides a sufficient defense
U.S. Congress in December 2007, which requires against these adverse land use changes. Estimating
36 billion gallons of biofuels by 2022, four times these emissions requires economic and land use
current levels. models. There are many challenges, and two
questions rise above all:
To avoid adverse land use changes, each directive
includes some restrictions on the kinds of lands 1. How should governments resolve modeling
that can be directly plowed up to grow biofuels: uncertainties, including those regarding yield
in the United States, virtually any forest or natural responses to price discussed above, and possibly
grassland; in Europe, only categories of high changing government land use policies?
carbon, or biologically diverse land. Unfortunately 2. In light of these uncertainties, how should
these land use rules by themselves will have little governments handle risk? As the EU’s Joint
significance because any producer could get around Research Center found, if palm oil expansion
them simply by building two tanks. For example, into peatlands replaces only 2.5 percent of
a palm oil producer could use one tank to hold all Europe’s vegetable oil diverted to biodiesel,
food palm oil produced from already cleared forest the emissions from this land use change
and direct that oil to biodiesel and qualify for the alone eliminate the greenhouse gas benefits
European mandate. But a second tank could receive of European biodiesel (De Santi 2008). Of
palm oil from newly cleared plantations and supply course if that percentage is higher, as seems
the world’s great demand for palm oil for food. For likely, the impact becomes strongly adverse.
the world’s land use, the important factor is the total How should calculations reflect these risks?
level of crop demand, not the precise origin of any
particular crops. I believe the modeling analyses are robust enough
to show that using existing cropland for biofuels
Reflecting this problem, the U.S. law requires probably results in large carbon costs from land
that 21 of the 36 gallons reduce greenhouse gas use change that at a minimum keep the potential
emissions by at least 50 percent (60 percent for 16 greenhouse gas benefits from biofuels use low even
billion gallons) after taking account of emissions under favorable assumptions to biofuels. Using
from indirect land use change. Despite the strong good lands also presents a risk of extremely high
support for such an approach by the European carbon emissions that must be factored into the
Parliament, the final directive adopted in December equation. Faced with the obligation to develop
2007 represented a compromise with the European precise numbers, regulators would be wise to try to
Commission and the member states, led then by merge different model results while also building in
France. This directive does eventually require a 50 a factor to account for the risks. Biofuels made from
percent greenhouse gas reduction and requires that existing cropland and other reasonably productive
the European Commission propose a mechanism
Yet, even as the models should be robust enough to Such a policy would avoid one of the worst risks
make this showing, the focus only on the effects of of mandating a specific level of biofuels. Once
land use competition on greenhouse gases ignores the biofuels market responds to a mandate,
hunger and the other environmental impacts of governments put themselves in a position of having
such competition, including biodiversity, water to buy out the responding business should biofuels
Instead of
shortages, and pollution. Few people probably eventually prove to be environmentally unfriendly
subsidizing the
want to reward biofuels for increased hunger, yet or wholly uneconomic as new energy technologies
without consciously endorsing this approach, a sole evolve. A more measured subsidy focused on the biofuel per se,
focus on greenhouse gases would do so because reclamation of degraded land for biofuels avoids the an alternative
the greater the increases in hunger, the fewer the creation of this implicit guarantee, and reclaimed approach would
greenhouse gases from biofuels. As most of the land would provide other benefits even if the use of subsidize the
major agency reports have now recommended, biofuels are ultimately scaled back. production of the
biofuels should avoid or at least greatly minimize feedstock from
competition with food and forest altogether. That still leaves the question of whether we should
specific degraded
encourage biofuels at all, and if so, by how much
lands.
How could policy encourage only the biofuels and in what timeline. Much of the enthusiasm over
from these feedstocks as an administrative matter? biofuels obviously derived from the notion that
U.S. and European mandates for biofuels already biomass was carbon-free because it would always
recognize serious limitations on the kinds of grow again. This notion did not recognize that
feedstocks that are environmentally acceptable and using land to grow plants for biofuels means not
thus contemplate sophisticated certification systems growing them for something else.
to assure that biofuels meet. These certification
systems must tie fuels to the land used to grow The best case for biofuels lies in the difficulty of
them all around the world. That will provide many replacing all other transport fuels with other low-
incentives and opportunities to cheat. Experience carbon alternatives. Most people working with
has shown that it is hard even to keep Italian transport fuels believe that the most promising
olive oil from becoming adulterated with foreign- greenhouse strategy should focus on electrifying
produced walnut oil although the two oils are cars, and fueling that electricity with wind, solar,
chemically distinct. When biomass sources differ or coal associated with the capture and storage of
only on the basis of where they are grown, they will its carbon emissions. But that strategy depends
be even harder to tell apart once they have entered on major progress in batteries, long-distance,
world commerce. smoothly-functioning electricity grids, and the
evolution of these low-carbon electricity sources.
Instead of subsidizing the biofuel per se, an And few alternatives appear to exist to biofuels as an
alternative approach would subsidize the ultimate fuel source for airplanes. Biofuels provide
production of the feedstock from specific degraded one of our best options for providing transport
lands. If the goal is to try to produce biofuels on energy in the long term for those sources.
otherwise unproductive land, this approach allows
the identification of such lands up front. Similarly, Yet the long term is not the short term and implies
different strategies. In the short term, greenhouse
Evaluating Biofuels 23
The consequences of using land to make fuel
gas reduction strategies for transport fuels should
focus on pushing electrification technologies.
In the short term, truly sustainable biomass is
more efficiently used for electricity and heat. In
the short term, greenhouse gas emissions can be
most cheaply and readily reduced by focusing our
money elsewhere.
Public policy
should now focus For the long term use of biofuels, public policy
should now focus on technological development
on showing we
and demonstrating that we can in fact produce
can produce one
biofuels while avoiding competition with food
billion gallons the and forest and can administer a system that does
right way. so. Instead of 50 to 100 billion gallons produced
however and as quickly as we can, public policy
should now focus on showing we can produce at
least one billion gallons the right way.
Abbott, P.C., Hurt, C., & Tyner, W.E. (2008). What’s Bruinsma, J. (Ed.). (2003). World Agriculture:
Driving Food Prices. Farm Foundation. Oak Toward 2015/30, an FAO Perspective. Food and
Brook, Ill. Agriculture Organization of the UN. Rome.
Ambler-Edwards, S., et al. (2009). Food Futures: Choi, Jung-sup & Hemberger, P.G. (1993). How
Rethinking UK Strategy. Royal Institute of Sensitive Are Crop Yields to Price Changes
International Affairs Chatham House. London. and Farm Programs? Journal of Agriculture &
Applied Economics, 25, 237-44.
Argonne National Laboratory. (2007). Greenhouse
gases, regulated emissions, and energy use in De Santi, G. (Ed.), Edwards, R., Szekeres, S.,
transportation (GREET) computer model. Neuwahl, F. & Mahieu, V. (2008). Biofuels in the
Argonne, Illinois. European Context: Facts and Uncertainties. Joint
Research Center of the European Commission.
Baker, J.M., Ochsner, T.E., Ventera R.T., & Griffis, T.J. Ispra, Italy.
(2007). Tillage and Soil Carbon Sequestration—
What Do We Really Know? Agriculture, Duxbury, J.M. (2005). Reducing Greenhouse
Ecosystems and Environment, 118, 1-5. Warming Potential by Carbon Sequestration in
Soils: Opportunities, Limits and Tradeoffs in
Balooni, K. K. Singh. (2007). Prospects and R. Lal, N. Uphoff, B.A. Steward & D.O. Hansen
Problems of Afforestation of Wastelands (Eds.), Climate Change and Global Food Security
in India: A Synthesis of Macro and Micro- (435-450). Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press.
Perspectives. Geoforum, 38, 1276-1289.
European Commission Directorate General for
Banse, M., van Meijl, H., & Woltjer, G. (2008). Agricultural and Rural Development. (2007).
The Impact of First Generation Biofuels on The Impact of a Minimum 10% Obligation for
Global Agricultural Production (Working Paper, Biofuel use in the EU-27 in 2020 on Agricultural
Agricultural Economic Research Institute (LEI), Markets (AGRI G-2/WM D). Brussels, Belgium.
Wageningen UR). The Hague, Netherlands.
Fargione, J., et al. (2008). Land Clearing and the
Barker et al. (2007). Technical Summary in Climate Biofuel Carbon Debt. Science, 319, 1235-38.
Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of
Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Field, C., Campbell, J.E. & Lobell, D.B. (2008).
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Biomass Energy, the Scale of the Potential
Climate Change. Cambridge University Press: Resources. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 23,
Metz, B., Davidson, O.R., Bosch, P.R., Dave, R. & 65-72.
Meyer, L.A. (Eds.).
Fischer, G. & Schrattenholzer, L. (2001). Global
Blanco-Canqui, H., & Lal, R. (2008). No-tillage and Bioenergy Potentials through 2050. Biomass &
Soil-Profile Carbon Sequestration: An On-Farm Bioenergy, 20, 151–159.
Assessment. Soil Science Society of America
Journal, 72, 693-701. Foley, J.A., et al. (2005). Global consequences of
land use. Science, 309, 570-574.
Evaluating Biofuels 25
The consequences of using land to make fuel
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Jones, A., O’Hare, M., & Farrell, A. (2007). Biofuel
Nations (FAO). (2008a). Soaring Food Prices: Facts, Boundaries: Estimating the Medium-Term Supply
Perspectives, Impacts and Actions Required. Rome. Potential of Domestic Biofuels. UC Berkeley
Transportation Sustainability Research Center.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the Berkeley, California.
UN (FAO). (2008b). The State of Food and
Agriculture: Biofuels: Prospects, Risks and Khosla, V., Searchinger, T., & Houghton, R.A.
Opportunities. Rome. (2008). Biofuels Clarifying Assumptions:
Exchange. Science, 322, 372-374. doi: 10.1126/
Gibbs, H.K., et al. (2008). Carbon Payback Times science.322.5900.371b.
for Tropical Biofuel Expansion: The Effects of
Changing Yield and Technology. Environmental Kim, H., Kim, S. & Dale B.E. (2009). Biofuels, Land
Research Letters, 3, 034001. Use Change, and Greehouse Gas Emissions:
Some Unexplored Variables. Environmental
Grandy, S.A. & Robertson, G.P. (2007). Land- Science & Technology, 43, 961-967.
use intensity effects on soil organic carbon
accumulation rates and mechanisms. Ecosystems, Kline, K.L, Dale, V.H., & Searchinger, T. (2008).
10, 58-73. Biofuels: Effects on Land and Fire: Exchange.
Science, 321, 200.
Gurgel, A., Reilly, J.M. & Paltsev, S. (2007).
Potential Land Use Implications of a Global Klink, C. & R. Machado. (2005). Conservation of
Biofuels Industry. Journal of Agriculture & Food the Brazilian Cerrado. Conservation Biology 19,
Industrial Organization, 5, Article 9. 707-713
Hertel, T.W., Tyner, W.E. & Birur, D.K. (2008). Klopfenstein, T. J., Erickson, G.E., & Bremer V.R.
Biofuels for All? Understanding the Global (2008). Board Invited Review: Use of Distallers
Impacts of Multinational Mandates. Center for Byproducts in the Beef Cattle Feeding Industry.
Global Trade Analysis, Purdue University. Journal of Animal Science, 86, 1223-1231.
Hoogwijk, M., A., Faaij, B., Eiuckhout, B. de Vries, Kolmes, S.A. (March, 2008). Food, Land Use
& Turkenburg, W. (2005). Potential of Biomass Changes, and Biofuels [E-Letter Responses].
Energy Out to 2100, for Four IPCC SRESS Science, 319, 1238-1240. doi: 10.1126/
Land-Use Scenarios. Biomass and Bioenergy, 29, science.1151861.
225-57.
Menz, K M. & P. Pardey. (1983) Technology
International Energy Administration (IEA). and U.S. corn yields: Plateaus and price
(2004). Biofuels for Transport: An International Responsiveness. Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 65, 558-563
Perspective. Paris.
Mitchell, D. (2008). A Note on Rising Food Prices
International Energy Administration (IEA). (2008). (Policy Research Working Paper 4682).
Energy Technology Perspectives. Paris. World Bank Development Prospects Group.
Washington, DC.
Jackson, R. & Schlesinger, W.H. (2004). Curbing the
U.S. Carbon Deficit. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, 45, 15827-15829.
Searchinger, T., et al. (2008a). Use of U.S. Croplands U.K. Renewable Fuels Agency. (2008a) Carbon and
for Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gas Sustainability Reporting Within the Renewable
Emissions Through Land Use Change. Science, Transport Fuel Obligation Technical Guidance
319, 1238-1240. Part Two Carbon Reporting—Default Values and
Fuel Chains. London
Evaluating Biofuels 27
The consequences of using land to make fuel
U.K. Renewable Fuels Agency. (2008b). The
Gallagher Review of the Indirect Effects of Biofuel
Production. London.