SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
New Study Warns Biofuels May Be Worse for Climate Than Gas
When taking farmland and crop growth into account, the plant-based energy may not be all that carbon-neutral, study says
Aug 26, 2016
A new study finds that biofuels derived from plants like corn or soybeans, sometimes considered carbon-neutral, may be worse for the climate than gas.
University of Michigan (UM) Energy Institute research professor John DeCicco analyzed all the greenhouse gas emissions created in the supply chains of various fuel types. For gas, that meant starting with extraction and transportation, among other parts of the process; for biofuels, it was farming and fertilizer use, but not tailpipe pollution, due to the presumed carbon dioxide offset, the Detroit Free Press explains.
The Free Press reports:
Using U.S. Department of Agriculture cropland production data, determining the chemical composition of crops and accounting for all of the carbon from the plants, DeCicco created a "harvest carbon" factor. Over the past decade, as the consumption of corn ethanol and biodiesel more than tripled in the U.S., the increased carbon uptake by the crops only offset 37 percent of carbon dioxide emissions from biofuel combustion, DeCicco said.
Mathematically speaking, "When it comes to the emissions that cause global warming, it turns out that biofuels are worse than gasoline," he said.
The study's doubts about biofuels' efficacy have prompted harsh criticism from those who believe they will help transition to a low-carbon world. Some critics pointed out that the study was funded by the American Petroleum Institute (API), which has a "vested interest" in the biofuel industry's failure, the Free Press notes.
However, plant-based energy sources have been criticized before. A study published last year by the World Resources Institute found that dedicating crops and farmland to the creation of bioenergy "will undercut efforts to combat climate change and to achieve a sustainable food future."
Andrew Steer, president of the World Resources Institute, told the New York Times after the study was published that "many of the claims for biofuels have been dramatically exaggerated. There are other, more effective routes to a low-carbon world."
Timothy Searchinger, a Princeton researcher and biofuel critic, told Climate Central on Thursday that the UM study provides "additional calculation" for the argument that the energy is not, in fact, carbon-neutral.
"The U.S. is not coming close to offsetting the carbon released by burning biofuels through additional crop growth," Searchinger said.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Nadia Prupis
Nadia Prupis is a former Common Dreams staff writer. She wrote on media policy for Truthout.org and has been published in New America Media and AlterNet. She graduated from UC Santa Barbara with a BA in English in 2008.
american petroleum institutebiofuelscarbon offsetsemissionsenvironmentfossil fuelsglobal warminggreenhouse gas emissionspollutionworld resources institute
A new study finds that biofuels derived from plants like corn or soybeans, sometimes considered carbon-neutral, may be worse for the climate than gas.
University of Michigan (UM) Energy Institute research professor John DeCicco analyzed all the greenhouse gas emissions created in the supply chains of various fuel types. For gas, that meant starting with extraction and transportation, among other parts of the process; for biofuels, it was farming and fertilizer use, but not tailpipe pollution, due to the presumed carbon dioxide offset, the Detroit Free Press explains.
The Free Press reports:
Using U.S. Department of Agriculture cropland production data, determining the chemical composition of crops and accounting for all of the carbon from the plants, DeCicco created a "harvest carbon" factor. Over the past decade, as the consumption of corn ethanol and biodiesel more than tripled in the U.S., the increased carbon uptake by the crops only offset 37 percent of carbon dioxide emissions from biofuel combustion, DeCicco said.
Mathematically speaking, "When it comes to the emissions that cause global warming, it turns out that biofuels are worse than gasoline," he said.
The study's doubts about biofuels' efficacy have prompted harsh criticism from those who believe they will help transition to a low-carbon world. Some critics pointed out that the study was funded by the American Petroleum Institute (API), which has a "vested interest" in the biofuel industry's failure, the Free Press notes.
However, plant-based energy sources have been criticized before. A study published last year by the World Resources Institute found that dedicating crops and farmland to the creation of bioenergy "will undercut efforts to combat climate change and to achieve a sustainable food future."
Andrew Steer, president of the World Resources Institute, told the New York Times after the study was published that "many of the claims for biofuels have been dramatically exaggerated. There are other, more effective routes to a low-carbon world."
Timothy Searchinger, a Princeton researcher and biofuel critic, told Climate Central on Thursday that the UM study provides "additional calculation" for the argument that the energy is not, in fact, carbon-neutral.
"The U.S. is not coming close to offsetting the carbon released by burning biofuels through additional crop growth," Searchinger said.
Nadia Prupis
Nadia Prupis is a former Common Dreams staff writer. She wrote on media policy for Truthout.org and has been published in New America Media and AlterNet. She graduated from UC Santa Barbara with a BA in English in 2008.
A new study finds that biofuels derived from plants like corn or soybeans, sometimes considered carbon-neutral, may be worse for the climate than gas.
University of Michigan (UM) Energy Institute research professor John DeCicco analyzed all the greenhouse gas emissions created in the supply chains of various fuel types. For gas, that meant starting with extraction and transportation, among other parts of the process; for biofuels, it was farming and fertilizer use, but not tailpipe pollution, due to the presumed carbon dioxide offset, the Detroit Free Press explains.
The Free Press reports:
Using U.S. Department of Agriculture cropland production data, determining the chemical composition of crops and accounting for all of the carbon from the plants, DeCicco created a "harvest carbon" factor. Over the past decade, as the consumption of corn ethanol and biodiesel more than tripled in the U.S., the increased carbon uptake by the crops only offset 37 percent of carbon dioxide emissions from biofuel combustion, DeCicco said.
Mathematically speaking, "When it comes to the emissions that cause global warming, it turns out that biofuels are worse than gasoline," he said.
The study's doubts about biofuels' efficacy have prompted harsh criticism from those who believe they will help transition to a low-carbon world. Some critics pointed out that the study was funded by the American Petroleum Institute (API), which has a "vested interest" in the biofuel industry's failure, the Free Press notes.
However, plant-based energy sources have been criticized before. A study published last year by the World Resources Institute found that dedicating crops and farmland to the creation of bioenergy "will undercut efforts to combat climate change and to achieve a sustainable food future."
Andrew Steer, president of the World Resources Institute, told the New York Times after the study was published that "many of the claims for biofuels have been dramatically exaggerated. There are other, more effective routes to a low-carbon world."
Timothy Searchinger, a Princeton researcher and biofuel critic, told Climate Central on Thursday that the UM study provides "additional calculation" for the argument that the energy is not, in fact, carbon-neutral.
"The U.S. is not coming close to offsetting the carbon released by burning biofuels through additional crop growth," Searchinger said.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.