Home » Eye on Earth » Energy and Climate

OPINION Biofuels 2.0: It’s Time for Congress to Act

by Christopher Flavin on May 12, 2008
Efforts to replace oil with biofuels in the United States are at a critical juncture. Double-digit growth in the production of corn-based ethanol has contributed to a sharp increase in grain and soybean prices while failing to deliver the environmental gains that had been hoped for.

It's time to reduce the incentives for food-based biofuels and accelerate the transition to more sustainable alternatives - the so-called "next-generation" cellulosic technologies, which are expected to become viable in the coming years.

In some ways, U.S. biofuels policy has been a stunning success. Production of fuel ethanol soared to nearly 7 billion gallons in 2007 - double the level in 2003. This has pushed the United States ahead of Brazil, which pioneered the fuel ethanol industry in the 1980s. The price of corn has meanwhile nearly tripled to over $6 per bushel, fostering an economic renaissance in the U.S. grain belt and creating thousands of new jobs.

But this is just the beginning. The Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS), signed into law in December 2007, requires that biofuels production be raised to 36 billion gallons in 2022. And while it is laudable that 21 billion gallons of that requirement are set aside for advanced biofuels not based on food crops, this would still imply a doubling in current production of corn-based ethanol, which would require fully half of today's annual corn crop.

Increasing biofuels production so dramatically presents an array of environmental risks, including increased nitrogen runoff and the loss of biodiversity as lands are cleared for biofuel crops. And recent studies indicate that corn-based ethanol could actually produce more carbon dioxide emissions than gasoline-due to the oil and coal needed to produce corn and convert it to ethanol and to the fact that as U.S. cropland is planted in biofuel crops, pressures will grow to convert forests and grasslands elsewhere, releasing large amounts of carbon dioxide.

These concerns demand a more measured approach to the production and use of biofuels. They also point to the need to accelerate the transition to second-generation biofuels. These fuels - derived not from food crops but from the fibrous, or cellulosic, material of plants - can be produced from a wide array of agriculture and forestry wastes as well as from fast-growing trees and grasses. The feedstocks can be grown on untilled land and cultivated in ways that improve water quality and wildlife habitat. Under the right conditions, these crops may also be able to draw carbon out of the air and sequester it in the soil.

It is time to reform the large federal subsidies to biofuels. With the price of oil now over $120 a barrel, the generous tax subsidy is no longer needed - it is mainly benefiting the oil companies that receive the subsidy in return for blending ethanol with gasoline. Congress should phase out the tax subsidy for corn-based ethanol and retain it only for advanced biofuels that reduce emissions of carbon dioxide to less than half the emissions from gasoline. 

It is also time to relax the renewable fuel standard, slowing the pace of growth of the industry while technologies are developed that will allow biofuels to be produced from agricultural and forestry wastes-eliminating the competition with food and reducing the greenhouse impact of those fuels. And the share that must come from cellulosic biofuels should be increased.

Achieving these changes will not be easy. Biofuels have become the "golden child" of U.S. energy politics, highly popular with conservative and progressive politicians alike. But if biofuel policies are not reformed soon, the growing impact on food prices and the environment will spur a reaction that may prove the industry's undoing.

That would be a shame. The United States desperately needs to diversify its fuel supplies and reduce its dependence on oil. Advanced biofuels technologies could one day be an important part of a low-carbon energy economy, but only if they are developed in a deliberate and responsible way.

Christopher Flavin is president of the Worldwatch Institute, an environmental research organization based in Washington, D.C.

Comments

The Worldwatch Institute has

Submitted by Michael A. Nicoletti on May 19, 2008 - 5:57pm.
The Worldwatch Institute has always been at the head of the class when it has cast a bright light on the myriad of the world’s environmental and ecological problems, as well as the related social implications. It has a brilliant staff, and Christopher Flavin has done a good job as president of Worldwatch, focusing on all the important topics. Worldwatch is a valuable, one might even say essential, source of information for our nation’s planners and decision makers, especially our politicians. ---------- Having said that, if I were to fault Worldwatch, I would say that it is too timid in its approach to solving problems. That is, it seeks solutions that stay within the confines of what is politically acceptable, accepting that a few steps backward may be necessary for even one step forward. However, this approach will obviously take us backward in the end, although perhaps at a slower pace. Rather, Worldwatch needs to get outside of its political comfort zone, to where the brutal reality that nobody wants to talk about or contemplate actually exists, and only where effective long term solutions can be found. ---------- I would even posit the theory that Worldwatch might meet have more success at meeting its fundraising goals if potential donors feel more confident that their money is making a difference. That is, when I give money to Worldwatch, it is with the expectation that some measurable positive outcome will result. However, if Worldwatch is not willing to step outside the comfortable confines of what is politically riskless, its potential to change environmental policy in a meaningful way is minimal. Therefore, giving my finite amount of discretionary income to a green politician may be a more effective use of my money in achieving positive environmental change. ---------- Unfortunately, even the best long term solutions usually involve at least some short term pain, and sometimes the best possible result is still less than our hopes, expectations, and former standard of living. Nevertheless, long term solutions are what nearly all our efforts must be devoted to, unless we consider civilization now in such steep terminal decline that it just can’t be fixed no matter what we do. ---------- With that all as a preface, I must ask Worldwatch to stop looking for ways to make our cars run more efficiently and less environmentally destructive. Rather Worldwatch must accept that it’s the end of the road for the car, and must call for the phased elimination of personal cars as a means of commuting to work or taking vacations. Of course, exceptions can be made for certain types of vehicles, such as ambulances, fire trucks, police cars, etc. ---------- Civilization must get over its delusional belief that personal cars can possibly be a long term solution for daily transportation. Unless someone can prove gas won’t cost $20 per gallon by 2020 (in today’s dollars), it would be insanity to build or widen another freeway. Since 1981, world annual oil consumption has exceeded annual new discoveries, and today, we consume 4 or 5 times as much oil as we discover, with global demand growing at about 1-2 percent per year. ---------- Rather, we should be embarking on a “Manhattan Project” for safe, efficient, convenient, and ubiquitous mass transit. On that inevitable day, not so far into the future, when the gas is either unavailable or prohibitively expensive, we’ll have millions of people with cars, lots of freeways, but nobody will be going anywhere. In summation, unless we soon have efficient and reliable mass transit to get people to and from work, we are destined for a genuine transportation calamity, with disastrous consequences for the economy and our standard of living. ---------- Electric plug-in cars will never be the answer. Our electricity grid can barely handle the air conditioners, refrigerators, and computers on a hot day. We will never have an electrical infrastructure that can handle our existing voracious and ever-growing demand for electricity, along with the addition of millions of plug-in cars. ---------- Any kind of ethanol, even cellulosic, produced on a scale necessary to run the nation’s cars, will ultimately ruin our topsoil, and exacerbate food price increases. Crop residues – the parts of the plant we don't eat (stalk, roots, and leaves) – are essential for soil nutrition and water retention. Making cellulosic ethanol from crop residues removes water, carbon, and other essential nutrients from soil, and it would be a drop in the bucket relative to our current consumption of gasoline. ---------- The personal car must be phased out, and we must get to work on complex and efficient networks of buses and trains. Further, we must determine the most effective use of our remaining scarce financial and natural resources while we still have enough to accomplish a successful transportation revolution.
»

Hello.First thank you very

Submitted by John Bardakch on May 13, 2008 - 6:10pm.
Hello.First thank you very much for this oportunity to W.W.Instute.I want to say somethings about biofuel alternative energy source.Until 19.century human puplic vessels were same like before centuries.But especialy after industry revulation many things changed.Communication,transport,house,industry,agriculture,m litary ond other branches machines have used alredy by human.This machines need energy sources ;coal,oil,nuclear,wind,hydro and other chemicals...After 20.century despite two world and other civil ,local wars and sicknesses population growed rapidly and now about seven billion.On the other hand consumers behaviors have changed especialy former communist countries are now tipic capitalist character.Contented(by little regime presure)peoples now want many other many kind products.(For example;China peoples prefer cars to bycikles...)World need more especialy oil.OPEC haven't changed capacity(maybe strategic reserves or for other personal advanteges)Still Iraq war haven't finished yet.For these and other reasons ;prize climax arrived to extrumum namely one barrel 120 US dollars.Biofuel maybe is alternative source but onthe other hand this situation have been reason for some foods high prizes.Agriculture began to service energy sector.For this alternative source world need more seriously international common agriculture production policy and organization.High food prizes are a just catastrophe especialy poor countries.By the way wrong agriculture production styles,systems can give serious damages to enviromental,climate acording to scientists.Other alternative is autombil companies can find beter energy sources (like hybrid or others...)I'm a Jehova Witnesses and belive pretty Earth's lovely Maker will solve all good human problems( you can look for more informations our site :www.watchtower.org )Until this amazing future ;we hope human live find beter life conditions by justice,wisdom and be sensitive to planet sources...Thanks again to W.W.Instute for this oportunity and dear readers...With my best wishes and deep regards.*John Bardakch.
»