Facts At A Glance

INCONVENIENT TRUTHS ABOUT BIOFUELS AND GREENHOUSE GAS MITIGATION

"Ethanol is often touted as a solution for mitigating greenhouse gas emissions, but the inconvenient truth expressed by concerned scientists is that the greenhouse gas emissions resulting from biofuel production and associated agricultural practices would effectively negate or even reverse any reduction in emissions that could be achieved by significantly expanding the use of ethanol as a transportation fuel."

Charles T. Drevna
Executive Vice President, National Petrochemical & Refiners Association (NPRA)
November 8, 2007

Scientists Say the IPCC's Latest Climate Mitigation Report Fails to Address the "Dangers and Pitfalls" Associated with Biofuel Expansion.

Scientists David Pimentel of Cornell University, Tad Patzek of the University of California, Berkeley, Florian Siegert of RSS GmbH's Munich office, Mario Giampietro of the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, and Professor Helmut Haberl of Alpen-Adria-Universität Klagenfurt recently expressed their concerns with deficient or incomplete conclusions about biofuel production and use made by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its AR4 (fourth assessment) Mitigation report and SPM (summary for policymakers) to the IPCC's Chairman, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri.

Excerpts from the Letter to IPCC Chairman Pachauri:

"Chapter 5 (Transport), p325 mentions that alternative fossil fuels will tend to lead to increased emissions. It should have been made clearer on this page that replacing petroleum fuels with electricity, hydrogen and biofuels all also carry risks of being environmentally counter-productive." (Letter to Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Chairman Dr. Rajendra Pachauri from Professor David Pimentel [Cornell University], Professor Tad Patzek [University of California, Berkeley], Professor Dr. Florian Siegert [RSS GmbH, Munich office], Dr. Mario Giampietro [ICREA Research Professor, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona], Professor Helmut Haberl [Alpen-Adria-Universität Klagenfurt]," October 30, 2007. Emphasis added.)

"Chapter 5, p325 states that mitigation potential of biomass fuel is uncertain as it may be limited by its sustainability in 'massive scale'. On p344 it is elaborated that the 'biofuel potential…is limited by the amount of available agricultural land' not required for other uses, and that 'the production of biofuels on a massive scale may require deforestation and the release of soil carbon'. Although this may be strictly true in literal terms, the notes omit to state that in practice, even at a small scale, cultivation of biofuels often will take fertile land away from agricultural use, and thus lead to land-use change emissions, as the market-place encourages the world farming frontier to expand into forests and other often carbon-rich ecosystems to accommodate." (Ibid. Emphasis added.)

"There is no mention of the key principle that for a given quantity of land, usually several times more emission mitigation (CO2-eq) per hectare can be achieved by either (a) growing solid biomass crops (tall grasses or short rotation coppice), or using agricultural surpluses or waste cut biomass, to replace coal, or (b) simply reafforesting the same land, than biofuels for transport. These non-transport land-uses are likely to remain superior for mitigation for many years to come." (Ibid. Emphasis added.)

"Ch 5, p342 notes 'Cellulosic crops… may be grown in areas unsuitable for grains and other food/feed crops and thus do not compete with food.' This is incorrect (whether or not the word 'do' was intended), since such land is often used as pasture for livestock and is currently under stress in many locations[.] It continues: 'the energy use is far less, resulting in much greater GHG reductions than with corn and most food crops'. This is inaccurate since cellulosic ethanol involves more fermentation than conventional ethanol, and distillation as before, although cellulosic ethanol may outperform conventional ethanol in some scenarios. In contrast, for example, the use of inefficient solar cells to recharge inefficient batteries in hybrid cars is at least 100 times more energy-efficient than any current land-use system for producing ethanol, and solar cells can be sited in desert." (Ibid. Emphasis added.)

"[P]resent policies of the EU, US and elsewhere are leading to a huge range of adverse outcomes… and very poor resource stewardship… though involving considerable subsidy. There is surely scope for decision-makers to design a better fiscal regime for bioenergy. In this context it will certainly not suffice to label or 'certify' some biofuels as 'sustainable', as has been suggested in Europe, on the basis of estimated emissions savings that do not take into account the displaced land-use change consequences if they are sourced from land that would otherwise have been used to produce food[.]" (Ibid. Emphasis added.)

"In summary, many notes in the Mitigation report give the impression that biofuel expansion is generally a good way to proceed, with inadequate reference to the dangers and pitfalls; the SPM further claims that biofuel blending measures have had proven environmental benefit, yet the Co-ordinating Lead Author concerned has ignored inquiries as to the basis of this claim." (Ibid. Emphasis added.)

What Others Are Saying About Biofuel Production and Increased Greenhouse Gas Emissions…

"Up has geared a new campaign for a larger mandate to soak up the excess supply created by the last mandate. A recently passed Senate bill would require motorists to buy 36 billion gallons a year by 2022, up from 7.5 billion gallons under current law. At least this would benefit the atmosphere, right? Think again. A research team featuring Paul Crutzen, who won a Nobel Prize for his work on ozone depletion, recently showed that the intensive cultivation of biofuels in the U.S. and Europe produces up to 70% more greenhouse effect than the fossil fuels they displace (nitrous oxide, a byproduct of the fertilizers used, has nearly 300 times the heat-trapping properties of carbon dioxide)." (Holman W. Jenkins, Jr., "Cheap Shot at Toyota," The Wall Street Journal, October 24, 2007.)

"As release of N2O affects climate and stratospheric ozone chemistry by the production of biofuels, much more research on the sources of N2O and the nitrogen cycle is urgently needed. Here we have shown that the yield of N2O from fixed nitrogen application in agro-biofuel production is 3-5% N2O-N, 3-5 times larger than assumed in current life cycle analyses, with great importance for climate. We have also shown that the replacement of fossil fuels by biofuels may not bring the intended climate cooling due to the accompanying emissions of N2O. There are also other factors to consider in connection with the introduction of biofuels. Here we concentrated on the climate effects due only to required N fertilization in biomass production and we have shown that, depending on N content, the use of several agricultural crops for energy production can readily lead to N2O emissions large enough to cause climate warming instead of cooling by 'saved fossil CO2'." (P. J. Crutzen, A. R. Mosier, K. A. Smith, and W. Winiwarter, "N2O Release from Agro-Biofuel Production Negates Global Warming Reduction by Replacing Fossil Fuels," Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussions, August 1, 2007. Emphasis added.)

"Unfortunately, what passes for mitigation and aversion of global warming often amounts to doing nothing under the guise of doing something. Take the nation's new infatuation with ethanol. Ethanol derived from corn, as it is in the United States, is so energy intensive to produce that it provides little or no net savings in carbon dioxide emissions. Meanwhile, the diversion of corn from the food supply to government-subsidized energy production has some unintended consequences of its own, driving up feed and corn syrup prices at home and tortilla prices in Mexico. Ethanol is a boon for corn farmers. As a way to limit global warming, it's a spectacularly inefficient bust." (Editorial "Climate solution too hot for left to handle," San Antonio Express-News, February 11, 2007. Emphasis added.)

"Corn cultivation often involves intensive application of synthetic nitrogen fertilizer, which pollutes water sources and already has contributed significantly to the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico. It also results in the emissions of nitrous oxide, a highly potent greenhouse gas, as well causing soil erosion." (Letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi from the Borneo Project, Family Farm Defenders, Food & Water Watch, Food First, Friends of the Earth, Global Justice Ecology Project, Grassroots International, Institute for Social Ecology, International Forum on Globalization, Rainforest Action Network, Rising Tide North America, Student Trade Justice Campaign, October 9, 2007.)