Not So Fast On Biofuels

Two studies in the latest issue of the journal Science say that producing biofuels may actually produce more carbon dioxide than we would with conventional fuel. Karen Hopkin reports.

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


For years advocates have touted the use of biofuels as a clean-burning alternative to gasoline. Now a pair of studies published in the February 8 issue of Science conclude that biofuels may do more harm to the environment than good. The researchers calculated the indirect costs of growing the crops that are turned into biofuels. To plant the corn or sugarcane or soybeans from which biodiesel and bioethanol are made, farmers would first need to clear forests and grasslands. That process, it turns out, would actually generate more carbon dioxide than we’d save by swearing off fossil fuels. And it would take centuries for us to pay off that carbon debt.

For example, the scientists figure it would take 319 years of using ethanol made from soybeans to make up for the extra carbon released by chopping down the forests needed to grow the crop. And of course more CO2 in the atmosphere means more global warming. So biofuels might actually exacerbate the problem they’re meant to solve. Something to think about as we move forward on producing ecofriendly fuels. As one of the scientists put it, we should make sure our cure isn’t worse than the disease.

—Karen Hopkin

60-Second Science is a daily podcast. Subscribe to this Podcast: RSS | iTunes

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe