WO R L DWAT C H R E P O RT
180
Red, White, and Green:
Transforming
U.S. Biofuels
ja n e e a r l e y a n d a l i c e mc k e ow n
W O R L D WAT C H R E P O R T
18 0
Red, White, and Green:
Transforming
U.S. Biofuels
jane earley and alice mckeow n
l i s a m a s t n y, e d i t o r
w o r l d wat c h i n s t i t u t e , wa s h i n g t o n , d c
© Worldwatch Institute, 2009
ISBN 978-1-878071-90-3
The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily
represent those of the Worldwatch Institute; of its directors, officers, or staff;
or of its funding organizations.
On the cover: Advances in technology can help improve current biofuels and develop
new alternatives. This near-infrared spectrometer, promoted by the National Renewable
Energy Laboratory, enables researchers to chemically analyze plants and trees in the field,
increasing the speed of the analysis and cutting down costs.
Photograph by Bonnie Hames, courtesy NREL
Reprint and copyright information for one-time academic use of this material is available
by contacting Customer Service, Copyright Clearance Center, at +1 978-750-8400 (phone) or
+1 978-750-4744 (fax), or by writing to CCC, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, USA.
Nonacademic and commercial users should contact the Worldwatch Institute’s Business
Development Department by fax at +1 202-296-7365 or by email at wwpub@worldwatch.org.
Table of Contents
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
The Promise of Biofuels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Biofuels in the United States Today . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Climate and Environmental Impacts of Current Biofuels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Benefits of “Advanced” Biofuels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Making Biofuels Sustainable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Federal and State Biofuel Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
The Road Ahead: Policy Options for Sustainable U.S. Biofuels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Endnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Figures, Tables, and Sidebars
Figure 1. U.S. Biofuel Production, 1990–2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Figure 2. U.S. Corn Used in Ethanol Production, 1980–2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Figure 3. U.S. Corn and Soybean Prices, 2000–09 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Figure 4. U.S. Ethanol and Gasoline Prices, 2005–09 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Figure 5. GHG Emissions Reduction Potentials for Ethanol, by Feedstock Type . . . . . . . . 13
Figure 6. Biofuel Requirements Under the U.S. Renewable Fuel Standard, 2009–22 . . . . 26
Table 1. Biofuel Production by Country/Region, 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Table 2. Selected Biofuel Sustainability Initiatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Sidebar 1. Biofuel Basics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Sidebar 2. Algae for Biodiesel: Third-Generation Biofuels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Sidebar 3. Technologies for Advanced Biofuels:
Biochemical and Thermochemical Platforms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Sidebar 4. Biomass and Biofuels: Transitioning Transportation Fuels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Sidebar 5. California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard: A Model for National Policy? . . . . . . . 29
Acknowledgments
This report has been through many reinventions, benefiting from a range of experts and
researchers who have made this timely update possible. We are thankful for the continued guidance and expertise of Christopher Flavin, President of Worldwatch, and Janet Sawin, Director of
the Institute’s Energy and Climate Change Program. We also appreciate the contributions of Raya
Widenoja, who laid much of the early groundwork for the report, and the numerous outside
experts, who provided thoughtful input on the report and its recommendations.
Special thanks also to Stanford MAP Fellow Amanda Chiu, who researched the figures and
tables and contributed an informative sidebar. Antone Neugass showed great flexibility in his
research skills and in finding new data that pulled the paper together. Senior Editor Lisa Mastny
played an essential role in commenting on early drafts and moving the draft through production,
and Art Director Lyle Rosbotham provided the clean design and layout. The authors also appreciate the support of Juliane Diamond, who helped with the important tasks of fact checking and filling in last-minute research holes.
Support for this project and the Worldwatch Institute over the past year was provided by the
American Clean Skies Foundation, the Heinrich Böll Foundation, the Blue Moon Fund, the
Casten Family Foundation, the Compton Foundation, Inc., the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation,
The Goldman Environmental Prize, the Richard and Rhoda Goldman Fund, the Good Energies
Foundation, the W. K. Kellogg Foundation, the Steven C. Leuthold Family Foundation, the
Marianists of the USA Sharing Fund, the Netherlands Environment Ministry, the Norwegian
Royal Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the V. Kann Rasmussen Foundation, The Shared Earth
Foundation, The Shenandoah Foundation, the Sierra Club, Stonyfield Farm, the TAUPO Fund,
the United Nations Population Fund, the United Nations Environment Programme, the Wallace
Genetic Foundation, Inc., the Wallace Global Fund, the Johanette Wallerstein Institute, the
Winslow Foundation, and the World Wildlife Fund–Europe. Support was also provided by the
generous contributions of more than 3,000 Friends of Worldwatch.
About the Authors
Jane Earley is an attorney and the managing partner of Earley & White Consulting Group, LLC,
where she specializes in the international trade and environmental aspects of standards in international law. She is currently working on emerging standards for biofuels and agricultural carbon
credits and on efforts to address sustainable agriculture in U.S. and international standards. Jane
has broad experience in the public and private sectors and with both voluntary and regulatory
standards. She has served as a trade negotiator with the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, as
director of the Sustainable Agriculture Unit of the World Wildlife Fund, and as CEO of the Marine
Stewardship Council.
Alice McKeown is a research associate at the Worldwatch Institute and the director of Vital Signs
Online. She has followed and written about environmental issues for many years and currently
writes about climate change, energy, and agriculture issues. Her recent publications include a
“Climate Change Reference Guide” for Worldwatch’s State of the World 2009 report and articles
on genetically modified crops, aquaculture, compact fluorescent light bulbs, and coral reefs. Alice
has a background in environmental advocacy and grassroots organizing, including more than five
years of lobbying and policy experience. She has worked extensively on issues surrounding the
use of coal, including climate change, air pollution, and community destruction caused by mountaintop removal coal mining. Alice supports the local foods movement and is proud to know
her farmer.
4
Red, White, and Green
w w w. w orldwatch.org
Summary
O
ver the last decade, biofuels have
been championed in the United
States as a new source of income
for rural communities, as a way
to reduce dependence on foreign oil, and most
recently as a solution to the country’s energy
and climate change problems. These latter concerns are now the main driver behind the
promise of biofuels, leading the United States
and other governments across the world to
encourage greater production and use. But as
the market for biofuels expands, so too do the
social, economic, and environmental impacts.
Rapid growth in biofuels use in the past five
years has contributed to a sharp increase in
food, feed grain, and soybean prices in the
United States and abroad. These price fluctuations have fueled a global debate over “food versus fuel.” At the same time, the global economic
recession has led the U.S. biofuels industry to
contract, threatening jobs and livelihoods.
Studies suggest that the environmental costs
of producing “first-generation” biofuels such
as corn-based ethanol on a large scale likely
outweigh the benefits. These costs include
increased water pollution, the loss of wildlife
habitat, and declining freshwater resources. Of
particular concern is the link between biofuels
expansion and the global conversion of land
for agriculture, as biofuel crops compete with
forests and food crops for limited land and
other resources.
Corn ethanol leads to only minimal, if any,
reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, an ofttouted benefit and justification for expanding
biofuels production. Current best estimates
suggest that corn ethanol provides only a 12 to
18 percent net reduction in emissions, on aver-
www.worldwatch.org
age, compared to gasoline. If land that is rich
in carbon is converted from forests or other
natural ecosystems to biofuels production,
these benefits can fall away completely.
These concerns point to a crossroads for the
U.S. biofuels industry. The country must now
choose between a business-as-usual approach
that worsens environmental and climate problems, or a more cautious approach during
which decision makers take the time to “get
biofuels right” before rushing forward with
more production. Taking the more sustainable
path includes an immediate transition to “second-generation” biofuels while phasing out
reliance on unsustainable first-generation fuels.
Advanced biofuels can be produced not
just from annual crops, but also from fastgrowing trees and grasses as well as from a
range of organic wastes and potentially even
algae. The feedstocks can be grown on marginal land that does not have to compete with
food production and that can be cultivated in
ways that minimize harmful effects on water
quality and wildlife habitat. These feedstocks
may also require fewer fossil fuel inputs and
retain more carbon in their soils than corn
and soybeans, enhancing their ability to mitigate climate change.
Research is now under way on the conversion of cellulose to biofuel, and dozens of
entrepreneurs are working to commercialize
this and other advanced biofuel technologies.
There is no guarantee, however, that the production of advanced biofuels at a large scale
will be environmentally beneficial, although
current assessments show much promise.
Three broad efforts in U.S. policy would
make biofuels production more environmenRed, White, and Green
5
Summary
tally sustainable and help ensure that the use of
biofuels for transportation contributes to both
energy security and global efforts to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions:
1. Spur the rapid development of cellulosic
and other advanced biofuels that significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions,
using existing economic instruments and
other tools.
2. Develop sustainability standards and make
government support for biofuels conditional
on meeting these standards.
3. Create a holistic energy policy across all
transportation-related sectors.
Reforming U.S. biofuel policies will require
overcoming an array of economic forces that
uphold the current industry structure. Present
policies reward the least promising biofuels,
and if they are not reformed, rising damage to
6
Red, White, and Green
the landscape and climate will fuel greater
opposition.
Although second-generation biofuels are
not a panacea, they offer the prospect of a
more sustainable energy future. Getting there
will require careful analysis of biofuel production, distribution, and use, including alternate
ways to grow feedstock, power refineries, and
use byproducts. Decision makers should also
consider wider transportation solutions such
as more fuel-efficient vehicles, investments in
public transportation, ways to reduce congestion, and urban planning that promotes biking
and walking.
The solution to the biofuels challenge is not
simply a matter of substituting different feedstocks. Rather, it is about finding a new model
that takes the United States down a truly red,
white, and green path.
w w w. w orldwatch.org
The Promise of Biofuels
E
very day, the U.S. transportation sector uses an estimated 14 million barrels of oil to power more than 244
million cars, trucks, and other vehicles.1* As concerns about energy security and
the nation’s self-proclaimed “addiction to foreign oil” escalate, the impetus for reducing
dependence on petroleum and other fossilbased transport fuels grows stronger.2 Worries
about climate change add to the alarm, as the
transportation sector now accounts for nearly
30 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.3
Biofuels, which have long been popular with
farmers who see a new market for their crops,
are now touted as a solution to the country’s
energy and climate problems. The two most
popular biofuels nationwide are corn-based
ethanol and soy-based biodiesel, although biofuels can theoretically be produced from a
wide range of plant and animal feedstocks.4
(See Sidebar 1.)
Biofuels research and development has been
under way in the United States since the late
1970s, but the industry came into its own only
in the last decade. As the promise of renewable
fuels has been more widely advertised, governments around the world have moved to produce and promote wider use of biofuels.
Globally, production of ethanol and biodiesel
increased from some 4.8 billion gallons in 2000
to 21 billion gallons in 2008.5
Ethanol accounts for the bulk of global biofuels production, and the United States and
Brazil are the two leading producers, generating the fuel from corn and sugar cane, respectively.6 (See Table 1.) As production has
Sidebar 1. Biofuel Basics
The terms biofuel, ethanol, and biodiesel are sometimes used
interchangeably, but they have important distinctions. In the
United States “biofuel” is most often used in reference to cornbased ethanol, the main biofuel produced domestically. But there
are many other potential biofuels, including biodiesel, cellulosic
ethanol, biobutanol, and biogas. When used for transportation,
biofuels are not typically stand-alone fuels but are blended into
conventional fuel sources, such as gasoline and petroleum diesel.
Biofuels can be derived from an array of feedstocks using
astonishingly diverse technologies. Currently, the primary feedstocks fall into three main categories of agricultural crops that are
also used for food:
• sugar crops, including sugar cane, sugar beets, and sweet
sorghum;
• starch crops, including corn, wheat, barley, cassava, and milo
(grain sorghum); and
• oilseed crops, including rapeseed, canola, soybean, sunflower,
and mustard.
Biofuels are just one form of “bioenergy,” or energy derived
from biological plant and animal matter, which is known collectively as biomass. In the United States, biofuel usually refers to
liquid fuels for transport, whereas bioenergy or biomass energy
is commonly used to describe electricity or heat generated from
renewable biomass sources.
Conventional or “first-generation” ethanol (e.g., corn ethanol)
is made by fermenting sugars from plants with high starch or
sugar content into alcohol, using the same basic methods that
brewers have relied on for centuries. “Second-generation” ethanol
(e.g., cellulosic ethanol) is made from more advanced and nonfood crop feedstocks, using more sophisticated technological
processes that have to first break down cellulose into sugars.
Ethanol is typically found as a blend with petroleum gasoline,
although certain modified vehicles (“flex-fuel”) can run on a
higher E85 (85 percent ethanol) blend.
Biodiesel is made by reacting oils with alcohols in a process
known as esterification. In addition to plant feedstocks, biodiesel
can be made from animal fats and waste oils. Biodiesel can be
used in pure form (B100) or as a blend with petroleum diesel.
Source: See Endnote 4 for this section.
* Endnotes are grouped by section and begin on page 34.
www.worldwatch.org
Red, White, and Green
7
The Promise of Biofuels
Table 1. Biofuel Production by Country/Region, 2008
Country/ Region
Ethanol
Biodiesel
Total
million
gallons
million tons of oil
equivalent (mtoe)
million
gallons
mtoe
million
gallons
mtoe
United States
Brazil
European Union (EU-27)
China
Canada
Thailand
Colombia
India
Australia
Rest of World
8,982
6,472
734
502
238
90
79
66
26
128
17.08
12.31
1.40
0.95
0.45
0.17
0.15
0.13
0.05
0.24
711
308
2,113
41
26
123
30
6
18
512
2.13
0.92
6.33
0.12
0.08
0.37
0.09
0.02
0.05
1.53
9,693
6,780
2,846
542
264
213
109
72
44
640
19.21
13.23
7.73
1.08
0.53
0.54
0.24
0.14
0.10
1.78
World
17,317
32.93
3,888
11.66
21,205
44.59
Source: See Endnote 6 for this section.
increased, so too has the fuel ethanol trade. In
2000, exports represented only some 2.5 percent of global production, but by 2007 this
share had climbed to 8 percent.7 Biofuels
account for an estimated 1 percent of global
transport fuel consumption.8
Global production of biodiesel has grown
rapidly as well, although starting from a much
smaller base. Biodiesel output expanded from
230 million gallons in 2000 to 3.9 billion gallons
in 2008.9 The European Union produces nearly
80 percent of the world’s biodiesel, largely
from rapeseed (Germany is the single largest
biodiesel producer), followed by the United
States, which produces the fuel mainly from
soybeans.10 Indonesia and Thailand are significant producers of biodiesel from palm oil.11
Expanding biofuels development has triggered worldwide concern about the economic,
environmental, and social impacts of this
boom. Rapid growth in biofuels use in the past
five years has contributed to a sharp increase
in food, feed grain, and soybean prices.12 Of
particular concern is the link between biofuels
expansion and the global conversion of land
to agriculture, as biofuel crops compete with
forests and food crops for limited land and
other resources. These “indirect” effects of bio8
Red, White, and Green
fuels are only beginning to be understood.13
In the United States, it is clear that the current biofuels industry, based primarily on corn
ethanol, is creating a host of problems while
failing to deliver measurable reductions in
greenhouse gas emissions. Yet U.S. policies
continue to support the rapid increase in biofuels production. The nation’s Renewable Fuel
Standard (RFS), updated in 2007, requires that
36 billion gallons of biofuels be included in the
U.S. liquid fuel mix by 2022, including a maximum of 15 billion gallons of corn ethanol
from 2015 on.14 But industry experts predict
that corn ethanol production could surge well
beyond this level if oil and fuel prices continue
to rise, supporting greater industry expansion.15
The U.S. biofuels industry is at a crossroads.
In order to become sustainable over the long
term, it must take aggressive and concerted
action to address the serious environmental,
social, and economic concerns that stem from
current biofuels production. It must also work
to speed the transition to so-called “secondgeneration” biofuels derived from agricultural
and forestry wastes and other non-food
sources, which hold greater promise for the
environment and global climate.
w w w. w orldwatch.org
Biofuels in the
United States Today
T
* 1.5 gallons of ethanol are needed to displace 1 gallon of
gasoline because of ethanol’s lower energy content.
www.worldwatch.org
Figure 1. U.S. Biofuel Production, 1990–2008
10,000
Source: RFA, F.O. Licht, NBB
8,000
Million Gallons
he U.S. biofuels industry has really
taken off only in the last decade or
so. In the late 1990s, strong initial
growth in ethanol production
stemmed from the need to find a less toxic
substitute for the gasoline additive MTBE
(methyl tertiary butyl ether), a known groundwater contaminant.1 Since then, U.S. agricultural regions have lobbied successfully for
policies to increase domestic biofuels use as
a way to shore up corn prices and stimulate
rural development.
U.S. ethanol production has expanded rapidly over the past decade, although the market
has changed considerably in just the last two
years as economic conditions have changed.
In 2002, producers generated some 2.1 billion
gallons of ethanol, and demand barely topped
2 billion gallons.2 By comparison, in 2008
domestic ethanol production was estimated
at 9 billion gallons, and demand topped 9.6
billion gallons, including some 500 million
gallons of imports.3 (See Figure 1.)
The increase in ethanol consumption
reduced U.S. demand for motor gasoline by
about 5 percent in 2008.4 * While the nation’s
ethanol market experienced a significant
downturn at the end of the year, and projections for 2009 are more conservative, there is
still considerable potential for growth over the
next few years.
As of September 2008, 160 companies were
producing ethanol in the United States, 57
more than the year before.5 The addition of
the new companies contributed to a decline
Biodiesel
Ethanol
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
in the market share of industry leaders such as
POET, VeraSun, and Archer Daniels Midland.6
In early 2009, the country was home to 193
ethanol plants with a combined nameplate
capacity of 12.4 billion gallons.7
Rising ethanol production has led to a sharp
increase in U.S. demand for corn. The U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) predicts
that farmers will plant some 85 million acres
of corn in 2009–10, down slightly from the
year before but still the third largest acreage
since 1949 (following 2007 and 2008).8 As
much as one-third of this corn crop, or 4.2 billion bushels, will be used to produce ethanol
in 2009–10, up from only 5 percent in 2000.9
(See Figure 2.) But ethanol’s share of annual
U.S. gasoline use is expected to remain relatively small: about 10 percent by 2020 and
15–17 percent by 2030.10
U.S. biodiesel production has lagged far
behind ethanol in volume, but the industry
Red, White, and Green
9
2008
Biofuels in the United States Today
Figure 2. U.S. Corn Used in Ethanol Production, 1980–2008
4,000
100
3,200
80
Corn used in ethanol production
Ethanol share of U.S. corn production
2,400
60
1,600
40
800
20
0
0
1980
1984
1988
1992
1996
2000
September–August Market Years
has expanded rapidly as well. The nation’s biodiesel producers rely mainly on soybeans and
waste cooking oil as feedstocks, although some
are using canola or cottonseed oil.11 As of September 2008, there were 176 biodiesel plants
nationwide, with a combined annual capacity
of some 2.6 billion gallons.12 Yet production
remains well below capacity: in 2008, domestic
biodiesel output was only 711 million gallons.13 Another 850 million gallons of capacity
is slated to come online by the end of 2009.14
The rapid expansion in biofuels—particularly corn ethanol—has had mixed economic
impacts. One of the more cited effects is the
higher volatility of corn and soybean prices
triggered both by demand-induced price
increases and by sharp jumps in the price of
oil, a significant input to current systems of
food production.15 * (See Figure 3.) Estimates
indicate that the high U.S. demand for corn for
ethanol production accounted for 20 percent
of the rise in corn prices in 2008.16
The rising price of corn has caused hardship
for other U.S. agricultural sectors that rely
heavily on corn for animal feed and other products, such as livestock and poultry production and the manufacturing of high-fructose
corn sweeteners.17 In 2009, the Congressional
Budget Office estimated that the increased
* All dollar amounts are expressed in U.S. dollars.
10
Ethanol Share of Corn Production (%)
Corn Used in Ethanol Production
(million bushels)
Source: USDA
Red, White, and Green
2004
2008
demand for corn ethanol was responsible for
10–15 percent of the rise in food prices for the
year ending in April 2008.18 Rising food costs
due to ethanol production are projected to cost
the government an additional $600–900 million in expenditures on federal food assistance
programs in fiscal year 2009.19
More recently, a sharp decline in oil prices
has put pressure on biofuel producers by
squeezing their profit margins. When oil prices
were high—up to $147 a barrel in July 2008—
corn ethanol continued to flourish.20 But as oil
fell to $36 a barrel in early 2009, ethanol blending became less attractive and producers were
faced with expensive feedstocks and lower profits.21 Domestic demand for gasoline dropped
late in 2008 as well—down 7.1 percent for the
year, the largest one-year decline since records
began in 1950—and the market for ethanol
blending eroded further.22 All of these factors
led to high volatility in 2008 in both the wholesale price of ethanol and in the per-gallon
profit.23 (See Figure 4.)
The volatility in feedstock prices, demand,
and profits, compounded with the global economic downturn and credit crisis of 2008, led
to a shakeup in the U.S. ethanol industry. In
October 2008, VeraSun, the country’s second
largest producer with 1.64 billion gallons of
capacity, filed for bankruptcy, even though it had
been a rising star earlier in the year.24 Other U.S.
w w w. w orldwatch.org
Biofuels in the United States Today
www.worldwatch.org
Figure 3. U.S. Corn and Soybean Prices, 2000–09
15
Source: USDA
Soybeans
Corn
Dollars per Bushel
12
9
6
3
0
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
Figure 4. U.S. Ethanol and Gasoline Prices, 2005–09
6
Ethanol
Unleaded gasoline
5
Dollars per Gallon
companies also declared bankruptcy.25 Estimates indicate that more than 24 ethanol plants
were shut down or idled between late 2008 and
March 2009, accounting for about 21 percent
of U.S. annual capacity, and the trend was
expected to continue through 2009.26 Because
many ethanol companies are privately owned,
the full extent of problematic debt and other
financial instability remains largely unknown.27
Although investment in corn ethanol was
profitable for many investors initially, industry
consolidation in recent years has resulted in
the transfer of many locally owned plants from
farmer cooperatives to large companies.28 Estimates show that only some 34 percent of U.S.
ethanol facilities were locally owned in 2006—
down significantly from earlier years—and this
share has continued to plummet to no more
than 21 percent in 2009.29 Additional consolidation in both the ethanol and biodiesel industries is expected, especially with a worsening
economy, low or moderate oil prices, and large
sell-offs of biofuel assets.30
The loss of local ownership can translate
into fewer benefits for local communities.
One study in the state of Minnesota, where as
many as 80 percent of ethanol facilities remain
locally owned, suggests that local ownership
can increase local economic benefits by 5 to 30
percent.31 Local ownership may be particularly
beneficial to farmers, who may earn up to 10
times more per bushel from ethanol-related
dividends than from selling the crop without
dividends and under absentee ownership.32
Another study from Iowa indicates that every
quarter-share of local ownership at an ethanol
plant supports some 29 jobs in the local economy (beyond plant operations) during a
period of high returns.33
The effects of ethanol plants on U.S. job
creation have been mixed. Industry reports
initially promised the creation of nearly 700
permanent jobs in an area near an ethanol
plant, but more realistic estimates may be
130–250 permanent jobs during a boom year.34
However, these numbers do not take into
account the possible adverse impacts on the
food and livestock industries from the diversion of corn to ethanol.35 The Renewable Fuels
4
3
2
1
Source: Platts
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Association estimates that the ethanol industry
supported the creation of some 238,000 jobs
during 2007.36
By comparison, U.S. biodiesel plants were
estimated to support more than 20,000 new
jobs nationwide in 2007 and some 52,000 jobs
in 2008.37 This translates into about 635 new
direct and indirect jobs for every 10 million
gallon plant.38
Future prospects for U.S. job creation from
ethanol, biodiesel, and other advanced biofuels
are positive. One study estimates that renewable transportation fuels could lead to more
than 1.2 million new “green” energy jobs by
2038, assuming that infrastructure development and feedstock growth will support a 30
Red, White, and Green
11
skidrd
Biofuels in the United States Today
Bioidiesel blends available at a station in Seattle, Washington.
percent share of renewable fuel demand by
the same year.39 Another study estimates that
investment in green jobs, including in the
biomass and advanced biofuel and cellulosic
ethanol sectors, could lead to the creation of 2
million jobs if the country achieves 25 percent
low-carbon fuels content by 2025.40 The U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE) projects that for
every 1 billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol that
comes online, up to 20,000 jobs may be created.41 Lastly, a study released in early 2009
predicts that meeting the advanced biofuels
requirements of the Renewable Fuel Standard
will create 123,000 jobs (including 29,000
direct jobs) by 2012.42
U.S. ethanol producers continue to receive
generous subsidies (amounting to an estimated
$8 billion in 2008) to help maintain production, but some proponents argue that addi-
tional support is necessary to maintain a viable
industry.43 The global recession and credit
crunch are often cited as hampering the development of advanced biofuels such as cellulosic
ethanol.44 One estimate indicates that the
number of investment banks with a history of
supporting ethanol development over the last
decade has dropped from around 20 to only
five today.45 Some investors are also reluctant
to invest during a time of low or moderate oil
prices and weak demand for oil and ethanol.46
These financial uncertainties have been a
leading factor in calls to increase the nation’s
ethanol blending limit, currently set at a maximum blend level of 10 percent ethanol into
conventional gasoline (known as E10). Limiting the level of ethanol that can be blended
restricts the overall amount of ethanol that can
be sold in the United States to about 12.5 billion
gallons per year because of the total amount
of transportation fuels used.47 * Many ethanol
proponents have argued that this virtual production cap—often called the “blend wall”—
will soon be reached, necessitating higher
blending limits of 15–20 percent to guarantee
a larger domestic market for ethanol and
encourage more development and investment.48
Changing the blend level is more than a formality, and the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency and DOE are studying the effects on
vehicle engines and the environment of raising
the blending limit.49 With mounting pressure
from industry groups and potential support
from the heads of both agencies, however,
some experts predict that the blend level may
be raised to 12 or 13 percent in the short term,
before the full effects are known.50
* A higher-level blend of 85 percent (E85) can be used
only in specially modified engines and is sold at only a
small number of filling stations across the United States.
Including ethanol in every gallon of gasoline in the country is currently impossible due to limitations in production, distribution, and other issues.
12
Red, White, and Green
w w w. w orldwatch.org
Climate and Environmental
Impacts of Current Biofuels
www.worldwatch.org
a strong energy return, in large part because
the refining process is fueled by sugar cane
bagasse, the stalks that remain after sugar cane
has been pressed to make sugar.4 The energy
balance for some biofuels is expected to
improve over time with increased yields, more
efficient processing, and other developments.5
Current best estimates suggest that corn
ethanol provides only a 12–18 percent net
reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, on average, compared to gasoline (the Environmental
Protection Agency estimates a 22 percent reduction).6 (See Figure 5.) As a result, ethanol consumption reduced total emissions from the U.S.
transportation sector by only 0.7 percent in
2008.7 In places where coal, a carbon-intensive
fuel, is used to power the refinery, the lifecycle
emissions for ethanol can be as high as or higher
than those associated with gasoline.8
Figure 5. GHG Emissions Reduction
Potentials for Ethanol, by Feedstock Type
0
Emissions Reduction Potential (%)
B
iofuels are considered to be an environmentally friendly alternative to
fossil fuels in part because they have
the potential to emit fewer greenhouse gases per mile traveled than gasoline and
petroleum diesel, when evaluated over the
entire fuel lifecycle (from field to tank). In theory, biofuels could be a “zero-carbon” or “carbon-negative” energy source because many
potential feedstocks (grasses, trees, and other
plants) continually store carbon in their root
systems and the soil.
In reality, however, current U.S. biofuels
depend on significant fossil fuel inputs that
release a variety of greenhouse gases, including
carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide. These emissions occur when fertilizers and pesticides are
manufactured, transported, and applied; when
fossil energy is used to run farm machinery,
pump irrigation water, and operate refineries;
and when the processed fuel is transported and
used.1 Greenhouse gases are also released during changes in land use, such as when crops are
tilled and when new land is cleared for feedstock cultivation.
One way to analyze a biofuel’s climate contribution is by assessing its “fossil energy balance,” or the amount of energy contained in
the biofuel compared to the amount of fossil
fuel used to produce it. Estimates of energy
balance vary widely among and even within
fuel types, depending on such factors as where
and how the fuel is produced and on specific
assumptions used in the studies.2 Most
research indicates that biodiesel and other
advanced biofuels such as cellulosic ethanol
display some of the highest lifecycle energy
balances.3 Ethanol from sugar cane also offers
-20
Corn
Ethanol
-40
Sugarcane
Ethanol
-60
-80
Cellulosic
Ethanol
-100
Note: Ranges are based on scientific literature and do not
include emissions from changes in land use. Point markers
indicate best estimates made by EPA.
Red, White, and Green
13
Climate and Environmental Impacts of Current Biofuels
jimparkin/stockxpert
Land use changes will also affect the climate
impact. Studies indicate that the emissions
from land use changes made to accommodate
greater corn production—such as converting
forests to cropland—would take decades to
“repay” through any reductions that corn
ethanol brings by displacing fossil fuels, and
could shift the fuel from reducing greenhouse
gases by 20 percent to doubling them instead.9
An ethanol production plant surrounded by corn in South Dakota.
Biodiesel, in contrast, has more than double the climate benefits of corn ethanol. Current best estimates for soy-based biodiesel
show a 41 percent improvement in lifecycle
greenhouse gas emissions over conventional
diesel.10 The EPA puts the average emissions
reductions even higher—at 68 percent—based
on a combination of soybean and yellowgrease feedstocks.11
Clearing land for new crop production can
release large amounts of greenhouse gases,
especially when carbon-rich ecosystems such
as forests, savannahs, and grasslands are converted.12 One study estimates that clearing
tropical forests to plant oil palm plantations for
biodiesel will incur a “carbon debt” of 75 to 93
years—the amount of time needed for the biofuels made from the palm oil to offset as much
greenhouse gas emissions as was released during land clearing.13 If native peatlands are
cleared, the carbon debt rises to 600 years.14
Dedicating U.S. croplands and food crops to
biofuel production can cause land use changes
14
Red, White, and Green
not only in the United States but also in other
countries, as land is converted to make up for
the overall loss in food crops.15 Estimates indicate that using first-generation biofuels to
meet 10 percent of global fuel consumption by
2030 would require an additional 291–1,255
million acres of cropland depending on feedstock and productivity: the equivalent of 8–36
percent of the world’s current arable land.16
Other factors that will increase the demand for
cropland include rising populations and the
expanding global appetite for meat.
The use of chemical inputs also contributes
to a biofuel’s energy and climate footprint,
although application rates vary significantly
by crop. A 2006 study from the University of
California at Berkeley found that, on average,
about 40 percent of corn ethanol’s greenhouse
gas emissions occur during the agricultural
phase of production.17 Nitrogen fertilizer in
particular is often over-applied, and it
degrades into nitrous oxide, a potent greenhouse gas.18 Recent studies suggest that the
nitrous oxide released during biofuels production may in fact be four times greater than was
previously estimated.19 Many U.S. corn farmers have had to increase their fertilizer use in
recent years because they chose to boost their
profits by skipping annual rotations of corn
with a legume crop, such as soybeans, which
can help to restore soil nitrogen levels.20
Producing soybean biodiesel, in contrast,
requires only 2 percent of the nitrogen and 8
percent of the phosphorus, per unit of energy
gain, that corn ethanol does.21 Low-input
perennial plants such as prairie grasses also
require fewer chemical inputs than corn.22
Climate change impacts from farming also
occur when soils degrade over time and lose
their organic carbon stores, such as during
extensive tilling. Land that is cropped annually
stores very little carbon in its vegetation, and
the soil is both deprived of a fresh carbon
source and exposed to air and sunlight that
causes it to release carbon that was stored.23
Continuous corn cropping in particular has
been criticized for reducing soil carbon.24
In addition to releasing greenhouse gases,
biofuels contribute to the emissions of other
w w w. w orldwatch.org
Climate and Environmental Impacts of Current Biofuels
air pollutants, including smog-forming compounds and particulates. Some of the pollutants are released during the refining stage,
while others result from fuel combustion in
the vehicle engine. A study from the University
of Minnesota indicates that corn ethanol—
regardless of how the refinery is powered—will
always increase particulate pollution compared
to conventional gasoline, while cellulosic biofuels will reduce particulate pollution.25 Other
research points to air pollution problems
from low-level ethanol blends and shows
mixed results with high-level (E85) blends.26
Air quality impacts for biodiesel have been
unclear, with studies showing both small
increases and small decreases in nitrogen
oxides (NOx) pollution.27
A report from the U.S. National Academy
of Sciences concludes that expanding corn
ethanol production to meet the Renewable
Fuel Standard will also result in considerable
additional harm to domestic water quality,
mainly from increased nitrogen and phosphorous loading in surface and ground waters.28
Other research predicted that planting more
corn to meet ethanol targets in the United
States alone would increase nitrogen pollution
to the Mississippi River by 37 percent.29 The
Gulf of Mexico “dead zone,” caused by nitrogen and other water pollution, was its second
largest on record in 2008, with the bulk of the
pollution estimated to come from agriculture
in the Mississippi River basin.30 Growing soybeans for biodiesel also adds to the problem.31
Biofuels are contributing to water supply
concerns as well, at both the local and regional
levels.32 Corn ethanol is very water intensive—
not just at the refinery stage, where each gallon
of fuel produced requires 3–4 gallons of water,
but also in the field.33 One study estimates that
irrigating corn for ethanol requires some 780
gallons of water per gallon of fuel produced, or
about 200 times the water used at the ethanol
refinery.34 U.S. water consumption for ethanol
is likely to increase as corn cultivation expands
to drier areas: between 2005 and 2008,
ethanol’s water demand more than tripled,
despite only a doubling in production.35
www.worldwatch.org
Biodiesel, in contrast, requires about one
gallon of water per gallon of fuel produced,
although the amount of water required for
irrigation varies significantly.36
Biofuels production is also expanding in
regions where non-renewable aquifers are
shrinking.37 In the southern Great Plains, agriculture depends heavily on irrigation from
the Ogallala Aquifer, which is being tapped at
an unsustainable level.38 Several new ethanol
refineries are slated for construction near the
aquifer, including in areas where the water
table has already dropped significantly.39
Further expansion of U.S. corn acreage will
come at the expense of land and wildlife conservation.40 The corn ethanol boom poses a
particular threat to the U.S. Department of
Agriculture’s Conservation Reserve Program
(CRP), which encourages farmers to “set aside”
or retire marginal lands from production as a
way to reduce soil erosion, improve wildlife
habitat, and restore watersheds.41 In 2008, some
2 million acres were removed from the program, and more than 20 million acres of CRP
land are up for renewal in the next few years.42
With a guaranteed market for 15 billion gallons
of ethanol through 2022, landowners will have
a continued incentive to turn much of this land
back to production, especially if the net revenues from growing ethanol feedstocks continue to be higher than those associated with
keeping the land in conservation.43
A variety of animal species rely on the habitat provided by CRP lands for their survival,
including grassland birds such as the Grasshopper sparrow, Baird’s sparrow, Lark bunting,
and Bobolink, as well as mallard ducks.44 A
loss in CRP lands, combined with the impacts
of climate change on U.S. ecosystems, is likely
to reduce the habitat available for some of
these species, constraining their range and
reproduction. The current or future cultivation
of non-native biofuel crops presents a further
threat to biodiversity conservation, as these
crops have the potential to cross-breed with
native plants to produce invasive weeds—or to
become invasive species themselves.45
Red, White, and Green
15
Benefits of
“Advanced” Biofuels
A
kurmis/stockxpert
lthough ethanol and other biofuels
have become more sophisticated in
the years since U.S. federal support
was first levied in the late 1970s,
they need to develop much further if they are
to be a sustainable energy solution. Nearly all
studies on the role of biofuels in mitigating
climate change and boosting energy security
conclude that the transition to so-called “second-generation” or “advanced” biofuels is necessary to make the wider use of biofuels feasible.
Wood chips from timber waste come off a shredder’s conveyor belt.
Advanced biofuels rely on non-food feedstocks and offer dramatically improved energy
and greenhouse gas profiles over conventional
biofuels such as corn ethanol. But large-scale
development of advanced biofuels has not yet
taken place. While many of these feedstocks
and technologies are promising, the broad economic and environmental effects of the fuels
at commercial scale are not yet known.
The most widely cited second-generation
16
Red, White, and Green
biofuels are “cellulosic” biofuels, derived from
the fibrous—or cellulosic—material in plants.
Potential cellulose sources include perennial
grasses and fast-growing trees, some of which
are being developed as dedicated “energy
crops” that can be converted to ethanol or
biodiesel. Of the many possible perennial feedstocks, switchgrass has received the most attention in the United States. Other potential
feedstocks being tested include blue grass,
gammagrass, the tropical Asian grass Miscanthus, and energy cane, a variety of sugar cane
bred to produce high sugar levels.1 Advanced
biofuels can also be made from non-plant biomass sources, such as fats, manure, and the
organic material in urban wastes.
Crop residues, in the form of stems and
leaves, represent another substantial source of
cellulosic biomass. Corn stover—the stalks and
cobs that remain after harvesting—is actively
being promoted by corn interests as a feedstock for second-generation refineries. However, some studies suggest that removing just
25 percent of the corn stover from fields will
reduce soil quality and decrease carbon content, even on prime agricultural land.2 Corn
stover also yields relatively few gallons per acre:
180–270, compared with 425 gallons from conventional corn ethanol.3
Fast-growing trees are being considered as
potential feedstocks as well, including hybrid
willow and poplars that can grow well with few
chemical inputs.4 But there are downsides to
the use of these trees, especially in locations
where the species are non-native and may be
invasive.5 A closely related potential feedstock
is forest waste from the timber industry and
more-aggressive clearing of underbrush for fire
w w w. w orldwatch.org
Benefits of “Advanced” Biofuels
Sidebar 2. Algae for Biodiesel: Third-Generation Biofuels
As research continues on second-generation advanced biofuels, some researchers and industry groups are taking a look
at microalgae—often called the “third generation” of biofuels. Microalgae are photosynthesis-based single-celled organisms that can combine energy from the sun with carbon dioxide and other nutrients to produce biomass that is rich in
natural oils. These oils can be separated and used to produce biodiesel and other biofuels.
Microalgae offer many potential benefits as a feedstock. They grow rapidly, with some species doubling their mass in
a single day. This translates into producing as much as 100 times more oil per acre than standard oil crops such as soybeans. Algae can also be carbon neutral if the biomass residue after oil collection is converted and used to power the
processing system. Like second-generation feedstocks, microalgae do not compete with food crops. They may also confer additional environmental benefits, including cleaning wastewater.
Microalgae have drawbacks, however. For the biofuel to be competitive, the current high costs of production (primarily a result of energy inputs) must be reduced. Although some experts estimate costs as high as $33 per gallon, the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE) puts the price at roughly $8 per gallon. Costs could be lowered by using waste heat as a
power source and by selling byproducts for other uses, including in the fermentation of ethanol and as a supplement in
animal food.
Another potential drawback of algae is the high water demand, especially with the use of outdoor ponds that have
high evaporation rates (although closed systems or the use of wastewater streams minimize this risk). Researchers are
also considering genetic manipulation of algae to improve performance, which could pose environmental threats if
grown in open systems where the organisms could spread to natural ecosystems.
Early U.S. research on microalgae for biofuels began in the early 1980s under the DOE’s Aquatic Species Program.
However, during budget cuts in the late 1990s the program was discontinued in favor of pursuing research on ethanol.
In the last two years, interest has grown again, with hundreds of companies now working to commercialize microalgae
for biofuels. The DOE has resumed research, and it hosted a workshop in December 2008 to discuss both barriers to
commercial development and the release of an Algal Biofuels Roadmap.
Despite limited government funding, private research and testing has continued. One of the latest developments to
garner media attention is the testing of a commercial jet plane fueled in part by algae biofuel. Several companies have
developed systems to divert carbon dioxide emissions from industrial operations into algae production, including a
Solix Biofuels plant in Colorado connected to a beer brewery and plans by GreenFuel Technologies to build a site linked
to a cement plant in Spain. By using emissions that would otherwise be vented to the atmosphere, these systems may
be able to provide significant greenhouse gas benefits.
Other recent advances include a breakthrough in light immersion that allows algae biomass to grow to depths of one
meter (10–12 times deeper than before), and the recent decoding of the genes of two widely available ocean-dwelling
microalgae, which could help further microalgae research.
Source: See Endnote 7 for this section.
prevention. The U.S. Departments of Energy
and Agriculture estimate that 368 million dry
tons of these wastes could be harvested sustainably every year.6 Another advanced and
even more cutting-edge “third-generation”
feedstock is algae for biodiesel.7 (See Sidebar 2.)
One of the most compelling advantages of
advanced biofuels over conventional biofuels is
the potential to provide a more positive energy
balance, resulting in reduced greenhouse gas
emissions. Whereas corn ethanol yields about
25–35 percent more energy than is invested in
www.worldwatch.org
its lifecycle production (from field to tank),
cellulosic ethanol has the potential to provide
4–9 times more energy than is required to produce it.8 One study has shown that sustainable,
low-input, low-management switchgrass
ethanol in three Midwestern states can yield
5.4 times more energy than invested, although
the yield could theoretically be much higher.9
Research from the Argonne National Laboratory showed that the useful energy provided by
the ethanol is approximately nine times the
energy required to produce it.10
Red, White, and Green
17
Benefits of “Advanced” Biofuels
Colorado State University
These energy gains represent climate benefits for second-generation biofuels. Current
estimates suggest that fueling vehicles with
cellulosic ethanol could reduce emissions by
86–94 percent compared to gasoline (the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency estimates 91
percent) versus a reduction of only 12–18 percent on average for corn ethanol.11 Many of
these climate-gain estimates are based on the
need for fewer agricultural inputs as well as
increased soil carbon storage.12 For example,
research shows that some perennial crops, such
as switchgrass, may store enough carbon in the
soil and root mass to overcompensate for carbon released during the rest of the lifecycle,
meaning they could help take carbon dioxide
out of the air on a net basis.13
The Solix Biofuels test site for algal biofuel research at Colorado
State University, Fort Collins, Colorado.
Advanced biofuels also offer potential
emissions benefits during refining, such as in
instances where waste byproducts are used to
help power the biomass conversion process.
Processing cellulosic ethanol, for example, generates residues of lignin that can be used as
a process fuel, making the refining process
largely independent of fossil-based power such
as coal and natural gas.14
In terms of projected fuel yields, secondgeneration feedstocks vary widely. U.S. test
plots planted with switchgrass have yielded
enough biomass to produce nearly 1,200 gallons of ethanol per acre annually.15 (In con18
Red, White, and Green
trast, an average crop of 155 bushels of corn
per acre will provide less than 500 gallons per
acre.16) In practice, however, it makes sense to
grow switchgrass and other perennial biofuel
crops on more marginal lands than in the test
plots to avoid competition for good farmland.
Under these conditions, switchgrass, like corn,
will produce less than 500 gallons an acre, and
perhaps as little as 300 gallons, unless yields are
improved with breeding or by using a combination of high-yielding grasses.17
One issue that deserves closer analysis is the
potential advantage of cellulosic biofuels for
soil, land, and wildlife conservation. For example, in a simulation of the impacts on soil and
water quality in a central Iowa watershed over
20 years, researchers found that planting all
available land with switchgrass reduced sediment flows (and thus erosion potential) by 84
percent, nitrogen concentrations by 53 percent, and phosphorous by 83 percent.18 Other
research confirms that lower inputs of agrochemicals for second-generation feedstocks can
have potentially positive effects on soil and water
quality.19 Using a combination of high-yielding perennial grasses rather than monocultures
may improve benefits to wildlife as well.20
The environmental advantages of cellulosic
biofuels can be amplified further with the use
of appropriate management practices. Perennial crops such as switchgrass and other prairie
grasses can be harvested annually with minimal increases in soil erosion (and, if the grass
is not cut too low, it can still provide habitat
for small animals and birds).21 But if fastgrowing trees are cultivated, more-complex
selective harvesting would be needed to avoid
substantial soil erosion and to leave sufficient
habitat for large wildlife.22 Harvesting on fragile soils, wetlands, waterways, and high-diversity habitats, meanwhile, will incur much
higher environmental costs and may mirror
some of the same problems seen with firstgeneration biofuels. Several estimates of the
amount of harvestable biomass in the United
States assume that much of the existing Conservation Reserve Program land will be used
for energy crop production—posing a potential threat to these lands.23
w w w. w orldwatch.org
Benefits of “Advanced” Biofuels
Sidebar 3. Technologies for Advanced Biofuels: Biochemical and Thermochemical Platforms
Second-generation production of cellulosic biofuels currently follows one of two technology platforms. The first, biochemical, refers to a process that uses chemicals, enzymes, and microorganisms to break down plant feedstocks into
components that can be converted to fuels. Pretreatment and hydrolysis are used to separate the cellulose from other
plant fibers such as lignin and hemicellulose. Once separated, the cellulose must be broken down further into sugars,
which can be fermented into alcohols that are then distilled into ethanol or other fuels.
The ethanol produced through the biochemical process is identical to ethanol generated through first-generation production, such as that based on corn. Although the biochemical process is normally associated with ethanol production,
it may be used to make other fuels, too. For example, some researchers are investigating the use of modified E. coli to
convert cellulosic feedstocks to microdiesel, which is compatible with biodiesel.
The second platform, thermochemical, works by applying heat and chemicals to convert almost any kind of biomass
into a variety of fuels. The feedstock is heated until it converts into a syngas, which is then run through a catalyst that
changes it into a liquid fuel. The type of fuel that results is determined by which catalyst is used, but it most often
includes Fisher-Tropsch liquids (FTLs), which are similar to biodiesel, as well as a range of alcohols, including ethanol.
One alternative being explored is to use fermentation with the syngas rather than a catalyst, which would allow for direct
production of ethanol.
The potential benefits of the thermochemical process include its ability to better convert cellulosic materials, including wood and forest wastes that are difficult to convert through the biochemical platform. Also, because the thermochemical platform is similar to the way petroleum is refined, it can use currently available technologies that help reduce
the cost. The flexibility of feedstocks offers advantages as well.
While both of these platforms are understood today, more research is needed to make second-generation biofuels
more cost-competitive with first-generation biofuels and to bring advanced biofuels to commercial production. Potential
areas for further research include developing better pretreatment processes and enzymes for hydrolysis, improving
microorganisms for fermentation, developing feedstocks that are easier to break into components, finding technologies
to better clean syngas, and discovering efficiencies that can help make more fuel at a lower cost.
Source: See Endnote 28 for this section.
The two biggest limitations for cellulosic
biofuels are arguably the cost and the challenges associated with transporting and storing
massive quantities of cellulosic feedstock. As
of late 2008, production cost estimates for cellulosic ethanol were $2.40 per gallon—more
than double the costs for corn and sugarcane
ethanol.24 Cellulosic refineries also require
large amounts of feedstock, estimated at 700
tons per day for a facility producing 10–20 million gallons of fuel per year.25 Producing such
large quantities will require advances in harvesting, collection, transporting, and storage to
help lower the overall cost.26 The U.S. Departments of Agriculture and Energy hope to lower
total feedstock costs, including these factors,
from the estimated $60 per ton in 2007 to $47
per ton by 2012.27
A variety of second-generation processing
technologies have the potential to improve the
www.worldwatch.org
efficiency of biofuel processing and make cellulosic ethanol cost-competitive with first-generation biofuels and gasoline. These processes
can be divided into two main approaches: the
“biochemical platform,” which relies on enzymes
or biological processes to break down the feedstocks, and the “thermochemical platform,”
which relies on heat, pressure, and chemical
catalysts. Both approaches can be used to produce a wide variety of fuels. They also have
their advantages and disadvantages with regard
to feedstock flexibility, cost, and associated
emissions reductions.28 (See Sidebar 3.)
As of July 2008—before the recent economic downturn—an estimated 55 cellulosic
biorefineries were completed, under construction, or in the planning stages in 31 U.S. states,
with a total projected capacity of 630 million
gallons per year.29 In April 2009, there were
25 cellulosic ethanol demonstration or pilot
Red, White, and Green
19
Benefits of “Advanced” Biofuels
plants in operation, although only nine were
producing at a significant level.30 There were
also two cellulosic diesel plants in operation,
one at the pilot level and one at the demonstration level.31 These facilities are embracing
a wide diversity of feedstocks, including agricultural residues, wastes, woody biomass, and
dedicated energy crops.32 Unlike corn ethanol
refineries that are concentrated in the Midwest,
cellulosic ethanol refineries are located across
the country.33
Federal agencies are providing funding for
most of these ventures.34 In January 2009, the
USDA approved its first-ever guaranteed loan
for a commercial-scale cellulosic ethanol
plant—a wood-chip facility in Georgia—under
20
Red, White, and Green
the U.S. Farm Bill’s “Biorefinery Assistance
Program.”35 In May 2009, President Barack
Obama directed the Secretary of Agriculture to
increase investments in advanced biofuels production, including refinancing, loan guarantees, and additional funding.36 The DOE is also
providing significant funding, including up to
$385 million for six cellulosic ethanol plants as
part of a goal to make cellulosic ethanol costcompetitive with gasoline by 2012.37 Individual
states are funding projects as well.38 However,
a recent report from the Sandia National Laboratories concluded that as much as $250 billion
in investments is needed to achieve production
levels of 60 billion gallons a year.39
w w w. w orldwatch.org
Making Biofuels Sustainable
www.worldwatch.org
most efforts to define “biofuel sustainability”
are being pursued at a relatively small scale. So
far, only a handful of them address social and
economic considerations, such as protecting
workers’ rights, contributing to local development, and guaranteeing fair compensation for
land use or land transfers.3 Many more efforts,
however, incorporate environmental considerations, including lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions and energy balance.4 There is a general
consensus that biofuels should produce less
greenhouse gas emissions than conventional
petroleum fuels and produce more energy than
is required for cultivation and processing.
Achmad Rabin Taim
M
any second-generation biofuels
show the potential to be more
sustainable than conventional
biofuels. But there is no guarantee that this will be the case, especially when
the fuels are produced at a large scale. As the
demand for biofuels increases, some analysts
fear that the market will simply adjust, supporting increased production while ignoring
the environmental and social costs.
Fortunately, many people who work with
biofuel supply chains now realize that nearly
all stages of the biofuel process—from production to processing to the choice of fuel
available—could be improved. These improvements can best happen if producers and
policies give preference to biofuels that are
produced in an environmentally and socially
sustainable manner, that offer the highest lifecycle emissions-reduction values, and that are
processed using technologies that deal with
wastes responsibly and even utilize these
byproducts as energy sources.
One way to address the potential consequences of ongoing biofuels development is
by developing broadly applicable sustainability
standards for the fuels (similar to measures
that exist in the forestry and organic food sectors) that go beyond existing quality-control
and technical standards.1 Such criteria would
enable biofuel producers to engage in thirdparty certification of their practices and products and help end-users determine whether
the fuels they use were produced in a sustainable manner.
Elements of existing sustainability standards
for forestry, agriculture, and energy products
are already being applied to biofuels.2 However,
An oil palm plantation on former forest land in West Java, Indonesia.
Developing widely accepted sustainability
criteria for biofuels is difficult due to the range
of variables involved and because the environmental effects of biofuels are often highly specific to the crop type, location and climate, or
production process. For example, oil palm can
Red, White, and Green
21
Making Biofuels Sustainable
USDA/NRCS/Gene Alexander
have an adverse effect on biodiversity if it is
grown on land that is newly converted from
primary forest, but it can have a positive effect
if it is grown on degraded land.5 Other practices that can determine the degree of environmental impact include the use of fertilizers
and pesticides, which affects water quality, soil
quality, and greenhouse gas emissions; the use
of irrigated water, which affects water supply;
the use of crop rotations to preserve soil carbon; and the use of different fuels to power the
refining process.6 For some crops, there may be
a positive net energy yield only if the benefits
from byproducts are included in the analysis,
such as the use of processing wastes to generate
energy or to serve as an animal feed.7
No-till planting of corn on the contour in a field in northwest Iowa.
Sustainability criteria can be applied to biofuel processing as well. For conventional biofuels, improvements in processing include
enhanced energy efficiency and a greater
reliance on renewable energy as a power source.
A 2007 analysis from the Argonne National
Laboratory showed that corn ethanol produced
in a facility fired by wood chips could achieve
emissions reductions of 52 percent compared
to gasoline, versus a 3 percent emissions
increase if powered by coal.8 Ethanol plants
could also burn distiller’s grains, an ethanol
byproduct, as a process fuel to lower their emissions (although for now the grains are more
22
Red, White, and Green
valuable as livestock feed).9 Some plants are
exploring the use of biogas from cattle manure
to power the process, which has the added climate benefit of preventing methane, a greenhouse gas more powerful than carbon dioxide,
from entering the atmosphere.10 For biodiesel
processing, there is interest in using the
byproduct glycerin as an energy source.11
Even with first-generation biofuel technologies, it may be possible to significantly reduce
the environmental impacts of biofuels simply
by using different feedstocks. For example,
grain sorghum—a crop that requires low
resource inputs, grows on marginal lands, and
is highly efficient—can be substituted at corn
ethanol refineries.12 For biodiesel, possible
substitutes for soybeans include the oilseed
plants camelina and jatropha.13 Jatropha
requires few water or fertilizer inputs, is able to
grow on land unsuitable for food crops, and is
inedible, so its expansion would not compete
with traditional food production; however, the
plant requires special handling and processing
because it is toxic to humans.14
Better management practices on farms are
also an important component of biofuel sustainability and can be built into sustainability
standards and criteria. Climate-friendly
choices include avoiding fragile lands and
practicing no-till cultivation, a method of
sowing crops without disturbing the topsoil.
Because no-till cultivation minimizes the number of passes over a field needed to establish
and harvest a crop, it requires 50–80 percent
less fuel than tillage-based agriculture.15 Notill farming also helps minimize the release of
carbon from soils, and the Chicago Carbon
Exchange now grants “carbon credits” to U.S.
farmers who practice the method continuously
for at least five years.16 No-till is currently
being used on one-fifth of the nation’s farmland, but only some 20 percent of corn producers have embraced the practice, suggesting
more room for adoption.17
Among the most prominent efforts to
develop voluntary sustainability criteria for
biofuels are those coordinated by the Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels and a variety of
other multi-stakeholder groups.18 (See Table
w w w. w orldwatch.org
2.) Mandatory standards are also under development, including requirements under the
U.S. Renewable Fuel Standard to consider the
climate impacts of indirect land use changes.
California recently adopted a regulation that
requires the use of lower-carbon-intensity fuels
over time and plans to incorporate additional
environmental and social standards in the
future. (See Sidebar 5 on page 29.)
The European Union has attempted to integrate sustainability criteria into national biofuels policy as well. In early 2009, the EU
finalized climate regulations that require 10
percent of the region’s transport fuels to come
from renewable sources, including biofuels,
by 2020.19 Under the directive, biofuels must
demonstrate a 35 percent savings in greenhouse gas emissions compared to their fossil
fuel counterparts, based on a lifecycle analy-
Cyndy Sims Parr
Making Biofuels Sustainable
A field of ripening sorghum in Arkansas.
Table 2. Selected Biofuel Sustainability Initiatives
Group
Description
Roundtable on Sustainable
Biofuels (RSB)
The most prominent international multi-stakeholder initiative, the RSB has developed
draft sustainability principles and criteria for sustainable biofuels production and processing. The guidelines address climate change, human and labor rights, food security, land
rights, biodiversity, air, water, soil, and economic and development issues. The group
also envisions a certification mechanism or purchasing guidelines to follow the criteria.
Roundtable on Sustainable
Palm Oil (RSPO)
Officially established in 2004 in response to increasing concerns over palm oil plantations,
the RSPO brings together industry and organization representatives to work toward a
sustainable supply chain for palm oil, a common biodiesel feedstock. The program’s first
certified “sustainable” oil was shipped to Europe in 2008.
Roundtable on Responsible
Soy (RTRS)
Initiated in 2004, the RTRS is working to create sustainability criteria and principles for
global soybean production that cover a range of environmental and social issues. The
group is also working on a corresponding verification program.
Council on Sustainable
Established in 2007, CSBP is working to develop sustainability criteria for the production
Biomass Production (CSBP) of feedstocks for second-generation cellulosic biofuel refineries in North America. Members include government agencies, environmental groups, and biofuel producers.
European Committee for
Standardization (CEN)
Known for creating voluntary European standards on a range of items, the CEN established a technical committee in 2008 to establish sustainability criteria for biomass,
including biofuels.
Sustainable Biodiesel
Alliance (SBA)
SBA, a U.S. nonprofit, is striving to create a consensus among stakeholders on a certification program for sustainably produced biodiesel. The alliance’s draft sustainability
standards include environmental, economic, and social best practices.
Source: See Endnote 18 for this section.
www.worldwatch.org
Red, White, and Green
23
Making Biofuels Sustainable
Sidebar 4. Biomass and Biofuels: Transitioning Transportation Fuels
Substituting biofuels for fossil fuels in transportation is usually an assumed part of any energy solution to address climate change. But evidence shows that there might be better alternatives for our transportation needs and that the best
use of biomass may be for electricity and heating, not biofuels.
Many of the same feedstocks currently used to make biofuels—such as crop and wood residues, trees and grasses,
and urban wastes—can also be used to generate electricity and heat. Research indicates that in the long term, using biomass for electricity and heat is likely a more sustainable option than using it to produce biofuels to meet energy and
transportation needs because of higher efficiencies, greater emissions reduction potential, and considerably lower costs.
Today, biomass is being used to generate electricity at a large scale via two main methods: “combined heat-andpower” (CHP), where exhaust heat from electricity generation is used to provide an additional energy service, and “cofiring,” a process that burns a combination of biomass and coal. CHP operates at efficiencies of between 75 and 90
percent and generates two products: electricity and useful heat. The heat is used either to warm residential and commercial buildings or to fuel industrial processes. Biomass is considered one of the most promising fuels for CHP applications because it is one of the few renewable energy resources that can be transported and stored relatively easily.
Biomass-fueled power generation can also be ramped up when needed.
Co-firing holds the most potential out of all renewables for reducing a significant amount of emissions in the near term,
according to a study by the Oak Ridge and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories. While conventional coal plants
emit about 1 metric ton of carbon dioxide per megawatt-hour, biomass can substitute for up to 20 percent of the coal
in co-firing plants, which leads to linear reductions in carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide emissions. (Changes in nitrous
oxide emissions, another greenhouse gas, are less certain.)
Many countries and cities already rely or plan to rely on biomass for electricity and heating. In Sweden, where as
much as 22 percent of the electricity supply is generated from biomass, the city of Kalmar plans to replace its fossilfueled electricity and heating infrastructure with biomass CHP, with the goal of phasing out all fossil fuel use by 2030.
CHP is also a high priority in Denmark, where traditional biomass accounts for nearly 14 percent of the electricity supply
and half of the energy derived from renewable sources. In the United States, in contrast, biomass is the second largest
source of renewable electricity after hydropower yet accounted for only 1.3 percent of electricity generation in 2007.
In the transportation sector, biofuels are currently the only near-term alternative to fossil fuels, particularly for use in
passenger vehicles, and they might have a more prolonged presence in fueling heavy-duty vehicles. Over the long term,
however, biomass-fueled electricity could play a more critical transportation role, especially when the electricity is used
to power plug-in hybrid-electric and electric vehicles. Electricity is a more versatile form of energy than liquid biofuels,
with power providers able to choose from a wide variety of low-carbon energy options, including wind, solar, and biomass power. Electricity could therefore be a more climate-friendly “transport fuel” than biofuels, provided the electricity
is generated from renewable sources.
Using biomass for electricity and heat in both transport and non-transport applications could significantly lower the
costs of reducing emissions. According to one study, using biomass for biofuels would cost up to three times more than
using biomass for electricity and heat, for the same amount of reductions. And using biomass for electricity to power
vehicles reduces greenhouse gas emissions by 108 percent more on average than if biofuels had been used, while providing 81 percent more mileage. (As with biofuels, the land use efficiency of producing biomass for electricity and heat
remains uncertain.)
Biofuels have tremendous value as a “transition” fuel as the world moves away from its current reliance on fossil
fuels and toward a low-carbon future. There are also many non-fuel options to reduce the environmental impacts of the
transport sector, most of which bring additional societal benefits. Advancements in vehicle technology, such as higher
fuel efficiency, lighter weight, and electric motors, as well as greater investment in public transit, could reduce fossil fuel
demand. And increased use of non-motorized vehicles such as bicycles as well as the adoption of more pedestrianfriendly urban planning could shift dependence away from transport fuels altogether.
—Amanda Chiu
Source: See Endnote 24 for this section.
24
Red, White, and Green
w w w. w orldwatch.org
Making Biofuels Sustainable
sis.20 The regulations also require that these
emissions savings increase over time, rising to
50 percent by 2017.21 Feedstocks cannot be
grown on lands that have a high biodiversity
value, on lands considered to have a high carbon stock, or on peatlands, and biannual
reports must address the sustainability of
regional biofuels use, covering both environmental issues such as air, soil, and water protection as well as social issues such as food
prices and land rights.22 The EU will also study
the effects of indirect land use changes by the
end of 2010.23
Many bioenergy analysts argue that if the
end goal is sustainability—in particular the
www.worldwatch.org
mitigation of climate change—then producing
liquid biofuels for transportation may not be
the most optimal use of the world’s biomass
resources. These experts argue that a better,
more cost-effective use of energy crops, woody
trees, crop residues, and other biomass is for
electricity and/or heat production.24 (See Sidebar 4.) Current and expected limitations in
ethanol infrastructure and production—such
as difficulties transporting ethanol, the lack of
pipelines, and problems with biomass collection and storage—may also force the United
States to rethink the future of biofuels in its
energy mix.25
Red, White, and Green
25
Federal and State
Biofuel Policies
P
olicy choices are instrumental in
determining the direction of
national, as well as global, biofuels
development. The United States has
supported ethanol since the late 1970s and currently has an extensive federal mandate and
support system for biofuels, particularly corn
ethanol. The most important piece of legislation that affects domestic biofuels development is the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS),
promulgated in 2005 but amended under the
Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA)
of 2007.1 This is supported by a variety of
additional federal and state incentives.
The revised RFS (known as RFS2) calls for
the increased blending of biofuels into conventional motor fuels. Specifically, it mandates the
production of 36 billion gallons of biofuels
annually by 2022, derived from a mix of both
conventional biofuels and second-generation
Figure 6. Biofuel Requirements Under the U.S.
Renewable Fuel Standard, 2009–22
40
30
Billion Gallons
Source: EISA
Unspecified Advanced Biofuels
Biodiesel
Cellulosic Biofuels
Unspecified Biofuels/Corn Ethanol
35
25
20
15
10
5
0
2009
2011
26
2013
2015
Red, White, and Green
2017
2019
2021
biofuels.2 Twenty-one billion gallons of this is
to come from “advanced biofuels,” with 16 billion gallons of that from cellulosic biofuels.3
(See Figure 6.)
Through these targets and associated funding, the RFS2 provides an overall incentive for
producing cellulosic and other advanced biofuels. It also charges the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency with assessing cellulosic
production targets annually, based on the projected available volume for a given year.4 If the
projected volume is less than the minimum
level established by the revised RFS2, the EPA
must lower the volume requirements for cellulosic biofuels and may decide to reduce the targets for advanced biofuels and total renewable
fuel.5 Recent estimates from the Energy Information Administration suggest that the mandate to use 21 billion gallons of advanced
biofuels by 2022 will not be met until at least
five years later.6
Perhaps more significantly, the revised RFS
includes some degree of sustainability criteria,
including feedstock restrictions that help
protect sensitive lands such as old-growth
forests.7 In an effort to address climate change
concerns, the RFS2 requires that biofuels
produced under the mandate meet specified
greenhouse gas reduction targets.8 To qualify
for the RFS, corn ethanol must achieve at least
a 20 percent reduction in lifecycle emissions
compared to gasoline, and biodiesel and
advanced biofuels must achieve a 50 percent
reduction compared to the petroleum fuels
they would replace. For cellulosic biofuels, the
requirement is at least 60 percent lower emissions. The EPA has the authority to lower
these reduction requirements for any of the
w w w. w orldwatch.org
Federal and State Biofuel Policies
www.worldwatch.org
gress on the environmental effects of the federal biofuels measures, including effects on air,
water, and soil quality.16 The EPA Administrator must also undertake periodic reviews on
existing technologies and the feasibility of
meeting the targets established by the RFS2. To
report on these wide-ranging effects, the EPA
will need to establish measurable assessment
criteria, essentially creating a working definition of sustainable biofuels production.
petrr
advanced biofuels by up to 10 percent, which
it proposed to do for advanced biofuels in its
draft RFS2 implementation rules released in
May 2009.9
These greenhouse gas reductions must be
calculated on the basis of a lifecycle analysis,
including feedstock production, refining, and
fuel use.10 The legislation also requires the EPA
to consider indirect emissions, such as those
from land use changes.11 Numerous scientific
studies and a recent assessment from the state
of California show that including land use
changes could substantially alter the greenhouse gas profiles of many biofuels.12
In early May 2009, the EPA outlined methods for calculating these effects in draft rules
and began seeking scientific peer reviews as
well as public comments.13 Although it is
unclear which methodology will ultimately be
used to determine greenhouse gas reductions
for different biofuels, one of the areas that is
likely to draw controversy is the timeframe
over which reductions are considered. According to EPA’s calculations, using a 30-year timeframe would mean that corn ethanol produced
using natural gas would emit 5 percent more
greenhouse gas emissions than petroleum
fuels. But that same ethanol considered over a
100-year timeframe would put the emission
changes at a 16 percent decrease.14
Using the longer 100-year time period minimizes the effect of land use changes such as
deforestation because most carbon is emitted
by land clearing. Emissions are gradually
reduced over time, and over time land cleared
for biofuel production can actually make positive contributions to carbon sequestration,
depending on the crop. The differences
between the two periods are explained by
the estimated greenhouse gas savings at the
tailpipe when petroleum is displaced: a longer
time period means more gallons are used and
more carbon dioxide is avoided. Critics of the
longer timeframe argue that greenhouse gas
reductions are needed as soon as possible, and
not several decades in the future.15
The revised RFS also requires the EPA
Administrator and the Secretaries of Agriculture and Energy to report periodically to Con-
An American SUV marked for use of E85 ethanol fuel.
It is important to note, however, that the
RFS2 greenhouse gas reduction requirements
apply to new ethanol plants, and not to facilities that were online before the law went into
effect.17 Because the capacity of current U.S.
ethanol plants is estimated at 12 billion gallons
annually, it appears that the RFS2 target of 15
billion gallons of renewable fuels by 2015 will
be met largely with corn ethanol produced in
“grandfathered” facilities, without any required
emissions reductions.18 The EPA proposed a
few measures that would tighten the loophole
for existing plants in May 2009, although it
remains to be seen whether any of these will
take effect.19
Moreover, although the revised RFS sets
minimum production requirements for renewable and advanced biofuels, these are not caps
on production. Therefore, if corn ethanol continues to be profitable, it will be produced
Red, White, and Green
27
Federal and State Biofuel Policies
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
above and beyond the 15-billion-gallon (and
20 percent greenhouse gas reduction) cap for
2015. Even though this additional production
would not count toward the mandate, blenders
would still profit from the tax credit they
receive under current law.
A Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory researcher investigates
the lignocellulose deconstruction of switchgrass.
The so-called “blender’s tax credit” (or
production tax credit) is the most important
federal support for ethanol after the RFS.
Known technically as the volumetric ethanol
excise tax credit (VEETC) and currently effective through 2010, the credit provides a tax
break to registered blenders for every gallon
of pure ethanol blended into gasoline, in an
effort to keep ethanol priced competitively
with gasoline.20 The VEETC was previously
set at 51 cents per gallon but was lowered to
45 cents in the 2008 Farm Bill.21 A related tax
credit is the small ethanol producer credit
of 10 cents per gallon for facilities that produce less than 60 million gallons per year.22
Another available credit—the cellulosic biofuel tax credit—allows producers to claim up
to $1.01 per gallon of qualified ethanol
through 2012.23
In addition to these tax credits, the U.S.
biofuel industry benefits from a 54-cent per
gallon tariff on imported ethanol that is currently in place through 2010, as well as an “ad
28
Red, White, and Green
valorem” tariff of 2.5 percent on imported
ethanol.24 The tariff effectively reduces the
amount of foreign ethanol that is imported
into the country by raising the price of these
fuels (a limited amount of tariff-exempt fuel
is allowed in through the Caribbean Basin
Initiative).25 In early 2009, several members
of Congress introduced a bill to lower the tariff, which could help the United States shift
to more sustainable sources of biofuels from
countries such as Brazil.26
Biodiesel receives similar incentives, including the biodiesel tax credit which is now set at
$1 a gallon through 2009.27 There is also a
small agri-biodiesel producer credit of 10 cents
per gallon.28 However, in March 2009 the
European Union imposed a new tax on
biodiesel imports, creating a disincentive to
U.S. production.29 (The “splash-and-dash”
loophole, by which U.S. blenders received the
tax credit for blending imported biodiesel with
even tiny amounts of petroleum diesel and
then re-exporting it, was ended in 2008.30)
In addition to biofuels mandates and tax
credits, federal policy provides support for
biofuels research, development, and infrastructure through direct funding grants and
loan guarantees. The American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act of 2009, for example,
authorizes loan guarantees for advanced
biofuels research and commercialization.31
In late 2008, the Department of Energy
announced grants of more than $4 million
to six universities for advanced ethanol
research.32 The previous year, the DOE
announced funding for six ethanol companies of up to $385 million to bring cellulosic
ethanol to commercial production.33 Other
federal funding supports research into
enzymes, improvements to biofuel refining,
and improvements to gasification.34
These federal biofuel incentives are supplemented by state blending mandates and other
incentives. Florida, for example, adopted a
mandate in 2008 that requires all gasoline
sold in the state to contain 9–10 percent
ethanol by the end of 2010.35 California’s Low
Carbon Fuel Standard, established in 2007,
calls for the introduction of low-carbon
w w w. w orldwatch.org
Federal and State Biofuel Policies
Sidebar 5. California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard: A Model for National Policy?
Proposed in 2007 and adopted in April 2009, California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) is part of a broader effort
to reduce the state’s greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, based on the principle that a balanced mix of
strategies is the best way to cut emissions by approximately 30 percent. In addition to the LCFS, other proposed greenhouse gas emission reduction programs include a cap-and-trade program linked with the Western Climate Initiative,
expanding energy efficiency programs, and achieving a 33 percent renewable energy mix.
California’s LCFS calls for staged reductions in the carbon intensity of transportation fuels of 10 percent by 2020,
with separate yearly requirements for gasoline and diesel. The standard also covers alternative vehicles such as electric
vehicles and those running on compressed natural gas. The measure is projected to curb some 16–23 million tons of
carbon dioxide equivalent annually by 2020 and will require reductions starting in 2012.
The LCFS requires analysis of the full lifecycle impacts of fuels, including direct effects such as farm inputs, feedstock
transportation, refining and production, and combustion in vehicles. The analysis will also eventually incorporate indirect
effects such as land use changes, which can be a significant source of greenhouse gas emissions. The California Air
Resources Board (ARB) staff will further evaluate the effects of land use changes by 2011 so these can be incorporated
into the carbon measurements under the rule, although industry proponents have vowed to protest the results, and the
effects of the measure on the ethanol industry are unknown.
So far, the regulation covers only one sustainability factor: land use change. However, ARB plans to develop and propose additional sustainability criteria—including environmental and socioeconomic variables—and argues that international cooperation and enforceable certification standards are essential. ARB also hopes the new LCFS will serve as a
model for other jurisdictions, including 11 states that are considering similar standards.
Source: See Endnote 36 for this section.
fuels—including ethanol and biodiesel—into
the state fuel supply.36 (See Sidebar 5.) And
Iowa has adopted a state-level Renewable Fuel
Standard that requires 25 percent renewable
fuels in the state by 2020, including ethanol
and biodiesel.37 Meanwhile, eight Midwestern
states have adopted a regional biofuels promotion plan that spurs local production,
increases the number of high-ethanol-blend
fueling stations, and requires at least 50 percent of all transportation fuels consumed in
region to be regionally produced.38
Procurement preferences and purchase
www.worldwatch.org
mandates are also a form of U.S. support to
biofuels. Under the EISA, for example, federal
fleets are required to increase their consumption of alternative fuels by 2015.39 Many cities
and states also require their fleets or transport
services to use particular kinds of fuels: so
far, 11 states have such mandates for ethanol,
according to the Renewable Fuels Association.40
Together, state and federal mandates and
incentives ensure that U.S. demand for biofuels
will remain high—regardless of price and consumer choice.
Red, White, and Green
29
The Road Ahead:
Policy Options for
Sustainable U.S. Biofuels
M
ounting evidence of the pitfalls
of first-generation biofuels,
growing pressure to address climate change, and the global
economic crisis are putting the United States at
a crossroads in energy policy. The country now
faces a choice: continue with the current policies and hope for the best, or take the opportunity to learn from past mistakes and rethink
the role of biofuels for the future. If the wrong
decisions are made today, the nation—and the
world—could miss out on important opportunities for change for years to come.
The big challenge for the United States now
is to accelerate the transition to second-generation biofuels. But can the country reach its goal
of 36 billion gallons of biofuels by 2022, while
also ensuring environmentally and socially sustainable growth?
Three broad efforts in U.S. policy would
make biofuel production more sustainable and
ensure that the use of biofuels contributes to
the global effort to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions without sacrificing environmental or
social standards. These are: (1) spur the rapid
development of cellulosic and advanced biofuels; (2) develop sustainability standards; and
(3) create a holistic energy policy across all
transportation-related sectors.
1. Spur the rapid development of cellulosic
and other advanced biofuels that significantly
reduce greenhouse gas emissions, using existing economic instruments and other tools.
Even though the Energy Independence and
30
Red, White, and Green
Security Act (EISA) provides incentives for cellulosic and other advanced biofuels, there is no
guarantee that these technologies will become
attractive investments at a time when current,
mature technologies are struggling. Best-case
scenarios aim for broadly available secondgeneration biofuels within 10 to 15 years, but
in the interim U.S. biofuel policies continue
to provide incentives for corn ethanol, even
though it is plagued with environmental, social,
and economic problems. This continued support makes it difficult to jumpstart advanced
technology solutions and diversify the U.S. fuel
supply, and should be phased out systematically
to free up support for second-generation fuels
and processes. Announcements made in the
first half of 2009 about federal funding opportunities for advanced biofuels are a muchneeded step in the right direction but will not
in themselves solve the fundamental problems.
Experts have suggested a range of solutions
to bring advanced biofuels to market sooner,
including rethinking the revised RFS mandate
levels and requirements to avoid supporting
increased corn ethanol. Another proposal is
to tie existing support, such as tax credits for
biofuels, to the overall sustainability of a fuel.1
For example, support could be provided only
for biofuels with lifecycle greenhouse gas
emissions reductions of at least 50 percent
relative to petroleum fuels, with additional
incentives provided for higher emission
reductions. A related proposal that would also
help moderate food prices is to tie the tax
credit to the price of corn, lowering it to zero
w w w. w orldwatch.org
The Road Ahead: Policy Options for Sustainable U.S. Biofuels
when corn prices reach a certain level.2 This
may help keep food and grain prices in check
by moderating the demand for corn ethanol
when prices are high but providing incentives
when prices are low.
Exemptions from other taxes could be made
contingent on the use of cellulosic or other
advanced biofuels that meet goals for reducing
greenhouse gas emissions. For instance, the
Massachusetts Clean Energy Biofuels Act,
signed in July 2008, exempts cellulosic ethanol
from the state’s gasoline tax if it achieves a 60percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions
relative to gasoline.3 The same could be done
on the federal level.
Looking beyond the U.S. production base,
some observers have recommended eliminating or suspending the ethanol import tariff as
a way to moderate pressure on domestic land
resources and ethanol prices and spur the production and use of non-corn ethanol.4 There
is evidence, for example, that expanding the
U.S. ethanol supply to include more sugarcane
ethanol imports from Brazil could reduce pressure on U.S. cropland, reduce the costs of corn,
and provide greater climate benefits.5
Recommendations for spurring rapid development of cellulosic and advanced biofuels:
• Use existing and new economic instruments,
such as the blending tax credits, to spur development of advanced biofuels, and phase out
incentives for corn ethanol.
• Base the tax credits for ethanol and biodiesel
on performance, with fuels that achieve deeper
greenhouse gas emissions reductions eligible
for greater support. Or, set a floor for government support that requires lifecycle reductions
of at least 50 percent or better.
• Revisit the Renewable Fuel Standard mandate
to ensure that it will promote second-generation biofuels instead of propping up first-generation biofuels.
• Lower or eliminate the ethanol import tariff for
fuels that meet sustainability criteria.
www.worldwatch.org
2. Develop sustainability standards and make
government support conditional on meeting
these standards.
While the revised Renewable Fuel Standard
does not directly acknowledge the need for
sustainability standards, it requires minimum
greenhouse gas emissions reductions from biofuels based on a complete lifecycle analysis,
including indirect effects. The mandate also
requires that biofuel production not harm the
environment or natural resources.
The EPA released its proposed rules for
implementing the revised RFS in early May
2009, and final rules were not expected before
the end of the year at the earliest. Although the
agency has outlined ways to include land use
effects in greenhouse gas estimates, some biofuels proponents have made it clear that they
are opposed to including these measures, in
part because of concerns about whether indirect land use impacts should be viewed globally, and in part because of how other pressures on land—rising populations, for example—are accounted for in calculations. The
EPA has clarified that the final rules must be
transparent, based on the best available science, and include a clearly articulated methodology. They should also be flexible enough
to accommodate future updates as scientific
understanding of indirect effects improves.
Several federal agencies, including the U.S.
Departments of Energy and Agriculture, are
contemplating the role of sustainability standards for biofuels under the auspices of the
Biomass Research and Development Board. In
October 2008, the Board released a National
Biofuels Action Plan designed to promote
interagency coordination and realize significant second-generation biofuels production
within 15 years.6 According to the plan, the
Board seeks to develop sustainability criteria,
benchmarks, and indicators that will help
determine best practices in agriculture and
land use practices, efficient production, and
economic viability, among other areas. However, the plan does not envision mandatory
requirements or a certification program.
Establishing these two elements would help
strengthen the system and guarantee that bioRed, White, and Green
31
The Road Ahead: Policy Options for Sustainable U.S. Biofuels
fuels meet minimum criteria. The California
Low Carbon Fuel Standard plans to address
sustainability issues stemming from land use
and may offer a model for lowering greenhouse gas emissions over time.
One specific policy option is to encourage
biofuel producers and processors to adopt sustainable production and processing practices.
Compliance with the sodbuster and swampbuster programs, which are designed to prevent grassland and wetland conversion, is a
requirement for farmers to qualify for direct
payments under USDA regulations.7 Compliance with these two programs and with new
ones developed specifically for feedstock crops
could be recognized in this context, with individual producers rewarded for their participation or excluded from incentives if they do not
participate. Including biofuels in the programs
developed under the recently established Office
of Ecosystem Services and Markets could also
help encourage more sustainable production.8
Sustainable production could also be recognized at the refinery level or even at the retail
level, with the feedstocks identified in terms of
percentage volume or a lifecycle greenhouse
gas estimate, giving consumers a role in
demanding cleaner and greener fuels.
Recommendations for developing sustainability standards for biofuels:
• Adopt a federal low-carbon fuel standard that
reduces the carbon content of transportation
fuels over time.
• Work with ongoing multi-stakeholder
processes to establish internationally accepted
sustainability standards and certification
mechanisms for biofuels.
• Create incentives for sustainable production of
biofuel feedstocks in current and future farm
support and other programs by making government support conditional on performance
and compliance with sustainability standards.
• Acknowledge production of sustainable biofuels through labeling at the retail level.
32
Red, White, and Green
3. Create a holistic energy policy across all
transportation-related sectors.
Biofuel production affects and is affected
by a wide range of policies, including those
related to agriculture, energy, the environment,
and climate change, as well as those promoting
national security, rural development, and job
creation. While the EISA touches on many
diverse policy areas, it does not deal with the
relative importance of biofuels in a renewable
energy portfolio, their long-term significance
in U.S. energy use, or their role in a new
energy economy.
The new Biofuels Interagency Working
Group, announced in May 2009, is tasked
with addressing the range of policy issues and
obstacles related directly to biofuels, such as
production, supply, flex-fuel vehicles, and sustainability. But this narrow approach fails to
situate biofuels as part of a larger transportation and energy system and may allow important opportunities to remain unexplored.
In the transport sector, liquid biofuels can
serve as a temporary bridge to a more efficient
system based on electric vehicles and powered
by renewable energy. Plug-in hybrid-electric
vehicles (PHEV) emit 30–60 percent fewer
emissions per mile compared to similar conventional vehicles, and pure electric vehicles
are expected to perform even better due to
highly efficient motors.9 An electric transport
system is not possible with the current electricity transmission system and requires a transition to a more flexible, responsive, and smarter
grid. Complementary policies include adopting ambitious national renewable energy targets and advanced feed-in laws that make it
easier for small, clean energy producers to sell
their surplus electricity into the grid.
By transitioning to electricity as an energy
source for transportation, transport fuels
would be relying on a far more diverse energy
market. The amount of renewable energy in
the world, including solar, wind, geothermal,
biomass, hydropower, and ocean power, is six
times greater than the world’s energy use, and
every region of the world has at least one, if
not more, of these resources.10 And, as discussed in Sidebar 4 (page 24), using biomass
w w w. w orldwatch.org
The Road Ahead: Policy Options for Sustainable U.S. Biofuels
iofoto/stockxpert
to provide electricity and heat rather than liquid transportation fuels offers clearer environmental benefits.
Improvements in vehicle efficiency are
needed as well to reduce demand for fuels, but
any fuels that are used should be as sustainable
as possible. The country should also focus on
improving public transit options and other
transportation alternatives to further minimize
fuel demand.
Recommendations for ensuring policy
coherence across all transportation-related
sectors:
• Create a broad transportation policy that looks
beyond biofuels to more-efficient vehicles,
electric/plug-in vehicles, better urban design,
and investments in good public transportation
systems and rail.
• Increase investment in electric vehicle technologies, including a national smart-grid to
encourage vehicle-to-grid net metering and
development of improved batteries.
• Reconsider the best use of biofuels and biomass, looking specifically at lifecycle greenhouse gas studies on biomass used for
electricity and heat.
• Adopt ambitious national renewable energy
targets and advanced feed-in laws that enable
small producers to sell their surplus electricity
into the grid at a fair price and set a carbon
performance standard for electricity.
The costs of expanding U.S. corn ethanol
production have been felt in food and fuel
prices, and prospects are not good for suffi-
www.worldwatch.org
Aerial view of sugarcane fields on Maui, Hawaii.
cient sustained private investment in moresustainable alternatives in the absence of additional incentives. Given the country’s current
policy and economic structures, there is a
large probability that corn ethanol will continue to dominate domestic biofuel production, even though other biofuels might deliver
much greater climate, environmental, and
social benefits.
The United States has a real opportunity to
adjust course and ensure that clean and sustainable biofuels, rather than just more biofuels, are a priority. The experience of recent
years has demonstrated the dangers of pushing
blindly for increased biofuel production without considering the unintended consequences.
The challenge for a red, white, and green path
is to ensure that second-generation biofuels are
developed quickly while avoiding the mistakes
of the past.
Red, White, and Green
33
Endnotes
The Promise of Biofuels
1. Oil use from U.S. Energy Information Administration
(EIA), “Table 5.13c Estimated Petroleum Consumption:
Transportation Sector, 1949–2007,” in Annual Energy
Review (Washington, DC: 2009); vehicles data from U.S.
Government Accountability Office, DOE Lacks a Strategic
Approach to Coordinate Increasing Production and Infrastructure Development and Vehicle Needs (Washington,
DC: June 2007), p. 32.
2. Elisabeth Bumiller and Adam Nagourney, “Bush:
‘America Is Addicted to Oil,’” International Herald Tribune, 1 February 2006.
3. EIA, Emissions of Greenhouse Gases Report
(Washington, DC: 3 December 2008).
4. For more information, see U.S. Department of
Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, “Alternative and Advanced Fuels,” www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/
fuels/, viewed 6 March 2009.
5. Joe Monfort, “Despite Obstacles, Biofuels Continue
Surge,” Vital Signs Online (Washington, DC: Worldwatch
Institute, April 2008); F.O. Licht, World Ethanol and
Biofuels Report, 23 October 2008. Conversion from liters
to gallons from Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL),
“Bioenergy Ethanol and Biodiesel Conversion Factors,”
http://bioenergy.ornl.gov/papers/misc/energy_conv.html,
viewed 17 February 2009.
6. Table 1 from F.O. Licht, op. cit. note 5, and from F.O.
Licht, World Ethanol and Biofuels Report, 26 March 2009.
7. Worldwatch calculations based on F.O. Licht, World
Ethanol and Biofuels Report, 10 June 2008, on Monfort,
op. cit. note 5, and on F.O. Licht, op. cit. note 5.
8. Peter du Pont, ECO-Asia Clean Development and
Climate Program, “Biofuels in Asia: An Analysis of
Sustainability Options,” presentation at the Brookings
Institution, Washington, DC, 10 April 2009.
9. Monfort, op. cit. note 5; F.O. Licht, op. cit. note 5;
F.O. Licht, op. cit. note 6. Conversion factors from ORNL,
op. cit. note 5.
10. F.O. Licht, World Ethanol and Biofuels Report, 23
September 2008; R. W. Howarth et al., “Rapid Assessment
on Biofuels and Environment: Overview and Key Findings,” in R.W. Howarth and S. Bringezu, eds., Biofuels:
Environmental Consequences and Interactions with
Changing Land Use, Proceedings of the Scientific Com34
Red, White, and Green
mittee on Problems of the Environment (SCOPE)
International Biofuels Project Rapid Assessment, 22–25
September 2008, Gummersbach, Germany (Ithaca, NY:
Cornell University, 2009), p. 2.
11. Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, “APEC Biofuels
Activities by Member Economy,” www.biofuels.apec.org/
member_activities.html, viewed 6 March 2009.
12. See, for example, Congressional Budget Office
(CBO), The Impact of Ethanol Use on Food Prices and
Greenhouse-Gas Emissions (Washington, DC: April 2009).
13. Joseph Fargione et al., “Land Clearing and the Biofuel
Carbon Debt,” Science, 29 February 2008, pp. 1235–38;
Timothy Searchinger et al., “Use of U.S. Croplands for
Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gases Through Emissions
from Land Use Change,” Science, 29 February 2008, pp.
1238–40.
14. H.R. 6: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007,
19 December 2007, available at http://frwebgate.access
.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&
docid=f:h6enr.txt.pdf.
15. Simla Tokgoz et al., Emerging Biofuels: Outlook of
Effects on U.S. Grain, Oilseed, and Livestock Markets
(Ames, IA: Center for Agricultural and Rural Development, Iowa State University, July 2007).
Biofuels in the United States Today
1. U.S. Government Accountability Office, DOE Lacks a
Strategic Approach to Coordinate Increasing Production
and Infrastructure Development and Vehicle Needs (Washington, DC: June 2007), p. 10.
2. Renewable Fuels Association (RFA), “Historic U.S.
Fuel Ethanol Production,” www.ethanolrfa.org/industry/
statistics/#A, viewed 17 February 2009.
3. Ethanol data for 2008 from F.O. Licht, World Ethanol
and Biofuels Report, 23 October 2008. Figure 1 from the
following sources: ethanol data for 1990–2007 from RFA,
“Historic Fuel Ethanol Production,” op. cit. note 2; ethanol data for 2008 from F.O. Licht, op. cit. this note, p. 72;
biodiesel data for 1990–2007 from National Biodiesel
Board (NBB), “Estimated US Biodiesel Production by
Fiscal Year,” www.biodiesel.org/pdf_files/fuelfactsheets/
Production_Graph_Slide.pdf, viewed 17 February 2009;
biodiesel data for 2008 from F.O. Licht, World Ethanol
and Biofuels Report, 26 March 2009.
w w w. w orldwatch.org
Endnotes
4. Calculation based on U.S. Energy Information
Administration (EIA), “Table 11: Liquid Fuels Supply and
Disposition,” in Annual Energy Outlook 2009 (Washington, DC: March 2009) and on EIA, “Errata for Biofuels in
the U.S. Transportation Sector as of 10/15/07,” www.eia
.doe.gov/oiaf/analysispaper/errata_biofuels.html.
5. U.S. Federal Trade Commission, 2008 Report on Ethanol Market Concentration, available at www.ftc.gov/os/
2008/11/081117ethanolreport.pdf.
6. Ibid.
7. RFA, “Biorefinery Locations,” www.ethanolrfa.org/
industry/locations, updated 5 March 2009.
8. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), National
Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), “Prospective
Plantings” (Washington, DC: Agricultural Statistic Board,
31 March 2009), pp. 1, 27.
9. Figure of 4.2 billion bushels from Christopher Doering, “U.S. Corn for Ethanol to Rise, Growth to Slow:
USDA,” Reuters, 13 February 2009. Figure 2 from USDA,
Economic Research Service (ERS), “Supply and Use:
Corn,” in Feed Grains Database, www.ers.usda.gov/Data/
feedgrains, updated 1 December 2008.
10. EIA, Annual Energy Outlook 2008 (Washington, DC:
June 2008); EIA, Table A2 in Annual Energy Outlook 2009
Early Release (Washington, DC: December 2008). EIA’s
projections assume that the Renewable Fuel Standard
enacted in the Energy Independence Security Act of 2007
will be extended indefinitely.
11. NBB, “Commercial Biodiesel Production Plants,”
www.biodiesel.org/buyingbiodiesel/producers_marketers/
Producers%20Map-Existing.pdf, updated 29 September
2008.
12. Ibid.
13. F.O. Licht, 26 March 2009, op. cit. note 3.
14. NBB, “Biodiesel Production Plants Under Construction or Expansion (September 29, 2008),” at www.bio
diesel.org/buyingbiodiesel/producers_marketers/Produc
ers%20Map-Construction.pdf.
15. Sean Hargreaves, “Calming Ethanol-Crazed Corn
Prices,” CNN Money, 30 January 2007; Peter Robison,
“Ethanol’s Boom Holds Hidden Costs: Higher Food
Prices,” International Herald Tribune, 12 February 2007;
Robert Siegel, “High Corn Prices Cast Shadow Over
Ethanol Plants,” All Things Considered (National Public
Radio), 15 July 2008; “Ethanol to Bolster US Corn Price,
Plantings–Report,” Reuters, 6 March 2009. Figure 3 from
the following sources: data for 2000–07 from USDA,
NASS database, www.nass.usda.gov, updated 30 December 2008; data for 2008 from USDA Economics, Statistics
and Market Information System (ESMIS), http://usda
.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/AgriPric/AgriPric-12
-30-2008.pdf.
16. Congressional Budget Office (CBO), The Impact of
Ethanol Use on Food Prices and Greenhouse-Gas Emissions
(Washington, DC: April 2009), p. 7.
17. Richard Stillman, Mildred Haley, and Ken Mathews
“Grain Prices Impact Entire Livestock Production Cycle,”
Amber Waves, March 2009.
www.worldwatch.org
18. CBO, op. cit. 16, p. 6.
19. Ibid., pp. 11–12.
20. Kenneth Musante, “Oil Slides to Three-week Low,”
CNNMoney.com, 10 February 2009.
21. Ibid.; Clifford Krauss, “Ethanol, Just Recently a
Savior, Is Struggling,” New York Times, 11 February 2009.
22. Doering, op. cit. note 9; Russell Gold and Ana Campoy, “Oil Industry Braces for Drop in U.S. Thirst for
Gasoline,” Wall Street Journal, 13 April 2009.
23. Don Hofstrand, “Profitability Prospects for the Corn
Ethanol Industry,” Renewable Energy Newsletter (Agricultural Marketing Resource Center), January 2009; Kate
Galbraith, “Economy Shifts, and the Ethanol Industry
Reels,” New York Times, 4 November 2008. Figure 4 from
the following source: Robert Sharp, Platts, e-mails to
Amanda Chiu, Worldwatch Institute, 28 January 2009 and
15 April 2009.
24. Doering, op. cit. note 9; Jennifer Kho, “U.S. Ethanol
Industry Eyes Valero’s Bid for VeraSun,” RenewableEnergy
World.com, 24 February 2009.
25. Kho, op. cit. note 24; Jessica Resnick-Ault, “Aventine
Bankruptcy Unlikely to Offset Ethanol Oversupply,” Dow
Jones Newswires, 8 April 2009.
26. Kho, op. cit. note 24; Krauss, op. cit. note 21; “Pacific
Ethanol Suspends Plants In Idaho, California,” Reuters, 2
March 2009.
27. Kho, op. cit. note 24.
28. Based on interviews with Iowa State professors and
extension agents conducted by Raya Widenoja, Worldwatch Institute, summer and fall 2007.
29. Estimate of 34 percent from John Farrell, New Rules
Project, Institute for Local Self-Reliance, “Ownership &
Scale of Renewable Energy,” PowerPoint presentation at
Local Energy Initiatives Forum, Cloquet, MN, 13 September 2007; RFA, op. cit. note 7; no more than 21 percent
from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
“Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Changes to
Renewable Fuel Standard Program,” pre-published draft
implementation rules (Washington, DC: 5 May 2009),
p. 191.
30. Ben Lefebvre and William Lemos, “Outlook ’09: US
Biofuels Industry Expected to Consolidate,” ICIS.Com
News, 31 December 2008; Joshua Boak, “Independent
Ethanol Producers Face a Tough Future,” Los Angeles
Times, 10 April 2009.
31. Farrell, op. cit. note 29.
32. David Morris, Energizing Rural America: Local Ownership of Renewable Energy Production Is the Key (Washington, DC: Center for American Progress, January 2007).
33. David Swenson, “Economic Impact of Locally Owned
Biofuels Facilities,” Renewable Energy Newsletter (Agricultural Marketing Resource Center), January 2009.
34. American Coalition for Ethanol, “Ethanol 101: Benefits of Ethanol,” www.ethanol.org/index.php?id=34&
parentid=8, viewed 9 March 2009; David Swenson,
Department of Economics, Iowa State University ExtenRed, White, and Green
35
Endnotes
sion, “Determining Biofuels Economic Impacts Considering Local Investment Levels,” PowerPoint presentation,
available at www.leopold.iastate.edu/research/marketing_files/workshop06/presentations/bwg2.pdf; Sarah A. Low
and Andrew M. Isserman, “Chapter 5: Ethanol and the
Local Economy,” in Corn-Based Ethanol in Illinois and the
U.S.: A Report from the Department of Agricultural and
Consumer Economics, University of Illinois (UrbanaChampaign, IL: November 2007).
35. See, for example, the discussion of corn prices and
livestock production in Robert Wisener, “Impact of Ethanol on the Livestock and Poultry Industry,” Renewable
Energy Newsletter (Agricultural Marketing Resource Center), October 2008.
36. U.S. House of Representatives, Appropriations Committee Subcommittee on Energy and Water, Hearing on
Gas Prices and Vehicle Technology, “Testimony of Bob
Dinneen, President & CEO, Renewable Fuels Association,”
14 February 2008.
37. John M. Urbanchuk, Economic Contribution of the
Biodiesel Industry (Wayne, PA: LECG, November 2007);
2008 numbers by Manning Feraci, NBB, as reported in
“Biodiesel Industry Stands Ready to Meet 2009 Goals,”
Refrigerated Transporter, 12 January 2009.
38. Urbanchuk, op. cit. note 37.
39. Global Insight, U.S. Metro Economies, Current and
Potential Jobs in the U.S. Economy, prepared for the U.S.
Conference of Mayors and the Mayors Climate Protection
Center (Lexington, MA: October 2008).
40. Robert Pollin et al., Green Recovery: A Program to
Create Good Jobs and Start Building a Low-Carbon Economy (Amherst, MA: Center for American Progress and
Political Economy Research Institute of the University of
Massachusetts-Amherst, September 2008).
41. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, “Cellulosic Ethanol: Benefits and Challenges,” genomicsgtl
.energy.gov/biofuels/benefits.shtml, viewed 9 March 2009.
42. Bio Economic Research Associates, U.S. Economic
Impact of Advanced Biofuels Production: Perspectives to
2030 (Cambridge, MA: February 2009).
43. Doug Koplow, A Boon to Bad Biofuels: Federal Tax
Credits and Mandates Underwrite Environmental Damage
at Taxpayer Expense (Washington, DC: Friends of the
Earth and Earth Track, April 2009), p. 26.
44. Mark Clayton, “The ‘Holy Grail’ of Biofuels Now in
Sight,” Christian Science Monitor, 13 February 2009.
45. Ibid.
46. Ibid.
47. F.O. Licht, “U.S. Ethanol Industry at a Crossroads,”
World Ethanol and Biofuels Report, 2 March 2009.
48. Ben Block, “United States Considers Ethanol Blend
Increase,” Eye on Earth (Worldwatch Institute), 13 February 2009.
36
“Ethanol Producers Press for Higher Limits,” Washington
Post, 6 March 2009; Block, op. cit. note 48; Tina Seeley,
“Agriculture Secretary in Talks to Raise Ethanol Blend,”
Bloomberg, 6 February 2009.
Climate and Environmental Impacts
of Current Biofuels
1. Worldwatch Institute, Biofuels for Transport: Global
Potential and Implications for Sustainable Energy Agriculture (London: Earthscan, 2006).
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid., p. 162.
4. Ibid.; Suani Coelho et al., “Brazilian Sugarcane Ethanol: Lessons Learned,” Energy for Sustainable Development, June 2006.
5. Worldwatch Institute, op. cit. note 1, pp. 183–88.
6. Figure 5 from the following sources: Estimate of 12
percent from Jason Hill et al., “Environmental, Economic,
and Energetic Costs and Benefits of Biodiesel and Ethanol
Biofuels,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
25 July 2006; 18 percent from Alexander E. Farrell et al.,
“Ethanol Can Contribute to Energy and Environmental
Goals,” Science, 27 January 2006, pp. 506–08, corrected in
Science, 23 June 2006, p. 1748 (The January 2006 estimate
of 13.8 percent was updated to 18 percent in June 2006
due to new information about emissions from limestone
and nitrogen applications.); U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), “Greenhouse Gas Impacts of
Expanded Renewable and Alternative Fuels Use,” fact
sheet (Washington, DC: April 2007). See also Michael
Wang, May Wu, and Hong Huo, “Life-cycle Energy and
Greenhouse Gas Emission Impacts of Different Corn
Ethanol Plant Types,” Environmental Research Letters,
April–June 2007, p. 12, and Emanuela Menichetti and
Martina Otto, “Energy Balance & Greenhouse Gas
Emissions of Biofuels from a Life Cycle Perspective,” in
R.W. Howarth and S. Bringezu, eds., Biofuels: Environmental Consequences and Interactions with Changing
Land Use, Proceedings of the Scientific Committee on
Problems of the Environment (SCOPE) International
Biofuels Project Rapid Assessment, 22–25 September
2008, Gummersbach, Germany (Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University, 2009), pp. 81–109.
7. Congressional Budget Office (CBO), The Impact of
Ethanol Use on Food Prices and Greenhouse-Gas Emissions
(Washington, DC: April 2009), p. 13.
8. Farrell et al., op. cit. note 6; Wang, Wu, and Huo, op.
cit. note 6.
9. Joseph Fargione et al., “Land Clearing and the Biofuel
Carbon Debt,” Science, 29 February 2008, pp. 1235–38;
Timothy Searchinger et al., “Use of U.S. Croplands for
Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gases Through Emissions
from Land Use Change,” Science, 29 February 2008, pp.
1238–40.
10. Hill et al., op. cit. note 6.
49. Krauss, op. cit. note 21.
11. EPA, op. cit. note 6.
50. Clifford Krauss, “Bigger Share of Ethanol Is Sought in
Gasoline,” New York Times, 6 March 2009; Steven Mufson,
12. R.W. Howarth et al., “Rapid Assessment on Biofuels
and Environment: Overview and Key Findings” and N.H.
Red, White, and Green
w w w. w orldwatch.org
Endnotes
Ravindranath et al., “Greenhouse Gas Implications of
Land Use and Land Conversion to Biofuel Crops,” in R.W.
Howarth and S. Bringezu, eds., op. cit. note 6, pp. 3–4 and
pp. 111–25.
13. Finn Danielsen et al., “Biofuel Plantations on Forested Lands: Double Jeopardy for Biodiversity and Climate,” Conservation Biology, April 2009, pp. 348–58.
14. Ibid.
15. Ravindranath et al., op. cit. note 12.
16. Ibid.
17. Farrell et al., op. cit. note 6.
18. Wang, Wu, and Huo, op. cit. note 6, p. 5; EPA, “Chapter 6. Agriculture,” in U.S. Greenhouse Gas Inventory
Reports: Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and
Sinks: 1990–2006 (Washington, DC: April 2008).
19. Howarth et al., op. cit. note 12, pp. 3–4.
20. Mike Duffy, “Where Will the Corn Come From?”
Ag Decision Maker (Iowa State University Extension),
November 2006; Paul C. Westcott, “U.S. Ethanol Expansion Driving Changes Throughout the Agricultural Sector,” Amber Waves, September 2007, pp. 13–14.
21. National Research Council (NRC), Water Implications
of Biofuels Production in the United States (Washington,
DC: National Academies Press, 2008), p. 34.
22. Ibid.
23. Dan Charles, “Iowa Farmers Look to Trap Carbon in
the Soil,” National Public Radio, 15 July 2007.
24. Joseph Pikul et al., “Change in Surface Soil Carbon
Under Rotated Corn in Eastern South Dakota,” Soil
Science Society of America Journal, 21 November 2008.
25. Jason Hill et al., “Climate Change and Health Costs of
Air Emissions from Biofuels and Gasoline,” Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences, 10 February 2009, pp.
2077–82.
26. Natural Resources Defense Council, “Unlocking the
Promise of Ethanol: Promoting Ethanol While Protecting
Air Quality,” fact sheet (New York: February 2006); Mark
Z. Jacobson, “Effects of Ethanol (E85) versus Gasoline
Vehicles on Cancer and Mortality in the United States,”
Environmental Science and Technology, 18 April 2007, pp.
4150–57; EPA, “E85 and Flex Fuel Vehicles,” fact sheet
(Washington, DC: October 2006).
27. EPA, “Biodiesel,” fact sheet (Washington, DC: October 2006).
28. NRC, op. cit. note 21, pp. 27–36.
29. Howarth et al., op. cit. note 12, pp. 6–7.
30. U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, “Survey Cruise Records Second-Largest ‘Dead
Zone’ in Gulf of Mexico Since Measurements Began in
1985,” press release (Washington, DC: 28 July 2008).
31. R. Dominguez-Faus et al., “The Water Footprint of
Biofuels: A Drink or Drive Issue?,” Environmental Science
and Technology, 1 May 2009, p. 3007.
32. Joe Barret, “How Ethanol Is Making the Farm Belt
www.worldwatch.org
Thirsty,” Wall Street Journal, 5 September 2007; NRC, op.
cit. note 21, pp. 19–26; Carey Gillam, “Ethanol Craze
Endangers U.S. Plains Water: Report,” Reuters, 20 September 2007; Martha G. Roberts, Timothy D. Male, and
Theodore P. Toombs, Potential Impacts of Biofuels
Expansion on Natural Resources: A Case Study of the
Ogallala Aquifer Region (Washington, DC: Environmental
Defense, September 2007).
33. Dennis Keeney and Mark Muller, Water Use by Ethanol Plants: Potential Challenges (Minneapolis: Institute
for Agriculture and Trade Policy, October 2006), p. 4.
34. NRC, op. cit. note 21, p. 51.
35. Yi-Wen Chiu, Brian Walseth, and Sangwon Suh,
“Water Embodied in Bioethanol in the United States,”
Environmental Science & Technology, 15 April 2009, pp.
2688–92.
36. NRC, op. cit. note 21, p. 51. For soybean irrigation,
see: R. Dominguez-Faus et al., “The Water Footprint of
Biofuels: A Drink or Drive Issue?,” Environmental Science
and Technology, 1 May 2009; Jerry Wright et al., “Predicting the Last Irrigation for Corn and Soybeans in
Central Minnesota,” Minnesota Crop eNews (University
of Minnesota Extension Service), 1 August 2006; Danny
Rogers and William Sothers, “Predicting the Final
Irrigation for Corn, Grain Sorghum, and Soybeans,”
Irrigation Management Series (Manhattan, KS: Cooperative Extension Service, Kansas State University, May
1996); E.B. Whitty, D.L. Wright, and C.G. Chambliss,
Water Use and Irrigation Management of Agronomic Crops
(Gainesville, FL: University of Florida Institute of Food
and Agricultural Sciences Extension, reviewed November
2008 (revised April 2002)).
37. Barret, op. cit. note 32; NRC, op. cit. note 21, pp.
19–26; Roberts, Male, and Toombs, op. cit. note 32.
38. Roberts, Male, and Toombs, op. cit. note 32.
39. Renewable Fuels Association, “Biorefinery Locations,”
www.ethanolrfa.org/industry/locations, updated 5 March
2009; Kris Bevill et al., “Proposed Ethanol Plant List:
2008 United States & Canada PART 1,” Ethanol Producer
Magazine, April 2008.
40. Jim Giles, “Can Biofuels Rescue American Prairies?”
New Scientist, 18 August 2007, pp. 8–9.
41. U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Conservation
Reserve Program and Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program,” Farm Bill Forum Comment Summary &
Background (Washington, DC: 2006).
42. Ibid.; Dominguez-Faus et al., op. cit. note 36, p. 3008;
Ralph Heimlich, “USDA’s Conservation Reserve Program:
Is It Time to Ease into Easements?” (Washington, DC:
Resources for the Future, 8 September 2008).
43. Heimlich, op. cit. note 42.
44. Rolf R. Koford, “Density and Fledging Success of
Grassland Birds in Conservation Reserve Program Fields
in North Dakota and West-central Minnesota,” Studies in
Avian Biology, vol. 19 (1999).
45. Global Invasive Species Programme, Biofuel Crops
and the Use of Non-Native Species: Mitigating the Risks of
Red, White, and Green
37
Endnotes
Invasion (Nairobi: May 2008); Christopher Evan Buddenhagen, Charles Chimera, and Patti Clifford, “Assessing
Biofuel Crop Invasiveness: A Case Study,” PLoS ONE, 22
April 2009.
Benefits of “Advanced” Biofuels”
1. Susanne Retka Schill, “Miscanthus versus Switchgrass,” Ethanol Producer Magazine, 22 October 2007;
David Busby et al., “Yield and Production Costs for Three
Potential Dedicated Energy Crops in Mississippi and
Oklahoma Environments,” paper presentation at the
Southern Agricultural Economics Association Annual
Meeting, Mobile, AL, February 2007; Louisiana State
University Ag Center, “New Varieties, Energy Cane Highlight LSU AgCenter Sugarcane Field Day,” press release
(St. Gabriel, LA: 20 July 2006).
2. See, for example, Humberto Blanco-Canqui and R.
Lal, “Soil and Crop Response to Harvesting Corn Residues for Biofuel Production,” Geoderma, 15 October
2007, pp. 355–62, and Dan Walters and Haishun Yang,
“How Much Corn Stover Can Be Removed for Biofuel
Feedstock Without Compromising Soil Quality and
Erosion Concerns,” presentation at the 2007 Biofuels and
Water Resources Mini-Retreat, University of NebraskaLincoln School of Natural Resources, Lincoln, NE, 19
January 2007.
3. Tom Capehart, Cellulosic Biofuels: Analysis of Policy
Issues for Congress (Washington, DC: Congressional
Research Service, 7 November 2008), pp. 5–6; Biomass
Research and Development Initiative, Increasing Feedstock
Production for Biofuels: Economic Drivers, Environmental
Implications, and the Role of Research (Washington, DC:
December 2008).
4. Martha Groom, Elizabeth Gray, and Patricia Townsend, “Biofuels and Biodiversity: Principles for Creating
Better Policies for Biofuel Production,” Conservation
Biology, 28 June 2008, pp. 602–09.
5. Global Invasive Species Programme, Biofuel Crops
and the Use of Non-Native Species: Mitigating the Risks of
Invasion (Nairobi: May 2008).
6. Robert D. Perlack et al., “Biomass as a Feedstock for
a Bioenergy and Bioproducts Industry: The Technical
Feasibility of a Billion-Ton Annual Supply,” A Joint Study
Sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and
the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) (Oakridge,
TN: Oak Ridge National Laboratory, April 2005), p. 16.
7. Sidebar 2 from the following sources: National
Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), A Look Back at
the U.S. Department of Energy’s Aquatic Species Program:
Biodiesel from Algae (Golden, CO: July 1998); DOE, “Algal
Biofuels,” fact sheet (Washington, DC: 2008); DOE, “Algal
Biofuels Technology Roadmap Workshop,” www.orau.gov/
algae2008/default.htm, viewed 20 April 2009; Joseph
B. Verrengia, NREL, “Algae-to-Fuel Research Enjoys
Resurgence at NREL,” Renewable Energy World.com, 16
April 2009; Michael Kanellos, “Algae Biodiesel: It’s $33 a
Gallon,” Green Tech Media, 3 February 2009; Solix, “Why
Algae,” www.solixbiofuels.com/html/why_algae.html,
viewed 20 April 2009; David Biello, “Biofuel of the
Future: Oil from Algae,” Scientific American, October
38
Red, White, and Green
2008; “Bionavitas Announces Breakthrough Algae Growth
Technology for Biofuels Production,” Reuters, 24 February
2009; “Mass. Firm Opens Algae-Growing Greenhouse,”
CNET Tech News, 21 October 2008; David Perlman,
“Decoded Algae Could Aid Biofuel, Climate Work,” San
Francisco Chronicle, 10 April 2009; Julian N. Rosenberg
et al., “A Green Light for Engineered Algae: Redirecting
Metabolism to Fuel a Biotechnology Revolution,” Current
Opinion in Biotechnology, vol. 19 (2008), pp. 430–36;
Yusuf Chrisi, “Research Review Paper: Biodiesel from
Microalgae,” Biotechnology Advances, vol. 25 (2007), pp.
294–306; Katie Fehrenbacher, “15 Algae Startups Bringing
Pond Scum to Fuel Tanks,” Earth2Tech, 27 March 2008.
8. Jason Hill et al., “Environmental, Economic, and
Energetic Costs and Benefits of Biodiesel and Ethanol
Biofuels,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
25 July 2006, p. 11208; Emanuela Menichetti and Martina
Otto, “Energy Balance & Greenhouse Gas Emissions of
Biofuels from a Life Cycle Perspective,” in R.W. Howarth
and S. Bringezu, eds., Biofuels: Environmental Consequences and Interactions with Changing Land Use, Proceedings of the Scientific Committee on Problems of the
Environment (SCOPE) International Biofuels Project
Rapid Assessment, 22–25 September 2008, Gummersbach, Germany (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, 2009), pp.
84–85; Michael Wang, May Wu, and Hong Huo, “Lifecycle Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emission Impacts of
Different Corn Ethanol Plant Types,” Environmental
Research Letters, April–June 2007, p. 12; M.R. Schmer et
al., “Net Energy of Cellulosic Ethanol from Switchgrass,”
Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 15 January
2008, pp. 464–69.
9. Schmer et al., op. cit. note 8.
10. Wang, Wu, and Huo, op. cit. note 8, p. 9.
11. Wang, Wu, and Huo, op. cit note 8 shows an 86 percent reduction in greenhouse gases compared to gasoline;
Alexander E. Farrell et al., “Ethanol Can Contribute to
Energy and Environmental Goals,” Science, 27 January
2006, pp. 506–08 shows an 88 percent reduction; Schmer
et al., op. cit. note 8, shows a 94 percent reduction; EPA,
“Greenhouse Gas Impacts of Expanded Renewable and
Alternative Fuels Use,” fact sheet (Washington, DC: April
2007); 12 percent corn ethanol reduction from Hill et al.,
op. cit. note 8, p. 3; 18 percent from Farrell et al., op. cit.
this note.
12. See, for example, Schmer et al., op. cit. note 8, and
David Tilman, Jason Hill, and Clarence Lehman,
“Carbon-Negative Biofuels from Low-Input HighDiversity Grassland Biomass,” Science, 8 December 2006.
13. Lew Fulton et al., Biofuels for Transport: An
International Perspective (Paris: International Energy
Agency, 2004), pp. 61–62.
14. Schmer et al., op. cit. 8; Farrell, et al., op. cit. 11.
15. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, “Biofuels from
Switchgrass: Greener Energy Pastures,” fact sheet (Oak
Ridge, TN: 1998)
16. Capehart, op. cit. note 3, p. 5; average 2008 corn yield
from USDA, “USDA Forecasts Robust Corn and Soybean
Crops, Despite Flooding,” press release (Washington, DC:
w w w. w orldwatch.org
Endnotes
12 August 2008). Estimate assumes that each bushel
yields 2.8 gallons of ethanol, the current average.
17. Schmer et al., op. cit. note 8, pp. 464–69; Tilman, Hill,
and Lehman, op. cit. note 12, p. 1598.
18. Bruce A. Babcock et al., “Adoption Subsidies and
Environmental Impacts of Alternative Energy Crops,”
Briefing Paper 07-BP50 (Ames, IA: Iowa State University
Center for Agricultural and Rural Development, March
2007).
19. Tilman, Hill, and Lehman, op. cit. note 12, p. 1598.
20. Ibid.
21. John Kort, Michael Collins, and David Ditsch, “A
Review of Soil Erosion Potential Associated with Biomass
Crops,” Biomass and Bioenergy, April 1998, pp. 351–59;
Les Murray and Louis B. Best, “Effects of Switchgrass
Harvest as Biomass Fuel on Grassland-Nesting Birds,”
graduate research project supported by the National
Resources Conservation Service and Iowa State University, January 2006, available at ftp://ftp-fc.sc.egov.usda
.gov/NHQ/ecs/Wild/Biomass.pdf.
22. Kort, Collins, and Ditsch, op. cit. note 21, p. 351.
23. Perlack et al., op. cit. note 6; Schmer et al., op. cit.
note 8, pp. 464–69.
24. Capehart, op. cit. 3, pp. 7, 13; Hosein Shapouri and
Michael Salassi, Economic Feasibility of Ethanol Production
from Sugar in the United States (Washington, DC: USDA
and Louisiana State University, July 2006), p. iv.
25. Capehart, op. cit. note 3.
26. Ibid.
27. Ibid.
28. Sidebar 3 from the following sources: Mark Brady et
al., “Renewable Diesel Technology,” a white paper from
the Renewable Diesel Subcommittee of the Washington
State Department of Agriculture Technical Work Group
(Olympia, WA: WSDA, 25 July 2007), pp. 4–6, 50;
National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), Research
Advances: Cellulosic Ethanol (Washington, DC: March
2007); DOE, Advanced Fuels and Advanced Vehicles Data
Center, “Cellulosic Ethanol Production,” www.afdc.energy
.gov/afdc/ethanol/production_cellulosic.html, viewed 17
April 2009; Rainer Kalscheuer, Torsten Stölting and
Alexander Steinbüchel, “Microdiesel: Escherichia Coli
Engineered for Fuel Production,” Microbiology, vol. 152
(2006), pp. 2529–36; David I. Bransby, Cellulosic Biofuel
Technologies, sponsored in part by the Southern States
Energy Board (Auburn, AL: February 2007), pp. 16–22;
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development,
Biofuel Production Technologies: Status, Prospects and
Implications for Trade and Development (New York: 2008),
pp. 9–15.
29. Environmental and Energy Study Institute (EESI),
“Cellulosic Biofuels,” fact sheet (Washington, DC: July
2008).
30. EPA, “Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives:
Changes to Renewable Fuel Standard Program,” pre-published draft implementation rules (Washington, DC: 5
May 2009), pp. 196–98.
www.worldwatch.org
31. Ibid.
32. See, for example, Biotechnology Industry Organization, “Biofuels Defined,” biofuelsandclimate.wordpress
.com/about/, viewed 20 April 2009.
33. EPA, op. cit. note 30, p. 199.
34. H.R. 6: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007,
19 December 2007, available at http://frwebgate.access
.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&
docid=f:h6enr.txt.pdf; USDA, Economic Research
Service, “2008 Farm Bill Side-by-Side. Title IX: Energy,”
www.ers.usda.gov/FarmBill/2008/titles/titleixenergy.htm,
viewed 18 February 2009; Jesse Caputo, “Federal Biomass
Policy: Current and Future Policy Options,” presented at
The Heinz Center and the Pinchot Institute for Conservation Symposium, “Ensuring Forest Sustainability in the
Development of Wood Biofuels and Bioenergy,” Washington, DC, 9 February 2009.
35. USDA, “USDA Approves First Ever Guaranteed Loan
for Commercial-Scale Cellulosic Ethanol Plant,” press
release (Washington, DC: 16 January 2009).
36. USDA, “President Obama Issues Presidential Directive to USDA to Expand Access to Biofuels,” press release
(Washington, DC: 5 May 2009).
37. DOE, “DOE Selects Six Cellulosic Ethanol Plants for
Up to $385 Million in Federal Funding,” press release
(Washington, DC: 28 February 2007).
38. See, for example, Verenium, “Verenium Announces
First Commercial Cellulosic Ethanol Project,” press
release (Cambridge, MA: 15 January 2009).
39. Sandia National Laboratories, “90-Billion Gallon Biofuel Deployment Study: Executive Summary” (Livermore,
CA: February 2009).
Making Biofuels Sustainable
1. See, for example, Worldwatch Institute, Biofuels for
Transport: Global Potential and Implications for Sustainable Energy Agriculture (London: Earthscan, 2006); ASTM
International, “New Biodiesel Specifications Published by
ASTM International,” press release (West Conshohocken,
PA: October 2008).
2. Jinke van Dam et al., “Overview of Recent Developments in Sustainable Biomass Certification,” Biomass and
Bioenergy, 19 May 2008, pp. 750–51.
3. See, for example, Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels
(RSB), “Version Zero of the RSB Principles and Criteria,”
cgse.epfl.ch/page70341.html, viewed 14 April 2009; Steve
Charnovitz, Jane Earley, and Robert Howse, An Examination of Social Standards in Biofuels Sustainability Criteria
(Washington, DC: International Food & Agricultural
Trade Policy Council, December 2008).
4. See, for example, RSB, op. cit. note 3, and van Dam et
al., op. cit. note 2, pp. 749–80.
5. Finn Danielsen et al., “Biofuel Plantations on Forested Lands: Double Jeopardy for Biodiversity and
Climate,” Conservation Biology, April 2009, pp. 348–58.
6. See “Climate and Environmental Impacts of Biofuels”
section earlier for discussion and references.
Red, White, and Green
39
Endnotes
7. See, for example, Alexander E. Farrell et al., “Ethanol
Can Contribute to Energy and Environmental Goals,”
Science, 27 January 2006, pp. 506–08.
8. Michael Wang, May Wu, and Hong Huo, “Life-cycle
Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emission Impacts of Different Corn Ethanol Plant Types,” Environmental Research
Letters, April–June 2007, pp. 1, 13.
9. Ibid.; Nicholas Zeman, “Coproducts Energy Value is
Rising,” Ethanol Producer Magazine, October 2007.
10. See, for example, Bill Hord, “Mead Ethanol Plant
Filing Bankruptcy,” Omaha World Herald, 30 November
2007, and Tony Kryzanowski, “$100 Million Invested in
Bio-Energy Expansion and Ethanol Plant,” Manure
Manager, undated.
11. See, for example, Center for Applied Energy Research,
University of Kentucky, “Development of an Integrated
Process to Convert Glycerin to Green Power in a Biodiesel
Plant” (Lexington, KY: 12 January 2009), and General
Vortex Energy, Inc., “Fuel Sources for the General Vortex
Combustion Chamber,” www.generalvortex.com/GVCT
_fuel_sources.html, viewed 15 April 2009.
12. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural
Research Service, “Final Report,” International
Conference on Sorghum for Biofuels, Houston, TX,
19–22 August 2008.
13. Nicholas Zeman, “Crazy for Camelina,” Biodiesel
Magazine, February 2007; Patrick Barta, “Jatropha Plant
Gains Steam in Global Race for Biofuels,” Wall Street
Journal, 24 August 2007, p. A1.
14. Barta, op. cit. note 13; “Toxic Jatropha Not Magic
Biofuel Crop, Experts Warn,” Reuters, 12 September 2007.
15. David R. Huggins and John P. Reganold, “No-Till:
How Farmers Are Saving the Soil by Parking Their
Plows,” Scientific American, June 2008.
16. Chicago Climate Exchange, “Soil Carbon Management Offsets” (Chicago: September 2008).
17. Huggins and Reganold, op. cit. note 15; Ron Perszewski, “Push Continues for Residue to Be Used in Ethanol
Production,” No-Till Farmer News, 9 January 2007.
18. Table 2 from the following sources: RSB, op. cit. note
3; Council on Sustainable Biomass Production Web site,
www.csbp.org, viewed 17 February 2009; European
Committee for Standardization (CEN), “New Technical
Committee on Sustainability of Biomass,” CEN Networking, June 2008, p. 2; Sustainable Biodiesel Alliance,
“Principles and Baseline Practices for Sustainability,”
www.sustainablebiodieselalliance.com/BPS1015draft.pdf,
viewed 17 February 2009; Roundtable on Sustainable
Palm Oil Web site, www.rspo.org, viewed 15 April 2009;
Roundtable on Responsible Soy Web site, www.respon
siblesoy.org, viewed 15 April 2009.
19. European Parliament and Council of the European
Union, “Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the Promotion and Use of Energy from Renewable Sources and
Amending and Subsequently Repealing Directives
2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC,” (Brussels: 23 April 2009).
40
Red, White, and Green
20. Ibid., article 17.
21. Ibid.
22. Ibid.
23. Ibid., article 19.
24. Sidebar 4 from the following sources: N.D. Mortimer
et al., Evaluation of the Comparative Energy, Global
Warming and Socio-Economic Costs and Benefits of
Biodiesel (Sheffield, U.K.: Sheffield Hallam University,
School of Environment and Development, Resources
Research Unit, 2003), pp. 39–41l; Worldwatch Institute,
op. cit. note 1, pp. 188–91; Resource Dynamics Corporation, Combined Heat and Power Market Potential for
Opportunity Fuels, Distributed Energy Program Report
(Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy, Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, August 2004); Owen
Bailey et al., An Engineering-Economic Analysis of Combined Heat and Power Technologies in a Grid Application
(Berkeley, CA: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory,
2002), pp. 3–5; Interlaboratory Working Group, “Chapter
7,” in Scenarios of U.S. Carbon Reductions: Potential
Impacts of Energy-Efficient and Low-Carbon Technologies
by 2010 and Beyond (Oak Ridge, TN and Berkeley, CA:
Oak Ridge National Laboratory and Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory, 1997); Dennis Becker, “Forest
Biomass and its Role in a National Renewable Electricity
Standard,” briefing presentation (Washington, DC:
Environmental and Energy Study Institute, March 2009);
biomass co-firing efficiency from National Renewable
Energy Laboratory, Biomass Cofiring: A Renewable
Alternative for Utilities, fact sheet (Golden, CO: June
2000), from European Bioenergy Networks, Biomass CoFiring: An Efficient Way to Reduce Greenhouse Gas
Emissions (Jyväskylä, Finland: 2003), pp. 21–22, and from
Jesse Caputo and James Hacker, Biomass Cofiring: A
Transition to a Low-Carbon Future (Washington, DC:
Environmental and Energy Study Institute, March 2009);
Sweden from Swedish Energy Agency, “Sweden Has the
Highest Proportion of Renewable Energy in the EU,”
press release (Eskilstuna, Sweden: 17 December 2008),
and from Laurie Goering, “Going Green: Entire Swedish
City Switches to Biofuels to Become Environmentally
Friendly,” Chicago Tribune, 3 March 2009; Ministry of
Foreign Affairs of Denmark, “The Danish Example—
Towards an Energy Efficient and Climate Friendly
Economy,” October 2008, at http://en.cop15.dk/files/
images/Articles/Danish-example/The-Danish-Example
.pdf; U.S. Energy Information Agency (EIA), “Table 3.
Electricity Net Generation From Renewable Energy by
Energy Use Sector and Energy Source, 2003–2007” and
“Table 1.1. Net Generation by Energy Source: Total (All
Sectors), 1994 through November 2008,” Electric Power
Monthly (Washington, DC: 13 February 2009); J.E.
Campbell, D.B. Lobell, and C.B. Field, “Greater Transportation Energy and GHG Offsets from Bioelectricity
than Ethanol,” Science, 22 May 2009, pp. 1055–57.
25. See, for example, John Carey, “The Biofuel Bubble,”
Business Week, 16 April 2009.
Federal and State Biofuel Policies
1. H.R. 6: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
(EISA), 19 December 2007, available at www.govtrack.us/
w w w. w orldwatch.org
Endnotes
congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-6.
2. Ibid.
3. Figure 6 from ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid. For more on waivers under the Renewable Fuel
Standard, see Brent D. Yacobucci, Waiver Authority Under
the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) (Washington, DC:
Congressional Research Service (CRS), 5 May 2008).
6. Congressional Budget Office (CBO), The Impact of
Ethanol Use on Food Prices and Greenhouse-Gas Emissions
(Washington, DC: April 2009), p. 14.
7. H.R. 6: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007,
op. cit. note 1.
8. Ibid.
9. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), “EPA
Proposes New Regulations for the National Renewable
Fuel Standard Program for 2010 and Beyond,” fact sheet
(Washington, DC: May 2009), p. 3.
10. Ibid.
11. Ibid.
12. Joseph Fargione et al., “Land Clearing and the Biofuel
Carbon Debt,” Science, 29 February 2008, pp. 1235–38;
Timothy Searchinger et al., “Use of U.S. Croplands for
Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gases Through Emissions
from Land Use Change,” Science, 29 February 2008, pp.
1238–40; California Air Resources Board (ARB), Proposed
Regulation to Implement the Low Carbon Fuel Standard
Volume I, Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons
(Sacramento, CA: 5 March 2009).
13. EPA, “Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives:
Changes to Renewable Fuel Standard Program,” prepublished draft implementation rules (Washington, DC:
5 May 2009).
14. EPA, “EPA Lifecycle Analysis of Greenhouse Gas
Emissions from Renewable Fuels,” fact sheet (Washington, DC: May 2009), p. 3.
15. See, for example, Union of Concerned Scientists,
“EPA Proposes Rule to Reduce Global Warming Emissions from Biofuels,” press release (Washington, DC: 5
May 2009).
16. H.R. 6: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007,
op. cit. note 1.
17. Ibid.
18. 12 billion gallon nameplate capacity per U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy, “Biofuels Data” (Washington, DC: updated 23
March 2009).
19. EPA, op. cit. note 13, pp. 55–61.
20. CBO, op. cit. note 6, p. 2. See also U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS), “Chapter 2: Fuel Tax Credits and
Refunds or IRS Instructions for Form 720,” in IRS Publication 510: Excise Taxes, available at www.irs.gov/publi
cations/p510.
21. U.S. Farm Bill of 2008, Public Law 110-234; Brent D.
www.worldwatch.org
Yacobucci, Biofuel Incentives: A Summary of Federal Programs (Washington, DC: CRS, 29 July 2008).
22. Yacobucci, op. cit. note 21. See also IRS, op. cit. note
20.
23. U.S. Farm Bill of 2008, op. cit. note 21; Yacobucci, op.
cit. note 21.
24. Yacobucci, op. cit. note 21. Extended per the Farm
Bill of 2008, op. cit. note 21; CBO, op. cit. note 6, p. 2.
25. Brent D. Yacobucci, Selected Issues Related to an
Expansion of the Renewable Fuel Standard (Washington,
DC: CRS, 31 March 2008).
26. Ben Geman, “Bipartisan Senate Bill Seeks Lower
Tariffs on Ethanol Imports,” New York Times, 18 March
2009.
27. Yacobucci, op. cit. note 21; IRS, op. cit. note 20; Anne
Austin, “Industry Welcomes Tax Credit Extension,” Biodiesel Magazine, December 2008.
28. Yacobucci, op. cit. note 21.
29. “Biofuels: E.U. Sets New Tax on Imported U.S. Biodiesel,” E&E News, 13 March 2009.
30. Austin, op. cit. note 27.
31. Fred Sissine et al., Energy Provisions in the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Washington, DC:
CRS, 3 March 2009).
32. DOE, “DOE to Invest up to $4.4 Million in Six
Innovative Biofuels Projects at U.S. Universities,” press
release (Washington, DC: 10 September 2008).
33. DOE, “DOE Selects Six Cellulosic Ethanol Plants for
Up to $385 Million in Federal Funding,” press release
(Washington, DC: 28 February 2007)
34. DOE, op. cit. note 32.
35. DOE, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy,
“Ethanol Incentives and Laws,” www.afdc.energy.gov/
afdc/progs/ind_state_laws.php/FL/ETH, viewed 12 March
2009.
36. Sidebar 6 from the following sources: ARB, Climate
Change Proposed Scoping Plan: A Framework for Change
(Sacramento, CA: October 2008); ARB, “Low Carbon Fuel
Standard Program,” www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/lcfs/lcfs.htm,
updated 5 March 2009; ARB, Proposed Regulation to
Implement the Low Carbon Fuel Standard Volume I, Staff
Report: Initial Statement of Reasons (Sacramento, CA:
5 March 2009); Margot Roosevelt, “California to Limit
Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Vehicle Fuels,” Los Angeles
Times, 24 April 2009; Timothy Gardner, “ANALYSIS:
California Rule Could End Ethanol’s Honeymoon,”
Reuters, 27 April 2009.
37. DOE, op. cit. note 35.
38. Ibid.
39. H.R. 6: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007,
op. cit. note 1.
40. Renewable Fuels Association, “Legislative Actions:
State,” www.ethanolrfa.org/policy/actions/state/, viewed
4 May 2009.
Red, White, and Green
41
Endnotes
The Road Ahead: Policy Options for
Sustainable U.S. Biofuels
1. See, for example, Clean Air Task Force et al., “America
Needs a True Renewable Energy Policy,” press release,
(Washington, DC: 9 February 2009).
2. See, for example, Robbin S. Johnson and C. Ford
Runge, “Ethanol: Train Wreck Ahead?” Issues in Science
and Technology (University of Texas at Dallas), 9 October
2007.
3. Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and
Environmental Affairs, “Clean Energy Biofuels Act,”
www.mass.gov/legis/laws/seslaw08/sl080206.htm, viewed
3 March 2009.
4. See, for example, “Bernanke Backs Lower Tariff on
Brazil Ethanol,” Reuters, 28 February 2008; Mark Steil,
“Rising Corn Prices Heat Up Ethanol Tariff Debate,”
Minnesota Public Radio, 15 April 2008.
5. For cropland discussion, see Cole Gustafson, “Biofuel
Economics: How Many Acres Will Be Needed For Biofuels? Part II,” North Dakota State University Extension
Service, www.ag.ndsu.edu/news/columns/biofuels-economics/biofuel-economics-how-many-acres-will-beneeded-for-biofuels-part-ii/, viewed 3 March 2009; for
costs, see Bruce A. Babcock, Iowa State University Center
for Agricultural and Rural Development, “Statement
42
Red, White, and Green
Before the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security
and Government Affairs,” Hearing on Fuel Subsidies and
Impact on Food Prices, 7 May 2008; for climate benefits,
see U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), “Ethanol Greenhouse Gas Emissions,” Alternative Fuels and Advanced
Vehicles Data Center, www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/
ethanol/emissions.html, updated 4 February 2009.
6. Biomass Research and Development Board, National
Biofuels Action Plan (Washington, DC: October 2008).
7. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), “Highly
Erodible Land and Wetland Conservation Compliance
Provisions,” Farm Bill Forum Comment Summary and
Background,” available at www.usda.gov/documents.
8. USDA, “USDA Announces New Office of Ecosystems
Services and Markets,” press release (Washington, DC: 18
December 2008).
9. Electric Power Research Institute, Environmental
Assessment of Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles Volume 1:
Nationwide Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Palo Alto, CA: July
2007), p. 5-5 through 5-7; DOE and U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, “Electric Vehicles (EVs),” www.fuel
economy.gov/feg/evtech.shtml, viewed 27 April 2009.
10. Six times greater from Christopher Flavin, LowCarbon Energy: A Roadmap (Washington, DC: Worldwatch Institute, 2008), p. 21.
w w w. w orldwatch.org
Index
A
advanced biofuels, see second-generation biofuels
agricultural crops, see feedstocks
air pollution, 15
Algal Biofuels Roadmap, 17
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (2009), 28
Aquatic Species Program, 17
aquifers, 15
Archer Daniels Midland, 9
Argonne National Laboratory, 17, 22
Arkansas, 23
Asian grass, 16
B
bagasse, 13
biobutanol, 7
biochemical platform, 19
biodiesel
algae for, 17
climate impacts of, 14
defined, 7
energy crops, 16
environmental impact of, 15
feedstocks, 7, 10, 14, 17
fossil energy balance, 13
global production, 8
job creation from, 11–12
production incentives, 28
production increases, 7, 9–10
production process, 7, 19
water use, 15
biodiversity conservation, 15, 18, 25
biofuels
climate impacts, 13–15
defined, 7
environmental impacts, 13–15
evaluating fuel lifecycle, 13
production by country, 8
promise of, 7–8
Biofuels Interagency Working Group, 32
biogas, 7, 22
biomass
advanced biofuels from, 16
www.worldwatch.org
defined, 7
microalgae and, 17
reliance on, 24, 32–33
switchgrass and, 18
Biomass Research and Development Board, 31
Biorefinery Assistance Program, 20
blend wall, 12
blender’s tax credit, 28
blue grass, 16
Brazil, 7–8, 28
C
California Air Resources Board, 29
California Low Carbon Fuel Standard (2007),
28–29, 32
camelina, 22
Canada, 8
carbon credits, 22
carbon debt, 14
carbon dioxide, 13, 17–18, 24
carbon storage
corn stover and, 16
in feedstocks, 13
switchgrass and, 18
Caribbean Basin Initiative, 28
cellulose
converting to biofuels, 5
policy options, 6
cellulosic ethanol
defined, 7
environmental impact of, 13, 15
evaluating fuel lifecycle, 17
fossil energy balance, 13
greenhouse gas emissions and, 18
job creation from, 12
locations of refineries, 20
production costs, 19
Chicago Carbon Exchange, 22
climate impacts
of biofuels, 13–15
mitigating, 16, 25
coal, 24
co-firing process, 24
Red, White, and Green
43
Index
Colorado, 17–18
combined heat-and-power (CHP) method, 24
Congressional Budget Office, 10
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), 15, 18
corn ethanol
economic impacts, 10–11, 15
environmental impacts, 5, 13–15
evaluating fuel lifecycle, 17
greenhouse gas emissions and, 8, 13
locations of refineries, 20
policy requirements, 27
production costs, 19
production increases, 9–10
production process, 7
water use, 15
corn production and costs, 9–10
corn stover, 16
Council on Sustainable Biomass Production, 23
D
deforestation, 27
Denmark, 24
Department of Energy (DOE)
as funding source, 20, 28
on job creation, 12
on microalgae costs, 17
on sustainability standards, 31
distiller’s grains, 22
E
E. coli, 19
economic impacts
of corn and soybean production, 10–11, 15
of global recession, 12
electricity, 24, 32–33
energy balance, 13, 17
energy cane, 16
energy crops, 16
Energy Independence and Security Act (2007), 26,
29–32
environmental impacts
of biofuels, 13–15
first-generation biofuels, 5, 13–15
policy reporting requirements, 27
second-generation biofuels, 18
Environmental Protection Agency
biofuel policies, 26–27
implementation rules, 27, 31
on blend levels, 12
on greenhouse gas reductions, 13–14, 18
on Renewable Fuel Standard, 31
esterification, 7
ethanol, see also cellulosic ethanol; corn ethanol
biochemical process, 19
defined, 7
44
Red, White, and Green
energy crops, 16
feedstocks, 7, 9, 13–14, 16
food costs and, 10–11
fossil energy balance, 13
industry, 9–11
job creation from, 11–12
production increases, 7, 9
production process, 7, 19
production subsidies and incentives, 12, 26–29
sugar cane, 13, 19
tariffs on, 28
thermochemical process, 19
trade, 8
VEETC and, 28
water use, 15
ethanol blending limit, 12
European Union
biofuel production, 8
import taxes, 28
land use change study, 25
sustainability criteria, 23
F
feedstocks
advanced biofuels and, 16
carbon storage in, 13
changing, 22
ethanol production and, 9
land use changes and, 14
microalgae and, 17
producing biofuels from, 5, 7
sustainable production, 32
thermochemical process, 19
fertilizers, greenhouse gases and, 13–14
first-generation biofuels
environmental impacts, 5, 13–15
land use changes and, 14
production process, 7
Fisher-Tropsch liquids (FTLs), 19
food costs, ethanol production and, 10–11
fossil energy balance, 13
fossil fuels
evaluating fuel lifecycle, 13
transitioning, 24
fuel lifecycle, 13, 17, 27
G
gammagrass, 16
gasoline
biofuels and, 7
environmental impact of, 15
ethanol blending limit, 12
ethanol displacement, 9
evaluating fuel lifecycle, 13
MTBE additive, 9
w w w. w orldwatch.org
Index
VEETC and, 28
Georgia, 20
glycerin, 22
grain sorghum, 7, 22–23
GreenFuel Technologies, 17
greenhouse gas emissions
advanced biofuels and, 16
corn ethanol and, 5, 8
evaluating fuel lifecycle, 13
fertilizers and, 13–14
microalgae and, 17
pesticides and, 13
policies on, 26–27
reducing, 22
transportation sector and, 7
Gulf of Mexico, 15
H
heating, 24, 33
hydrolysis, 19
I
Iowa, 11, 18, 22
J
jatropha, 22
L
land conservation, 15, 18
land use changes
biofuel sustainability and, 21–23
climate impact of, 14
feedstocks and, 14
policies and, 25, 27, 29, 31
population increases and, 14, 31
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 24, 28
lignin, 18
M
manure, 22
Massachusetts Clean Energy Biofuels Act (2008), 31
meat consumption, 14
microalgae, 17
Minnesota, 11
Mississippi River, 15
MTBE gasoline additive, 9
N
National Biofuels Action Plan, 31
nitrogen, 14–15
nitrous oxide, 13–14
no-till cultivation, 22
O
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 24
www.worldwatch.org
Obama, Barack, 20
Office of Ecosystem Services and Markets, 32
Ogallala Aquifer, 15
oil palm, 21–22
P
pesticides, greenhouse gases and, 13
petroleum diesel
biofuels and, 7
evaluating fuel lifecycle, 13
PHEV (plug-in hybrid-electric) vehicles, 32
phosphorus, 14
POET, 9
policies
federal and state, 26–29
for sustainable biofuels, 5–6, 30–33
pollution, biofuel contribution to, 14–15
poplar trees, 16
population, land use changes and, 14
prairie grasses, 18
promise of biofuels, 7–8
R
Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS)
background, 26
climate impacts and, 23
corn ethanol production and, 15
job creation and, 12
policy options for, 31
requirements, 8, 26
Renewable Fuels Association, 11, 29
Roundtable on Responsible Soy, 23
Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels, 22–23
Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil, 23
S
Sandia National Laboratory, 20
second-generation biofuels
benefits, 16–20
fossil energy balance, 13
job creation from, 11–12
policy options, 6, 30–33
production process, 5, 7
sustainability of, 5, 21–25
technologies for, 19
sodbuster program, 32
soil erosion, 18
Solix Biofuels, 17–18
soybean production
economic impacts, 10–11
environmental impacts, 14
Spain, 17
splash-and-dash loophole, 28
subsidies for ethanol production, 12
sugarcane ethanol
Red, White, and Green
45
Index
greenhouse gas emissions and, 13
production costs, 19
sulfur dioxide, 24
sustainability
developing criteria, 21–22
federal/state policies on, 26–27
policy options for, 5–6, 30–33
of second-generation biofuels, 5, 21–25
Sustainable Biodiesel Alliance, 23
swampbuster program, 32
Sweden, 24
switchgrass, 16, 18, 28
syngas, 19
T
tariffs, 28
tax credits, 28
technologies for advanced biofuels, 19
thermochemical platform, 19
third-generation biofuels, 17
transportation sector
greenhouse gas emissions and, 7
energy policy, 32–33
transitioning fuels, 24
University of California, 14
University of Minnesota, 15
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Conservation Reserve Program, 15, 18
on corn production, 9
on sustainability standards, 31
U.S. Farm Bill (2008), 20, 28
U.S. National Academy of Sciences, 15
V
VeraSun, 9–10
volumetric ethanol excise tax credit (VEETC), 28
W
Washington, 12
water consumption, 15, 17
water quality
corn ethanol production and, 15
microalgae and, 17
switchgrass and, 18
Western Climate Initiative, 29
wildlife conservation, 15, 18
willow trees, 16
wood chips, 16, 20, 22
U
United States
biofuel production, 8–12
biomass usage, 24
ethanol production, 7
46
Red, White, and Green
w w w. w orldwatch.org
Other Worldwatch Reports
Worldwatch Reports provide in-depth, quantitative, and qualitative analysis of the major issues
affecting prospects for a sustainable society. The Reports are written by members of the Worldwatch Institute research staff or outside specialists and are reviewed by experts unaffiliated with
Worldwatch. They are used as concise and authoritative references by governments, nongovernmental organizations, and educational institutions worldwide.
On Climate Change, Energy, and Materials
179: Mitigating Climate Change Through Food and Land Use, 2009
178: Low-Carbon Energy: A Roadmap, 2008
175: Powering China’s Development: the Role of Renewable Energy, 2007
169: Mainstreaming Renewable Energy in the 21st Century, 2004
160: Reading the Weathervane: Climate Policy From Rio to Johannesburg, 2002
157: Hydrogen Futures: Toward a Sustainable Energy System, 2001
151: Micropower: The Next Electrical Era, 2000
149: Paper Cuts: Recovering the Paper Landscape, 1999
144: Mind Over Matter: Recasting the Role of Materials in Our Lives, 1998
138: Rising Sun, Gathering Winds: Policies To Stabilize the Climate and Strengthen Economies, 1997
On Ecological and Human Health
174: Oceans in Peril: Protecting Marine Biodiversity, 2007
165: Winged Messengers: The Decline of Birds, 2003
153: Why Poison Ourselves: A Precautionary Approach to Synthetic Chemicals, 2000
148: Nature’s Cornucopia: Our Stakes in Plant Diversity, 1999
145: Safeguarding the Health of Oceans, 1999
142: Rocking the Boat: Conserving Fisheries and Protecting Jobs, 1998
141: Losing Strands in the Web of Life: Vertebrate Declines and the Conservation of Biological Diversity, 1998
140: Taking a Stand: Cultivating a New Relationship With the World’s Forests, 1998
On Economics, Institutions, and Security
177: Green Jobs: Working for People and the Environment, 2008
173: Beyond Disasters: Creating Opportunities for Peace, 2007
168: Venture Capitalism for a Tropical Forest: Cocoa in the Mata Atlântica, 2003
167: Sustainable Development for the Second World: Ukraine and the Nations in Transition, 2003
166: Purchasing Power: Harnessing Institutional Procurement for People and the Planet, 2003
164: Invoking the Spirit: Religion and Spirituality in the Quest for a Sustainable World, 2002
162: The Anatomy of Resource Wars, 2002
159: Traveling Light: New Paths for International Tourism, 2001
158: Unnatural Disasters, 2001
On Food, Water, Population, and Urbanization
176: Farming Fish for the Future, 2008
172: Catch of the Day: Choosing Seafood for Healthier Oceans, 2007
171: Happier Meals: Rethinking the Global Meat Industry, 2005
170: Liquid Assets: The Critical Need to Safeguard Freshwater Ecosytems, 2005
163: Home Grown: The Case for Local Food in a Global Market, 2002
161: Correcting Gender Myopia: Gender Equity, Women’s Welfare, and the Environment, 2002
156: City Limits: Putting the Brakes on Sprawl, 2001
154: Deep Trouble: The Hidden Threat of Groundwater Pollution, 2000
150: Underfed and Overfed: The Global Epidemic of Malnutrition, 2000
147: Reinventing Cities for People and the Planet, 1999
To see our complete list of Reports, visit www.worldwatch.org/taxonomy/term/40
www.worldwatch.org
Red, White, and Green
47
STATE OF TH E WOR LD 2009
Into a Warming World
“State of the World 2009 is a research masterpiece,
the single most important reference guide to
climate change yet published.”
—Alex Steffen, Executive Editor, Worldchanging.com
“This report is a persuasive call to action.”
—Ian Lowe, President, Australian Conservation Foundation
“This report is particularly timely. It addresses climate
change concerns and provides a wide range of options
for tackling this multi-faceted problem.”
—Stephen Lincoln, Environmental Chemist, University of Adelaide, Australia
“State of the World 2009 is a very timely compendium
of up-to-date thinking on climate change."
—Bill McKibben, Co-Founder, 350.org
• Available Now
• $19.95 plus shipping
and handling
O RD E R TODAY!
Four Easy Ways to Order:
• Phone:
toll free 1-877-539-9946
within the U.S.
or 1-301-747-2340
internationally
• Fax:
1-301-567-9553
• E-mail:
wwpub@worldwatch.org
• Online:
www.worldwatch.org
Visit our website at
www.worldwatch.org
for information on all of
our publications or to sign
up for our e-newsletter.
www.worldwatch.org
This comprehensive guide conveys the profound, long-term consequences
of global warming for humanity and our planet and investigates a wide
range of potential paths to change, including: new technologies, policy
changes, consumption practices, and finance—with the ultimate goal of
mobilizing nations and citizens around the world to work together toward
combating global warming before it’s too late.
Table of Contents:
Chapter 1. The Perfect Storm
Chapter 2. Safe Landing
Chapter 3. Using Land to Cool the Earth
Chapter 4. Harnessing Low-Carbon Energy on a Grand Scale
Chapter 5. Building Resilience
Chapter 6. Sealing the Deal to Save the Climate
Special Features:
State of the World 2009 includes
Climate Connections,
22 essays by experts on topics including:
•
•
•
•
Biodiversity
• Economics of Climate Change
• Health Implications
Cap and Trade
• Green Jobs
Carbon Tax
• Technology Transfer
Carbon Capture and
Sequestration (CCS)
• Other Greenhouse Gases
• Cities: Mitigation and Adaptation
Plus a Quick-Reference Climate Change Guide and Glossary
of 38 key terms for understanding climate change.
F09RWG
WO R L DWAT C H R E P O RT
180
Red, White, and Green:
Transforming U.S. Biofuels
Ethanol demand in the United States is nearing 10 billion gallons per year,
enough to displace about 5 percent of domestic gasoline consumption. But
government mandates and other incentives envision a much larger role for
U.S. biofuels, with a goal of reaching 36 billion gallons of use by 2022.
Recent experience has shown that the environmental costs of producing
“first-generation” biofuels, such as corn ethanol, likely outweigh the benefits.
Large-scale production depends on intensive energy, chemical, and water
inputs and can pollute water, destroy wildlife habitat, and degrade soils.
First-generation biofuels also result in minimal, if any, reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, and the increased demand for biofuels is contributing
to rising food prices and deforestation worldwide.
Advanced biofuels such as cellulosic ethanol show promise as a way to overcome many of these problems and to mitigate climate change, but decision
makers must take the time to get biofuels right. This includes setting verifiable industry standards that identify more-sustainable production methods
and guarantee improvements.
The biofuels challenge facing the United States today is to find new transportation and energy policies that take the country down a truly red, white,
and green path—before it is too late.
www.worldwatch.org