A Case For the Adjustment of United States Biofuel Policy
By XXX
The Emergence and Impact of Biofuels
In light of recent increases in energy costs and public outcry for both reductions in
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and for energy independence, biofuels have emerged as
an increasingly popular energy solution. Biofuels’ expected five-fold increase in the
global share of transport fuels by the year 2020 indicates the relevance and potential
impact of this energy source (“Biofuels: The promise and the risks” 1). The United States
is one of the world’s leaders in biofuel production - producing more ethanol, the most
common liquid biofuel, than any other nation (“Biofuels: The promise and the risks” 1).
However, the growth of domestic ethanol production is not without significant costs. In
order to be economically viable, biofuel programs in the U.S. (particularly ethanol) are
supported by large government subsidies and protective tariffs. In addition to economic
costs, current domestic biofuel production may actually have negative impacts on GHG
emissions, as well as negative impacts on food production and land-use (Staley and
Bradley 3).
Taking into account the significant government costs of biofuel production and
uncertainty surrounding the benefits and impacts of current domestic production, it is
imperative that the Department of Energy makes immediate adjustments to federal
policies and investments concerning biofuels.
Analysis and Recommendations for Domestic Biofuel Policy and
Investments in Biofuel Technologies
According to the World Resources Institute, current subsidies for the domestic biofuel
programs “cost the U.S. government over $7 billion per year, including production tax
incentives and direct subsidies for fuel and feedstock production” (Staley et al. 4). Many
of these subsidies go towards the production of ethanol distilled from corn or maize,
which when produced in moderate climate zones (like those in the U.S.), is not likely to
reach price levels competitive with existing transport fuel prices (Faaji 8). The
government should no longer subsidize programs that cannot be competitive without
ongoing injection of government funding. Furthermore, ethanol production has a variety
of negative economic and environmental impacts, including competition with food and
feedstock production (the amount of corn necessary to produce one SUV tank of ethanol
could feed one person for a year), competition for water resources and an array of landuse conflicts (Faaji 3).
Instead of devoting funding to biofuels such as ethanol that disrupt existing agricultural
markets, the Department of Energy (DOE) should eliminate subsidies for ethanol derived
from corn and maize and devote these funds to research and development in “second
generation biofuel technologies.” Second generation biofuel technologies include the
creation of biofuels from agricultural and timber waste, production of fuel from specially
cultivated algae and the sequestering of methane gas from landfills (an option with high
GHG emission mitigation potential) (Faaji 7). While the initial costs of developing these
technologies are high, the potential benefits of creating biofuels from waste, instead of
from potential food sources, justify the up-front expense.
International Implications of Emerging Biofuel Markets and
International Policy Recommendations
Internationally, biofuels are a potentially viable source of energy for developing nations.
However, the U.S. should take action to ensure that a sustainable biofuel industry
develops in these nations.
Many countries, particularly those in the tropics, possess tremendous potential for biofuel
production (Faaji 8). An increase in international biofuel production presents the several
foreign policy advantages. First, an increase in biofuel supply will ease pressure on
global fossil fuel demand. Secondly, the emergence of biofuel production in developing
countries will lead to stronger, less aid-dependent economies and likely more
international stability. Lastly, developing nations that increase energy independence are
less like to ally with oil-producing countries unsympathetic to U.S. foreign policy
interests, such as Iran and Venezuela.
Given these advantages, the United States must promote biofuel production abroad,
though it must make every effort to minimize any deforestation or competition with food
production that may arise from expanded biofuel production. Utilizing marginal or
reclaimed lands for biofuel production, as well as careful oversight by international
agencies could help achieve this goal. In order to ensure that biofuel production is
established in an environmentally responsible fashion, the U.S. must work collaboratively
with other nations to establish a certification process so the production, markets and trade
of biofuels meet agreed upon standards of sustainability.
Conclusion
Produced sustainably, biofuels possess the potential to both increase energy
independence and reduce GHG emissions (Staley et al. 4). In order to optimize these
benefits and mitigate negative impacts, the DOE must abandon current subsidies for
biofuels derived from corn, maize or other food staples. Instead, the DOE should invest
capital and resources to emerging technologies which create biofuels from waste and
other bi-products. Internationally, the U.S. should work collaboratively to create a
certification program promoting the sustainable production of biofuels and international
markets for these fuels.
References
“Biofuels: The promise and the risks.” World Development Report. 2008: 1-2. Print.
Staley, Britt Childs, and Rob Bradley. “Plants at the Pump: Reviewing Biofuels’ Impacts
and Policy Recommendations.” World Resources Institute Climate and Energy
Policy Series: July 2008. 1-8. Print.
Faaji, Andre. “Potential Contribution of Bioenergy to The World’s Future Energy
Demand.” IEA Bioenergy: February 2007: 1-12. Print.