Recent evidence out of Brazil buttresses that point. A team of researchers headed by David Lapola of the University of Kassel in Germany found that 90 percent of Brazil's sugarcane expansion in the last five years displaced cattle rangeland, forcing ranchers to push into the forest. Lapola's team concluded Brazil's plan to expand biofuel cropland over the next decade will push displaced rangeland into more than 47,000 square miles of forest and another 17,760 square miles of other native habitat.
That's a patch of land equal to New York and New Jersey combined.
"It seems like for the U.S. corn ethanol, there would be a lot of friction with food crops and (indirect land-use changes) not only inside the U.S. but abroad, too," Lapola said via email from Germany.
The Obama Administration insists it used the most recent, accurate science. Briefing reporters as the change was unveiled last week, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack noted the science of crop productivity "is constantly evolving."
EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson stood by her agency's scientists amid charges that the agency bowed to pressure from the farm lobby. "I don't agree that we changed the science to fit any outcome," she said. "I would not sign a rule if I didn't believe we had met the requirements of the law."
But in some ways the carbon savings from corn ethanol might be a secondary – or even moot – point.
Announcing the change, the administration highlighted biofuels' potential to create jobs and offer energy independence. President Obama, speaking to governors about the policy shift last week, mentioned climate change once: "Even if you don't believe in the severity of climate change, as I do, you still should want to pursue this agenda."
Plus the administration – and many in the ethanol industry – views corn ethanol as a bridge to less carbon-intensive biofuels. "We believe that's where the market is going," Vilsack said.
But the push to develop corn ethanol has a cost, and NRDC's Greene wonders if that's the wisest policy choice. "It's folly to do what we're doing today, which is mandating it, giving it multiple tax credits and still throwing other government subsidies at it," he said.
"We're bribing the market.... That's $5 billion a year that we could be using to help our farmers and help our industry get to the next generation of this stuff."
Lapola, looking at Brazil, notes some biofuels don't have the huge carbon footprint of sugarcane, soybean or corn. But so long as governments keep a sharp eye on land-use changes, he thinks biofuels make a good "workaround" for petroleum fuels.
"A workaround, but not a complete solution," he added. "The point is that from now on we need to evaluate more carefully our energy matrix to not incur in the same mistakes we made with petroleum."
This article originally appeared at The Daily Climate, the climate change news source published by Environmental Health Sciences, a nonprofit media company.
Subscription Center
See what we're tweeting about
34 Comments
Add CommentI'm surprised that no one is mentioning the aldehydes produced by the oxidation of ethanol, specifically acetaldehyde. It's an irritant and a carcinogen. I've heard that the increase in childhood asthma rates follows well with how much ethanol we put in our gas, although I have not seen the actual data for this.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's all rather silly to me. We're going to raise plants using petroleum-based fertilizers, displace food crops, use terribly energy inefficient processes to convert it into a usable fuel (at a net loss) and the result is putting more poison into the air. Yeah... and why are we subsidizing this again? Oh, that's right, because the ag lobbyists have convinced the white house that it'll be good for us.
Lets remember the real issue here. Corn and corn derivatives feed the world.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCan we really afford to let the friendly folks down at Green Giant rocket the price for a can of corn (and their profits of course) right out into orbit just because it could have been fuel?
Ethanol is bad for the climate, bad for food prices, bad for energy prices and bad for internal combustion engines, its only use is to line the pockets of the politicians that invested in this "phantom" industry. Another hoax right alongside man made global warming, right Al.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEthanol is bad for humanity, but like any other man made technology it will do NOTHING to the climate...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat part of NATURAL GAS doesn't the adiministration understand?? Chasing ethanol and all the rest of the "green" stuff simply proves the left does not want a solution.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"It's folly to do what we're doing today, which is mandating it, giving it multiple tax credits and still throwing other government subsidies at it," he said.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"We're bribing the market.... That's $5 billion a year that we could be using to help our farmers and help our industry get to the next generation of this stuff."
Folks, common sense is going to have a "tough row to hoe" to convince all the politicians being bombarded by Archers Daniel Midland (ADM), the huge farming conglomerate, that practically has DC in it's back pocket, that ethanol is just plane wrong.
You see, Congress gives ADM et. al. the $5 billion of our tax money in subsidies and then ADM pays lobbyist with our tax dollars to control Congress, partially via campaign donations. I'm trying to figure out how I can get in on this scam.
Global Climate Change deniers, even here on the Sci Am site? Scary, very scary how partisan even science has become. Science is supposed to a place free of ideology and blind to bias (as best as it can at least). Clearly even science itself is at great risk in a country so divided and where politics, perception and superficial opinions forever seem to trump actual facts, truth, theory and rigorously reseached, tested and anaylysed data. Rome is burning!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMight I add:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisfrom: http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=what-does-winter-weather-reveal-abo-10-02-11&sc=CAT_BS_20100212
"Sadly, climate change won't save you from bundling up, or shoveling. Even in a much warmer world, there will still be colder than average winters. What's worse, U.S. government scientists predicted last year that global warming will actually increase snowstorms, thanks to the potent combination of more moisture in the atmosphere from warmer average temperatures paired with the usual cold of winter. The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicted the same in 2007. In short, winter storms are likely to become stronger and more frequent, with stronger winds. "
"Ultimately, the storm of blather surrounding recent weather events can largely be blamed on a fundamental misunderstanding. Weather is the day-to-day temperature, humidity and precipitation. Climate is the overall combination of all these events over a long period of time. No single weather event—heat wave, hurricane or blizzard—tells us much about climate. "
—David Biello
The EPA's new regulations are a step in the right direction, but the problem is that there are thousands of miles to go. Corn ethanol is not a solution and anyone should be able to see that from looking at the EPA's own calculations about Ethanol's green house gas reductions. After all, it takes 33 years just to break even on emissions when you take the entire life cycle into account. Here is a good article that talks about it from The Greener Truth
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://thegreenertruth.com/2010/02/the-ethanol-life-cycle/
It will take years...decades to ween ourselves off of fossil fuels...no mater what path we take(electric/hybrid/something else) there will always be a need for "gas"...hopefully that 10% we all now put in our tanks will be enough for that.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn the article they talk about Brazil but I want to know if the USA imports any ethanol(not talking about the drinking kind;-).
More votes for Democrats = Billions $ in goverment grants + lost forests + lost species + increased global warming for 250 years + higher pollution + higher food prices
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisObviously Washington DC understands math.
Like Ron White, the comedian said, "You can't fix stupid". This idiocy is a bleed over from the Bush administration. During his reign, people were so dumbed down that they thought it was cool to starve the world by putting all our surplus in "the war effort" and our food in our gas tanks...you remember the $4.15 a gallon gasoline and the $18.00 a gallon of baby formula. It is better to be anti everything than it is to be pro anything. Apparently, these people who deny what we are putting in our gas tank is bringing about global warming at a rate much faster than it should be arriving, cannot see just how stupid their words and deeds are. These idiots, like coal, oil, and natural gas companys are destroying our environment and conviencing the stupid people who work for them, and the stupid people in power that it is not they who is causing global warming and global starvation, "it is a normal process", they say. Stupid, really stupid.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Ethanol is bad for humanity, but like any other man made technology it will do NOTHING to the climate..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNice to see the clueless deniers represented. It wouldn't be a SCIAM article without a few mindless rants.
Actually, you can fix stupid. Just say no to ethanol. But Obama has missed his chance.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo much for the claims that Obama would govern in accordance with science. The only science he sees is the science of buying votes in the farm belt with our money.
Biofuels are sometimes better than fossil fuels, but we can't call them sustainable or renewable, because we will want to use them far faster than they can be renewed. We need a carbon tax on ALL carbon to be burned, and a lesser tax on other carbon because harvesting it speeds it on it's way to becoming CO2.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisvidincar9...unfortunately i think you're very close to the truth...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe're confusing a lot of issues here. Ethanol can and should be an important part of weaning ourselves from our petroleum addiction. The biggest problem I see is we keep talking about corn ethanol. Ethanol can be made easily and cheaply from any starch or sugar containing feedstock using centuries-old technology. Use your imagination for pity sake!!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf we stay with corn for the moment, there continues to be the assumption that the corn is consumed in the process. Far from it. Only the starch is consumed. That leaves behind all the proteins, minerals, etc. that was in the corn before ethanol production. If you are paying attention to the food vs. fuel debate, you will know that the vast majority of corn is fed to livestock not eaten directly by humans. If the leftovers are fed to dairy cows, for instance, their milk production increases by 17%! Since cows are ruminants, they can not digest the starch, in fact, it makes them quite sick, so removing starch allows the cows to utilize corn better. The important point is we extracted fuel and gained, not lost feed for our animals. So there is no "food vs. fuel" issue to debate.
Then there is the energy balance question. Looking at direct costs, how much energy goes into pumping the oil, transporting it, refining it, transporting it some more, etc.? How can petroleum be even energy neutral? If you add the indirect costs of exploration, unproductive wells, construction of oil fields, refineries, oil tankers, tank trucks, etc. it gets worse. What if we factor in the very real costs of war? Or, all the "aid" we give to countries so they stay friendly and will sell us oil? Now, what does the balance sheet look like?
As for the pollution, yes, ethanol combustion releases some more aldehydes than petroleum but ethanol reduces pollutants by 98% relative to petroleum. Which would you rather burn?
Don't get dragged into the debate of minutiae. Look at the big picture. Ethanol "technology" is at hand, we can be self-sufficient and we can keep money on-shore. Looks like a win-win-win to me.
Every once in a while I look at Scientific American to see if it has become scientific. Not this article -- how can anything be "bad" for the climate? That is a value judgement describing the impact of any particular climate upon any particular life form. The climate itself can neither be "bad" nor "good", or can anything that changes climate be "bad" or "good" with respect to the climate itself. IT DOES NOT CARE.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA scientist would never dream of abusing the English language in this manner, imputing anthropomorphic sensibilities into "climate".
Climate "just is". You might not like a particular climate that someone else thinks is wonderful. "Death Valley Scotty" and his benfactor found Death Valley to be a perfectly ideal climate.
My quote in this article leaves it unclear what I think looks far fetched at first glance and what I think you can talk yourself into. (No criticism meant, since I probably wasn't being very clear.) To clarify, I think that EPA's choice to use a 2022 baseline for it's analysis was far fetched and in need of creative justification. There is no other context that I know of where we regulate an industry on the basis of improvements that we hope will happen in the future. To me, CA's decision to regulate based on the industry as it operates today makes much more sense.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI should also be clear that while I disagree with EPA's decision on the baseline, I think the process that EPA went through was open, transparent and free from political interference and the methodology that agency chose draws on the best science available.
For more on NRDC's take on the final RFS rule, see my blog at http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/ngreene/epa_publishes_final_rfsii_rule.html.
With assumptions that differ so greatly and leading policy members at NRDC we should be worried about this recent strategy to promote corn ethanol. I believe that energy independence is imperative and that biofuels and renewable energy are going to be crucial. The possible side effects of a government program supporting corn ethanol production are alarming. Perhaps more research is needed to produce the best assumptions possible before committing to such a large program that has the capability of distorting the market in a destructive way for current or future developments in renewable energy that may have a greater benefit to the U.S.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this-Maria, Eclectic Cafe http://marialeonardi.wordpress.com/
Oh great, the administration is trying to predict the future once again, lol :>
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisProve the science and technology first, implement it second, geez, is that so hard for politicians to understand these days? Are they reduced to gambling tax money away on the mere predictions that something will work in the future? Where's my corn ethanol fueld flying car?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne item from this article that should be looked at in my opinion is the concept that forest lands have to be cleared to create new farmland to grow the additional crops to replace the corn that we use for fuel. I can only offer anecdotal evidence, but it seems to me that there is considerable arable farm land that is converted to housing tracts and suburbia all the time. Perhaps, with the increased demand for corn and other agricultural products, some of this land may stay as productive farmland.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisALL of this frictions between California's and US Govt's... Came to our very living culture.... We live in suburbia in a "Want" mode, not "Need" mode.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo, all of this problem(s) just referred to the architect/city planning. IF we PLAN with a plainly SMART plan, then this problem wouldnt be that big thing.
I think that we should reanalyze our western culture to discover how we did fare with this currently living style.
It's idiotic... why focus on any terrestrial crop when considering vegetable oil yields per acre... no terrestrial crop exceeds algae! See link, scroll down to vegetable oil yields: http://www.advancednrgsolutions.com/References.html
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs mentioned in other comments... not all ethanol is created equal and those from cellulose fibers or waste fibers are better than ethanol created from a food crop like sugar or corn.
Are there potential adverse affects on the atmosphere... sure there is... consider the equipment used to grow the crops, harvest and transport them. Is climate change and issue... yes... is global warming man made... be serious!
The planet periodically goes through climate changes... does anyone remember studying our planets Ice Ages?
Does man contribute to greenhouse gases that effect the atmosphere... sure he does!
Is population an issue as to how the planet reacts to what is imposed on it (via consumption and waste)... sure it is!
Should we be implementing technologies that are less harmful to the planet... sure we should!
As it relates to bio-fuel's... methanol is a product in demand... if we truly wanted to implement technologies that are beneficial to us and breaks our addiction to foreign oil we would be investing in gas to liquid technologies, waste to energy conversion and bio-fuel's based on algae oil as a feedstock.
See more information on the above mentioned technologies... visit: http://www.advancednrgsolutions.com/BioFuels.html
The best terrestrial crop yields approx. 800 gallons per acre... where algae can produce 10,000 gallons on the same acre.
It amazes me how greed and politics can keep a society from doing what's best for the whole!
The main problem about ethanol from corn is not whether it is good for the climate or not, but rather the fact that it increases the price of corn and food worldwide - a dramatic development in developing countries. Living in Peru I have seen food prices increasing by over 50% over the last two years, with dire consequences for the poorest people in this country.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll these technologies of the last century, and it is needed to look forward new technologies. Vegetable foods always have more than 50% wastes which are enough for the aims of receipt of clean energy and by minimum extrass. These wastes we convert into a new cluster fuel which effective and ecological with zero extrass in an atmosphere. For the decision of problem of ecology and energy it is needed to diffuse this technology.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGrowing corn has an effect on the environment. It uses a large amount of water and requires a large amount of fertilizer. Because of all the fertilizer runoff into the Mississippi river the Gulf of Mexico is being overran with algae causing fish to die. There are much better crops to grow that are more nutritious and require less fertilizer and water, such as potatoes. We are loosing top soil to grow fuel that requires as much energy to produce and it creates.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThink, 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.
Sounds like one solution would be to reduce the consumption of meat - red meat in particular and all meat that is from animals that consume corn or other grains. This would reduce the amount of land and crops devoted to food production, reduce the CO2 emitted from cow waste, reduce the runoff from pig farms and agricultural fertilizers. In addition, it would likely improve our overall health. I am not a vegetarian or a PETA member, but the reduction of animal protein in our diets seems to make ecological sense.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFrom the standpoint of environmental pollution, biofuels gives a zero balance in szhigonii. How vybrasheno dioxide, the same plants absorbed during growth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, because to 'grow' ethanol you need tractor fuel, herbicides, fertilisers, in other words fossil fuels.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen gasoline hits $8 per gallon midway through the next decade, every ethanol detractor posting here will regret the fact that they don't own a Flex-Fuel vehicle for $5/gal E85.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this....electric? Ethanol will survive without subsidies. I'm not so sure about battery powered cars.
I'm distressed about year long ethanol in our fuel because it causes big problems with any older vehicle such as with carburetor. Ethanol destroys the rubber or flexible parts, also viton seat needles, gaskets, vapor lock s the fuel delivery. We should have a choice to use pure gasoline or the ethanol blend.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this