HOME | SITE MAP

Earth Water Air Minds Bodies


The False Expectations of Biofuels as the Fuel of the Future

The Quick Facts: Biofuels have been hailed as a promising alternative to fossil fuels—a way to fuel our automobiles, while helping reduce greenhouse emissions and fossil fuel use, and increase national energy security and rural development. However, recent scientific studies provide a reality check, saying the production and use of biofuels will not fulfill any of these promises, and may actually result in more negative environmental effects. Scientists say the solution continues to be greater fuel efficiency and the use of renewable wind and solar energy.

If you haven’t heard about it yet, chances are you will soon. Biofuels are the fuel of the future. They are a sustainable fuel that will reduce greenhouse emissions, reduce fossil fuel use, increase national energy security, increase rural development, and all the while allow us to continue driving our internal combustion engine automobiles across the country. Or so many politicians, auto manufacturers, farmers, and even leading environmental organizations such as the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), say. This all sounds too good to be true. Unfortunately, as recent scientific studies have found, it is.

All about biofuels
Biofuels, also known as agrofuels, are fuels derived from organic materials, such as plants and animals. The most common source used to create biofuel is plants. Currently, the main biofuel on the market is ethanol, which is made from corn kernels. However, cellulosic biofuels, made from the leaves, stems and stalks of plants are also being used as biofuel. The palm plant is one such cellulosic biofuel.

The false expectations of biofuels
Because biofuels can be burned in existing technology—internal combustion engines, are usable in liquid form which makes transportation and handling easy, and are a renewable resource, they have been hailed as a promising alternative to petroleum. In fact, biofuels have looked so promising that Congress recently passed the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 with a mandate to increase biofuel production in the United States to 36-billion gallons per year by 2022, and states such as Massachusetts are considering biofuel bills that would require a blended use of diesel and home heating fuel and give tax relief for the use of gasoline that includes ethanol.

So what have been the biofuel promises and what is the new reality?
A reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Biofuel supporters say that the making and using of biofuels adds less carbon to the atmosphere than does the making and using of fossil fuels. According to the NRDC, by 2050, biofuels could reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by 1.7 billion tons per year—or more than 80 percent of current transportation-related emissions.
Reality check: According to recent scientific studies, including a 2007 study by Professor Paul Crutzen, who won a Nobel Prize for his work on ozone, the measurements of emissions from the burning of biofuels derived from rapeseed and corn actually produce more greenhouse gases than they save. While the burning of these fuels may produce less carbon dioxide than the burning of fossil fuels, they emit more nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas that is known to destroy ozone.

Additionally, according to a February 2008 study by The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and the University of Minnesota, the making and using of biofuels actually adds more carbon to the atmosphere when the effects of land-clearing are considered. Because most of the existing agricultural land in the world is used to create food for humans, new land must be cleared for biofuel production. According to the TNC and University of Minnesota study, “converting rainforests, peatlands, savannas, or grasslands to produce food-based biofuels in Brazil, Southeast Asia, and the United States creates a ‘biofuel carbon debt’ by releasing 17 to 420 times more carbon dioxide than the annual greenhouse gas reductions these biofuels provide by displacing fossil fuels.” Another 2008 study by Princeton University similarly found that “corn-based ethanol . . . nearly doubles greenhouse emissions over 30 years and increases greenhouse gases for 167 years.”

Reduce fossil fuel use and increase national security. As indicated by Congress’ passage of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, many supporters of biofuels hope they will increase the United States’ energy independence and thereby increase national security.
Reality Check: According to a TNC scientist, Congress’ biofuel mandate will only offset 14 percent of projected gasoline usage by the year 2022, and when accounting for the energy needed to produce ethanol, the true offset would only be 8 to 11 percent.

Increase rural development. Biofuel supporters tout the added benefit of rural development and poverty reduction. They say the production of biofuels would offer more agricultural jobs and manufacturing jobs. The NRDC notes that farmers growing 200 million tons of biomass in 2025 would make a profit of $5.1 billion per year.
Reality Check: Despite these benefits, biofuel opponents argue that policy and regulatory shortcomings that exist in agriculture and limit the potential of poverty production will continue with biofuels. Opponents argue that big industry will drive out the small farmers and actually result in fewer jobs.

Other concerns surrounding biofuels are human rights abuses, the effects of pesticide use on water supplies, loss of natural habitats and ecosystems, and the depletion of soil fertility and the long-term capability to maintain food production.

So what is the fuel of the future?
It appears that the consensus of recent scientific studies is that biofuels are not a viable long-term strategy for reducing climate change or meeting our energy needs. Environmental organizations, including the TNC and NRDC, do support biofuels made from agriculture and forest waste, native grasses—such as switchgrass, a perennial prairie grass that doesn’t require a lot of pesticides and fertilizers, and provides good wildlife habitat, and woody biomass grown on marginal lands unsuitable for crop production. But limiting the use of only these types of biofuels surely will not meet our fuel consumption needs or significantly reduce global warming.

What is the solution then? Environmentalists echo their multi-decade call. They say the solution continues to be greater fuel efficiency and the use of renewable wind and solar energy.

Information used in this article was found at the following sources, which you can visit if you want to find out more about this topic:

http://www.nature.org/initiatives/climatechange/features/art23819.html?src=search (This article posted on The Nature Conservancy's website provides a discussion of the results of the 2008 study on biofuels by the TNC and the University of Minnesota.)

http://www.nrdc.org/air/transportation/biofuels.asp (Natural Resources Defense Council article entitled, “Move Over Gasoline: Here Come Biofuels”)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biofuel (a very detailed article on biofuels provided by Wikipedia, “the free encyclopedia”)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/30/AR2006063001480.html (article posted on washingtonpost.com entitled, “The False Hope of Biofuels: For Energy and Environmental Reasons, Ethanol Will Never Replace Gasoline,” by James Jordan and James Powell, professors in Maglev Research Center at Polytechnic University of New York)

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/07/10/opinion/edholt.php (opinion in the International Herald Tribune, entitled “The biofuel myths,” by Eric Holt-Giménez)

“New push for renewable energy,” by Bruce Mohl, The Boston Globe, November 6, 2007.


Welcome to Real Mama, Inc