Carbon emissions

Biofuels and other forms of renewable energy aim to be carbon neutral or even carbon negative. Carbon neutral means that the carbon released during the use of the fuel, e.g. through burning to power transport or generate electricity, is reabsorbed and balanced by the carbon absorbed by new plant growth. These plants are then harvested to make the next batch of fuel. Carbon neutral fuels lead to no net increases in human contributions to atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, reducing the human contributions to global warming. A carbon negative aim is achieved when a portion of the biomass is used for carbon sequestration.^[54] Calculating exactly how much greenhouse gas (GNG) is produced in burning biofuels is a complex and inexact process, which depends very much on the method by which the fuel is produced and the assumptions made in the calculation.

The carbon emissions (Carbon footprint) produced by biofuels are calculated using a technique called Life Cycle Analysis (LCA). This uses a "cradle to grave" or "well to wheels" approach to calculate the total amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases emitted during biofuel production, from putting seed in the ground to using the fuel in cars and trucks. Many different LCAs have been done for different biofuels, with widely differing results. The majority of LCA studies show that biofuels provide significant greenhouse gas emissions savings when compared to fossil fuels such as petroleum and diesel. Therefore, using biofuels to replace a proportion of the fossil fuels that are burned for transportation can reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions. The well-to-wheel analysis for biofuels has shown that first generation biofuels can save up to 60% carbon emission and second generation biofuels can save up to 80% as opposed to using fossil fuels.^[55] However these studies do not take into account emissions from nitrogen fixation, deforestation, land use, or any indirect emissions.

In October 2007, a study was published by scientists from Britain, U.S., Germany and Austria, including Professor Paul Crutzen, who won a Nobel Prize for his work on ozone. They reported that the burning of biofuels derived from rapeseed and corn (maize) can contribute as much or more to global warming by nitrous oxide emissions than cooling by fossil fuel savings. Nitrous oxide is both a potent greenhouse gas and a destroyer of atmospheric ozone. But they also reported that crops with lower requirements for nitrogen fertilizers, such as grasses and woody coppicing will result in a net absorption of greenhouse gases.^{[56] [57]}

In February 2008, two articles were published in Science which investigated the GHG emissions effects of the large amount of natural land that is being converted to cropland globally to support biofuels development.^[58] The first of these studies, conducted at the University of Minnesota,^[59] found that:

...converting rainforests, peatlands, savannas, or grasslands to produce food-based biofuels in Brazil, Southeast Asia, and the United States creates a ‘biofuel carbon debt’ by releasing 17 to 420 times more CO₂ than the annual greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions these biofuels provide by displacing fossil fuels.

This study not only takes into account removal of the original vegetation (as timber or by burning) but also the biomass present in the soil, for example roots, which is released on continued plowing. It also pointed out that:

...biofuels made from waste biomass or from biomass grown on degraded and abandoned agricultural lands planted with perennials incur little or no carbon debt and can offer immediate and sustained GHG advantages.^[59]

The second study, conducted at Princeton University,^[60] used a worldwide agricultural model to show that:

...corn-based ethanol, instead of producing a 20% savings, nearly doubles greenhouse emissions over 30 years and increases greenhouse gases for 167 years.

Both of the Science studies highlight the need for sustainable biofuels, using feedstocks that minimize competition for prime croplands. These include farm, forest and municipal waste streams; energy crops grown on marginal lands, and algaes. These second generation biofuels feedstocks "are expected to dramatically reduce GHGs compared to first generation biofuels such as corn ethanol". In short, biofuels done unsustainably could make the climate problem worse, while biofuels done sustainably could play a leading role in solving the carbon challenge.^[61]

Sustainable biofuel production

Responsible policies and economic instruments would help to ensure that biofuel commercialization, including the development of new cellulosic technologies, is sustainable. Sustainable biofuel production practices would not hamper food and fibre production, nor cause water or environmental problems, and would actually enhance soil fertitlity.^[62] Responsible commercialization of biofuels represents an opportunity to enhance sustainable economic prospects in Africa, Latin America and impoverished Asia.^[63]

Soil erosion, deforestation, and biodiversity

It is important to note that carbon compounds in waste biomass that is left on the ground are consumed by other microorganisms. They break down biomass in the soil to produce valuable nutrients that are necessary for future crops. On a larger scale, plant biomass waste provides small wildlife habitat, which in turn ripples up through the food chain. The widespread human use of biomass (which would normally compost the field) would threaten these organisms and natural habitats. When cellulosic ethanol is produced from feedstock like switchgrass and saw grass, the nutrients that were required to grow the lignocellulose are removed and cannot be processed by microorganisms to replenish the soil nutrients. The soil is then of poorer quality. Loss of ground cover root structures accelerates unsustainable soil erosion.^[64]

Significant areas of native Amazon rainforest have been cleared by slash and burn techniques to make room for sugar cane production, which is used in large part for ethanol fuel in Brazil, and growing ethanol exports. Large-scale deforestation of mature trees (which help remove CO₂ through photosynthesis — much better than does sugar cane or most other biofuel feedstock crops do) contributes to un-sustainable global warming atmospheric greenhouse gas levels, loss of habitat, and a reduction of valuable biodiversity.^[65] Demand for biofuel has led to clearing land for Palm Oil plantations^[66].

A portion of the biomass should be retained onsite to support the soil resource. Normally this will be in the form of raw biomass, but processed biomass is also an option. If the exported biomass is used to produce syngas, the process can be used to co-produce biochar, a low-temperature charcoal used as a soil amendment to increase soil organic matter to a degree not practical with less recalcitrant forms of organic carbon. For co-production of biochar to be widely adopted, the soil amendment and carbon sequestration value of co-produced charcoal must exceed its net value as a source of energy.^[67]

Impact on water resources

Increased use of biofuels puts increasing pressure on water resources in at least two ways: water use for the irrigation of crops used as feedstocks for biodiesel production; and water use in the production of biofuels in refineries, mostly for boiling and cooling.

In many parts of the world supplemental or full irrigation is needed to grow feedstocks. For example, if in the production of corn (maize) half the water needs of crops are met through irrigation and the other half through rainfall, about 860 liters of water are needed to produce one liter of ethanol.^[68]

In the United States, the number of ethanol factories has almost tripled from 50 in 2000 to about 140 in 2008. A further 60 or so are under construction, and many more are planned. Projects are being challenged by residents at courts in Missouri (where water is drawn from the Ozark Aquifer), Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas (all of which draw water from the non-renewable Ogallala Aquifer), central Illinois (where water is drawn from the Mahomet Aquifer) and Minnesota.^[69]

Social and Water impact in Indonesia

In some locations such as Indonesia deforestation for Palm Oil plantations is leading to displacement of Indigenous peoples. Also, extensive use of pesticide for biofuel crops is reducing clean water supplies.^[70]

Environmental organizations stance

Some mainstream environmental groups support biofuels as a significant step toward slowing or stopping global climate change. However, biofuel production can threaten the environment if it is not done sustainably. This finding has been backed by reports of the UN,^[71] the IPCC,^[72] and some other smaller environmental and social groups as the EEB^[73] and the Bank Sarasin,^[74] which generally remain negative about biofuels.

As a result, governmental^[75] and environmental organisations are turning against biofuels made at a non-sustainable way (hereby preferring certain oil sources as jatropha and lignocellulose over palm oil)^[76] and are asking for global support for this.^[77][78] Also, besides supporting these more sustainable biofuels, environmental organisations are redirecting to new technologies that do not use internal combustion engines such as hydrogen and compressed air.^[79]

The "Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels" is an international initiative which brings together farmers, companies, governments, non-governmental organizations, and scientists who are interested in the sustainability of biofuels production and distribution. During 2008, the Roundtable is developing a series of principles and criteria for sustainable biofuels production through meetings, teleconferences, and online discussions.^[80]

The increased manufacture of biofuels will require increasing land areas to be used for agriculture. Second and third generation biofuel processes can ease the pressure on land, because they can use waste biomass, and existing (untapped) sources of biomass such as crop residues and potentially even marine algae.

In some regions of the world, a combination of increasing demand for food, and increasing demand for biofuel, is causing deforestation and threats to biodiversity. The best reported example of this is the expansion of oil palm plantations in Malaysia and Indonesia, where rainforest is being destroyed to establish new oil palm plantations. It is an important fact that 90% of the palm oil produced in Malaysia is used by the food industry;^[81] therefore biofuels cannot be held solely responsible for this deforestation. There is a pressing need for sustainable palm oil production for the food and fuel industries; palm oil is used in a wide variety of food products. The Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels is working to define criteria, standards and processes to promote sustainably produced biofuels.^[82] Palm oil is also used in the manufacture of detergents, and in electricity and heat generation both in Asia and around the world (the UK burns palm oil in coal-fired power stations to generate electricity).

Significant area is likely to be dedicated to sugar cane in future years as demand for ethanol increases worldwide. The expansion of sugar cane plantations will place pressure on environmentally-sensitive native ecosystems including rainforest in South America.^[83] In forest ecosystems, these effects themselves will undermine the climate benefits of alternative fuels, in addition to representing a major threat to global biodiversity.^[84]

Although biofuels are generally considered to improve net carbon output, biodiesel and other fuels do produce local air pollution, including nitrogen oxides, the principal cause of smog.

Potential for poverty reduction

Researchers at the Overseas Development Institute have argued that biofuels could help to reduce poverty in the developing world, through increased employment, wider economic growth multipliers and energy price effects. However, this potential is described as 'fragile', and is reduced where feedstock production tends to be large scale, or causes pressure on limited agricultural resources: capital investment, land, water, and the net cost of food for the poor.

With regards to the potential for poverty reduction or exacerbation, biofuels rely on many of the same policy, regulatory or investment shortcomings that impede agriculture as a route to poverty reduction. Since many of these shortcomings require policy improvements at a country level rather than a global one, they argue for a country-by-country analysis of the potential poverty impacts of biofuels. This would consider, among other things, land administration systems, market coordination and prioritising investment in biodiesel, as this 'generates more labour, has lower transportation costs and uses simpler technology'.^[85]

References