SCIENCE AT STAKE: Biofuels battle could play out in the National Academy of Sciences five years from now, if farm-state lawmakers have their way.
Image: LIANGJINJIAN/FLICKR
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
After a fierce battle over agricultural incentives in a landmark climate bill, Congress plans to ask the National Academy of Sciences to study how biofuel production in the Midwest can shift food production abroad, stimulating a wave of deforestation.
Tomorrow's expected vote in the House of Representatives on the climate bill would move the nation a step closer to a cap-and-trade system that would limit greenhouse gas emissions. But the bill's sponsors have made significant concessions to Agriculture Committee Chairman Colin Peterson (D–Minn.), who threatened to torpedo the legislation as it was written. President Obama is pressing for its passage, which would still have to work its way through the Senate in July to become law.
Environmentalists have walked a fine line between encouraging growth of the renewable energy sector and regulating it enough to ensure that it does not lead to increased greenhouse emissions as forests are cleared abroad for food production. Scientists believe that market forces and government incentives will cause domestic farmers to shift from food production to biofuels creating a demand for foreign agriculture to fill in the food gap. The technical term for this phenomenon is "indirect land-use change".
Taking into account indirect land-use change, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that corn-based ethanol will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by just 16 percent. That means it won't meet the threshold of 20 percent required to be classified as a renewable fuel and cannot receive the economic incentives the federal government promised to provide under a 2007 energy law. Biodiesel producers would also lose because they say that vegetable oils would not qualify under the restrictions, leaving only recycled restaurant grease and animal fats.
In sticking up for farm states, Peterson has now proposed an amendment to the legislation that would prevent such requirements from becoming part of renewable fuel or electricity standards for at least six years. At the end of a five-year period, the National Academy of Sciences will study the issue, and the EPA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture will decide whether indirect land-use changes can be accurately measured. In a statement yesterday, the American Coalition for Ethanol heralded the delay in ruling on biofuels, noting that the "agreement ensures that science, not politics, will determine whether the EPA can go forward with this highly controversial theory."
For many scientists, however, the question is not whether there are indirect impacts but rather how big they are. Environmentalists think it would be a mistake for the EPA to lower the bar for biofuels so soon. "We want the EPA to use the best science and economics to establish regulation," says Nathanael Greene of the National Resources Defense Council in New York City. "We recognize that the regulation is going to be imperfect so let's update it."
At the same time, there's rising sentiment that growing new crops to quench the thirst for biofuels is not the best strategy for reducing greenhouse emissions.
David Tilman, an ecologist at the University of Minnesota, who recently chaired a panel on alternative fuels for the National Research Council in Washington, D.C., says that the new standards should encourage the use of the half billion tons of biomass, such as forest slash, that is already available per annum. "We could have a policy that uses biomass sources with a minimal impact on indirect land use," he says.
See what we're tweeting about
29 Comments
Add CommentDeforestation reduces the available food supply. Plants are the principal converters of solar energy to sugars. The main foundation of all our food.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe have reduced the plant cover of our planet by over 25%. Our numbers have increased in the face of dwindling basic food production. Life forms other than ourselves have paid the price, wildlife is almost non existent on our planet today.
Reforestation & population control should be our number one priority. We can not stop the momentum that will push warming further, but vegetative cover will dampen and reduce its impact.
Melting ice will reduce temperature rises. The latent heat of melting will soak up a lot of energy that would otherwise have caused warming.
Reforestation, population control and increased biodiversity can slow the sixth extinction.
The discussion continues to focus on just ethanol; little has been published on the secondary markets associated with the by-products of ethanol production - high protein distillers grains, industrial CO2, and in some cases, biodiesel from the oil in the corn kernel. The 20% limit, while laudable, apears arbitrary; the current model needs to be reviewed to ensure that the underlying algorithm doesn't dismiss "by-product" production when developing a standard that appears to favor continued use of imported oil for our energy needs.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes! Make them pay. Ethanol is a very stupid idea that takes food away from humans and animals. You shoul not put your food in your gas tank...dummy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm not up on how much corn it takes to prodcue a gallon of ethanol, don't we have farmland that isn't being used? Doesn't the Government pay farmers not to produce as much as they could? How much more could we grow if we developed more farms? Farming is a tough and underappreciated job, but if I out of work and was healthy enough to work a farm, I'd consider it. We Americans want our cake and eat it too. We want what we want, but want some else to do it for us. Are we trying to save the planet or are we trying to find new ways to pad our wallets.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis rant is a little off topic, bit endless debate isn't going to get the job done. Action is the answer. Any decrease if CO2 levels is a good thing whether or not it meets some arbitrary level for tax incentives.
Yes, there are a number of benefits and co-products of corn ethanol production that this (perhaps biased?) article forgot to mention. We don't put our food in the gas tank--as the DDGS high-protein livestock is one of several co-products. We use the starch for ethanol, which is not well digested by livestock and likely leads to increased methane releases (methane is by far more a greenhouse gas than CO2). You and I eat sweet corn, white corn, and pop corn, not the yellow field corn used for ethanol (those other types aren't used for ethanol). Many blame obesity on our increased consumption of corn syrup, and other sugars. Corn oil is also a co-product of ethanol production. There is a whole LOT more to this discussion than this and many other articles spinning out there would lead the reader to believe. I agree with the last post--isn't 16% decrease in CO2 (though I believe it's far more) still a pretty good start, even if it's not 20%?! I believe the study 5 years from now will find that deforestation occurs regardless of any ethanol production, that deforestation has been decreasing while ethanol production has increased, and that the CO2 reduction by corn ethanol is close to the 50% that today's unbiased scientists have already found out.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually the U.S. has more plant growth than a hundred years ago. Why because of capitalism and the building dams and aquaducts and people being allowed to own and plant on their own land.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe great and evidendly unknown environmental success story of the late 20th Century is the regrowth of the forests in Eastern North America and Western Europe. Look at pictures from 1920 and compare them to the same places today and you will see the remarkable growth of forests.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI own commerical forests. We can grow forests, sustainably, just about forever. The old paradigm of man only destroying nature is outdated and simplistic. When we grow timber sustainably in the U.S., it discourages destruction of forests overseas. "Environmentalist" who don't understand that good forestry in the U.S. is good for business and the environment are encouraging forest loss overseas.
The great and evidently little known environmental success story of the late 20th Century is the re-growth of the forests in Eastern North America and Western Europe. Look at pictures from 1920 and compare them to the same places today and you will see the remarkable growth of forests.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI own commercial forests. We can grow forests, sustainably, just about forever. The old paradigm of man only destroying nature is outdated and simplistic. When we grow timber sustainably in the U.S., it discourages destruction of forests overseas. "Environmentalist" who don't understand that good forestry in the U.S. is good for business and the environment are encouraging forest loss overseas.
The great and evidently little known environmental success story of the late 20th Century is the re-growth of the forests in Eastern North America and Western Europe. Look at pictures from 1920 and compare them to the same places today and you will see the remarkable growth of forests.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI own commercial forests. We can grow forests, sustainably, just about forever. The old paradigm of man only destroying nature is outdated and simplistic. When we grow timber sustainably in the U.S., it discourages destruction of forests overseas. "Environmentalist" who don't understand that good forestry in the U.S. is good for business and the environment are encouraging forest loss overseas.
Drafter:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe world is not America. My back yard is clean and tidy, but I dump my garbage on the commons - wonderful!
Dam & canals: Do you know how they effect groundwater levels. A deep canal drains out the surface groundwater from the surrounding land. Lakes pump water into the ground, and release salt from deep down. Google environmental impacts of Dams and canals to know more.
The well tilled brown countryside you see between crops was once covered by plants and converted solar energy to food, now that energy heats the soil and kills the worms, bacteria and viruses, if they have not already been killed off by chemical fertiliser.
No worms, bacteria and viruses in the soil no trace elements in your food.
Here's an idea. Let's at least get ethanol producers to pay the full cost of production of ethanol. The only reason most are still in business is the subsidy from us taxpayers. If they have to bear the full cost of production and sell at market prices - ethanol is a loser. It will wither and mostly die. Here poor economics give us a clue that it's a loser environmentally as well.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisResponse to SacramentoE85...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"...We don't put our food in the gas tank..." How many times now has it been pointed out to you in other comment fields that:
1) Corn used to make ethanol is also used as livestock feed, and that livestock (poultry, eggs, cattle , dairy, etc) is food. 70% of a bushel of corn is lost to the human food chain when used to make ethanol.
2) The poorest in the world eat food using ground corn (corn meal) made from that same corn.
Good God. So, by using our corn for car fuel instead of food (sweeteners, eggs, poultry, beef, and dairy) we will reduce cow farts and obesity, simultaneously reducing global warming and improving our health!
Seems to me that since livestock still has to eat and food still has to be sweetened, more expensive substitutes will be produced, like soy meal and sugar, all of which increases the cost of food and still requires more land to produce.
A 16% reduction is pathetic and also ephemeral. 16% of the 5% of gasoline replaced by ethanol would reduce total US GHG emissions a tiny fraction of 1% (and it took an area greater than all the cropland in Indiana to do it). The EPA chose that 16% cut off because measuring GHG impacts is imprecise and 16% is the size of the error band. Any fuel showing less than 16% reduction is just a likely to be increasing GHG.
Corn ethanol publicists consistently accept without question any science that supports their cause while rejecting any that does not. They also label any researcher with results that don't support their paychecks as biased, as if researchers in farm schools supporting agriculture are not.
Soccerdad--there is no market price for fuels. Petroleum is heavilly subsidized as well. I say remove all subsidies, and let the chips fall. Ethanol will be a clear winner, as petroleum fuels cost the taxpayer well over $10 a gallon due to oil tax breaks, research grants, and $Billions spent on military protection. Not to mention the loss of soldiers' lives, and the costs to the public's health from toxic pollutants (benzine) and ozone. Petroleum is a sure loser.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have been wondering it the forests that have to be removed to grow fuel crops wouldn't have remover more CO2 from the air than the new crops would. Might that result in more rather than less CO2 than we get now?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have been wondering it the forests that have to be removed to grow fuel crops wouldn't have remover more CO2 from the air than the new crops would. Might that result in more rather than less CO2 than we get now?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSacramentoE85 is a perfect example of Guy # 2:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://biodiversivist.blogspot.com/2009/04/photo-credit-patries71-on-flickr.html
This talking point, that corn ethanol will end human warfare by making us energy independent, is non-sensical for two main reasons:
1) It can't get us any where near energy independent. It took an area 5000 square miles "larger" than all of the cropland available in Indiana to displace roughly 5% of our gasoline.
2) We will just go to war to protect our interests in Brazilian cane ethanol fields instead of oil. The efficiency of cane ethanol dwarfs corn ethanol and will eventually dominate the market if we let this biofuel Jeanie out of the bottle:
http://home.comcast.net/~russ676/Graphics/img8.gif
The real loser here is food-based biofuels. The answer is to radically improve vehicle efficiency to use radically less energy.
If you want to consider the cost of the Iraq war (say, a trillion dollars a year) as one giant subsidy to oil then we are paying about 1000/8.5 = $118 per gallon of oil shipped from Iraq. If that sounds stupid to you, it is. You can get any number you want for oil subsidies. See Myth # 14:
http://home.comcast.net/~russ676/desiremore/biofuelmyths1.htm#bookmark14
A Friends of the Earth study says oil is subsidized to the tune of $32.9 billion/262 = 13 cents per gallon.
A Greenpeace study says oil is subsidized to the tune of $35 billion/262 = 13 cents per gallon
An Earth Track study says oil is subsidized to the tune of $39 billion /262 =15 cents per gallon
Sources:
http://www.foe.org/pdf/FoE_Oil_Giveaway_Analysis_2008.pdf
http://cleantech.com/news/node/554
http://stephenleahy.net/2008/10/06/bailout-for-oil-companies-40-billion-and-maybe-more/
Drop subsidies for corn ethanol and it would disappear, except as an anti-knock additive, within a year.
This entire exercise to reduce CO2 emissions boils down to one notion -- that man can control climate and therefore the weather. This is pure stupidity. CO2 concentration is so minute in the atmosphere (less than .04%) that increasing its concentration 10 fold will not change a thing. The atmosphere of Mars is 96% carbon dioxide and the temperature about -46C; earth is +14C, a difference of +60C degrees warmer. CO2 did not help Mars get warmer. A lot of people on the Left are going to get rich on the backs of the American consumer.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe " 10 fold" you are referring to is not being filtered.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisQuoting Dr. John Janssen, "10,000 years of evolution to get things coordinated, it's very easy for a system like that to collapse." He is referring the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes can return to the toxin free state it originated from if 100% dumping activities cease.
May our planet's atmosphere host a plant supporting planet if pollution ceases? Our forests will no longer be ridded with anti-natural waste. Flourishing in atmospheric splendor, our forests will produce a clean shaven quality of air, void of contamination. How else will the only life supporting atmosphere, all 5 X 10(15) Tons recorded, remain existent?
Political weakness, on a global scale, will result in the suffocation of the biosphere.
biodiversitist-you've posted a bunch of blogs--I could do as well but that doesn't convince anyone. 70% of corn is not lost to ethanol. Of the 30% of U.S. corn used to make ethanol, only 33% of that corn is used for ethanol (the starch part), so about 10% of U.S. corn becomes ethanol. Over the last three years as U.S. ethanol has ramped up, the U.S. has also posted record exports (!) of corn to other nations-that's a fact to chew on. I'm not here to say that corn ethanol will be the whole solution to energy independence; however it is an important starting point. Adding double-pane windows to your house won't keep it from leaking air conditioned air, but it helps. Most folks grow tired of listening or reading posts from folks filled with negativity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisbiodiversitist (Russ F), I see you are working the political channels against biodiesel as well as ethanol. You seem well vested in increasing imported petroleum use and reducing energy independence, by reducing the use of biofuels. You seem to like natural gas, a fossil fuel. You talk about carbon intensity, but don't realize much of the carbon in biofuels was CO2 taken out of the atmosphere, while fossil fuels unlock it from the ground. Why are you not concerned about losing biodiversity through continued use of fossil fuels?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSacramentoE85 said:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"&.Why are you not concerned about losing biodiversity through continued use of fossil fuels?&."
Because gallon for gallon, biofuels are an order of magnitude worse for biodiversity than fossil fuels. A cornfield is one species away from being as biologically impoverished as a mall parking lot. Anything that expands modern industrial agriculture is bad news for biodiversity:
http://home.comcast.net/~russ676/desiremore/biofuelmyths1.htm#bookmark1
"&.You seem well vested in increasing imported petroleum use and reducing energy independence&"
I wager that I use less than half the fossil fuels for transport than you do. Remember, by all accounts, well over half of every gallon of corn ethanol is made from fossil fuels. I built the first lithium ion nano-phosphate hybrid electric bike which I use with a trailer for most single occupant around town errands. Our Prius gets 110% better gas mileage than the American average. My family reduced oil for transport use by 80%. Compare that to the 5% corn ethanol added to our liquid fuel supplies. Corn ethanol is a brutally inefficient, expensive, environmentally destructive way to reduce oil use:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKKvP9wWrlY
The fact that we still export corn hasn't changed the fact that thanks to corn ethanol the price of corn is 100% higher than historical averages:
http://home.comcast.net/~russ676/Graphics/img30.gif
A 100% increase in corn price makes it a lot harder for the desperately poor around the world (of which there are hundreds of millions who grind corn purchased from the United States into corn meal as a staple) to get enough to eat.
Companies that produce eggs, chicken, dairy, and beef here in the states are also hit hard because much of their cost grain. They are working as fast as they can to pass those costs on to consumers
20% of our corn crop was lost to ethanol last year and that accounts for the distillers grains. The more corn you plant, the lower that percentage will be, assuming a constant volume of ethanol. The 70% value I cited is how much of any given bushel sent to a refinery is lost to the human food chain.
SacramentoE85 said:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"….Why are you not concerned about losing biodiversity through continued use of fossil fuels?…."
Because gallon for gallon, biofuels are an order of magnitude worse for biodiversity than fossil fuels. A cornfield is one species away from being as biologically impoverished as a mall parking lot. Anything that expands modern industrial agriculture is bad news for biodiversity:
http://home.comcast.net/~russ676/desiremore/biofuelmyths1.htm#bookmark1
"….You seem well vested in increasing imported petroleum use and reducing energy independence…"
I wager that I use less than half the fossil fuels for transport than you do. Remember, by all accounts, well over half of every gallon of corn ethanol is made from fossil fuels. I built the first lithium ion nano-phosphate hybrid electric bike which I use with a trailer for most single occupant around town errands. Our Prius gets 110% better gas mileage than the American average. My family reduced oil for transport use by 80%. Compare that to the 5% corn ethanol added to our liquid fuel supplies. Corn ethanol is a brutally inefficient, expensive, environmentally destructive way to reduce oil use:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKKvP9wWrlY
The fact that we still export corn hasn't changed the fact that thanks to corn ethanol the price of corn is 100% higher than historical averages:
http://home.comcast.net/~russ676/Graphics/img30.gif
A 100% increase in corn price makes it a lot harder for the desperately poor around the world (of which there are hundreds of millions who grind corn purchased from the United States into corn meal as a staple) to get enough to eat.
Companies that produce eggs, chicken, dairy, and beef here in the states are also hit hard because much of their cost grain. They are working as fast as they can to pass those costs on to consumers
20% of our corn crop was lost to ethanol last year and that accounts for the distillers grains. The more corn you plant, the lower that percentage will be, assuming a constant volume of ethanol. The 70% value I cited is how much of any given bushel sent to a refinery is lost to the human food chain.
Corn prices are affected by the flooding in Iowa more than usage in ethanol production. I am not sure that it matters much because ethanol will be produced by using grass according to the July 09 issue of SciAm.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishhhhhh
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisShould domestic ethanol producers have to pay for deforestation?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLets get real folks. Let's drop agricultural subsidies and the the almost 50 cents subsidy per gallon to ethanol and then talk about deforestation. I think it will then all go away.
Russ, I am not against your use of a Hybrid vehicle as that is part of our energy independence--and stretching our fuel supplies. However, switching petroleum dependence for lithium dependence is also concerning. Speaking of saving forests and biodiversity, it is equally troubling that clearing forests in Canada to mine that lithium to ship to Japan to then ship back to the U.S. is something else. Again, not against the Hybrid, but it is neither a Holy Grail or final end point.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA big problem of today's Hybrids are that they still run on petroleum gasoline, imported to us from unfriendly nations. American made ethanol provides jobs and $$$ for the economy, big-time. Petroleum has about 80% process efficiency. Newest ethanol technology has at least 150% EROEI. Ethanol contains about 1/6 gallon of petroleum, the rest is fossil fuels, sun light, wind, etc. Therefore we turn one gallon of petroleum into at least 8 times the energy through ethanol fuel. This combination can wipe out oil imports. That is why the government is working hard to get there. Tomorrow's Hybrids need to have Flex Fuel Vehicle technology as well--this is a MUCH improved solution.
The CBO has found that corn ethanol caused at most a 0.5% food price increase. We continue to export record amounts of corn to the countries that need it. Corrected for inflation, corn today is much lower in price than it was in the 1970's. American farmers and corn ethanol is not the cause of starvation--regional conflicts, corrupt governments, disease, lack of infrastructure, and people having 8 babies when they can't feed 2 are the problems.
Russ, we are taking 2 different paths towards the same destination. I am not interested in continuing to debate you and I don't want to trash on Hybrids because I think they can be helpful despite their problems and will be improved in the future. I hope that you can respect that biofuels teamed up with Hybrids further improves on both technologies, and that we can both be respectful to both technologies in the future; not passing on the rumors and false science that Big Oil, Big Investment Bank, and Big Food salivate on. Regards.
American made ethanol.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisE85 ethanol fuel in my Flex Fuel Vehicle.
No soldiers died for my fuel–
Today on Independence Day 7/04/09
Nor any other day of the year!
Let me see; that the use of food to make fuel sounds stupid.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisto subsidize the use of food to make fuel sounds more stupid.
Politicians and bureaucrats are noted for stupidity.
That carbon dioxide is a hazardous pollutant is stupid.
That human activity is causing global warming is more stupid.
Politicians and bureaucrats are noted for stupidity.
Now these people think that they can change the climate by passing a law!! what arrogance stupid people have!
Think, that it is dangerous to deal with bacteria. They much older than us and the more of us can in the mass. They living support biological stability on a planet many milliards of years and to violate her there is not sense. It is much simpler to deal with foods of their vital functions. By law
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLa-Granga manage the process of transformation of matter and to get necessary elements. From the point of view of energy it is a receipt of higher, clean hydrogen fuel due to breaking up of molecules a gravitation. Already there is such technology, question only
introductions.
Academician G.Z.