Is Global Scale Biofuels Production Good or Bad for Climate Change?
There has been a lot of discussion over the last few years about biofuels and whether or not they are actually green, especially when produced on a large, global level.
[social_buttons]
A new study led by Marine Biological Laboratory (MBL) senior scientist Jerry Melillo says no, they aren’t green (when it comes to climate change). However, there are still many important factors to keep in mind before claiming this is the end of a long and complicated discussion.
It is very difficult to examine the effects of a global biofuels program, because there are so many different types of biofuels and there are so many hard-to-measure indirect costs as well.
This new report attempted to delve into the indirect costs and give a more comprehensive view of what a global shift to biofuels as a main fuel source would mean for climate change.
The report found that “carbon loss stemming from the displacement of food crops and pastures for biofuels crops may be twice as much as the CO2 emissions from land dedicated to biofuels production.” This is a key finding on a topic largely ignored in previous studies.
Again, an important question is what biofuels crops the researchers were including in their study. Nonetheless, if global scale biofuels production does happen, it is safe to say that people will not choose the greenest biofuels everywhere in the world — (rather, they are likely to just choose the cheapest or easiest if there is not strong international regulation). Overall, however, which crops will be used is a hard question to answer.
Continuing on with the study findings, Melillo says, “Our analysis, which we think is the most comprehensive to date, shows that direct and indirect land-use changes associated with an aggressive global biofuels program have the potential to release large quantities of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.” The key indirect effects the scientists included were the emissions from croplands or pastures that would be displaced by biofuel production.
Another important finding from the study is that emissions from nitrous oxide (N2O) will be much more significant than they are now. They found that they would be even more important than carbon losses due to increased use of fertilizers (for biofuels crops).
In the end, although biofuels production is meant to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and climate change destruction, this research team found that global scale biofuels production would do much more harm than good. Of course, there are many sources of biofuels, and it’s important to realize that not all biofuels would have harmful effects, but this research is a clear yellow flag saying that if we are going to use biofuels we need to be careful to look at the indirect effects, more than just CO2 emissions, and the full life-cycle costs of all biofuels we intend (or, actually, expect) to use on a large scale.
In this analysis, Melillo and his colleagues found that greenhouse gas emissions resulting from indirect land use changes are “consequences that add to the climate-change problem rather than helping to solve it” and the biggest factor here is when biofuels production leads to deforestation.
As discussed in previous articles on this network (see below), the specific crops used is the most important factor in how green biofuels are, but how do we actually know which crops will be used? It is an important question (comments or attempted answers welcome below) and until it can be resolved, global scale biofuels production is still something to approach cautiously. The road to hell is paved with good intentions and so is the road to climate change as far as I can tell (i.e. cars and electricity were always meant to help us, but they’ve generated most of the greenhouse gas emissions in the world today).
The findings for this new report are published in Science Express.
Related Articles:
1) Opinion: Biofuels, Food Prices and Global Warming Roundup
2) Part 2: There Are Good and Bad Biofuels
3) Study: Airlines Should Aim to Use 80% Biofuels by 2050
4) Biofuels Will Not Solve Global Warming: IPCC’s Report Sparks Protest
Image Credit 1: skidrd via flickr under a Creative Commons license
Image Credit 2: Rainforest Action Network via flickr under a CC mmons license
Have a tip for CleanTechnica? Want to advertise? Want to suggest a guest for our CleanTech Talk podcast? Contact us here.
CleanTechnica Holiday Wish Book
Our Latest EVObsession Video
CleanTechnica uses affiliate links. See our policy here.
I think it’s clear by now that biofuels should not be considered a silver bullet for solving climate change issues, but rather a point solution for relieving some of our dependence on fossil fuels.
Each case, both with respect to method and location, must be looked at independently and decisions made as to what works for each situation.
I think it’s clear by now that biofuels should not be considered a silver bullet for solving climate change issues, but rather a point solution for relieving some of our dependence on fossil fuels.
Each case, both with respect to method and location, must be looked at independently and decisions made as to what works for each situation.
I think it’s clear by now that biofuels should not be considered a silver bullet for solving climate change issues, but rather a point solution for relieving some of our dependence on fossil fuels.
Each case, both with respect to method and location, must be looked at independently and decisions made as to what works for each situation.
I think it’s pretty well accepted that once algal biofuels get up and running they will whip the pants off of anything that tries to use an angiosperm.
I think it’s pretty well accepted that once algal biofuels get up and running they will whip the pants off of anything that tries to use an angiosperm.
I agree with Jacob, and for biodiesel producers who use waste restaurant grease, pretty much everything this article mentions about biofuels is discredited.
People also need to keep in mind the distinction between different types of biofuels, instead of making generalizations.
I agree with Jacob, and for biodiesel producers who use waste restaurant grease, pretty much everything this article mentions about biofuels is discredited.
People also need to keep in mind the distinction between different types of biofuels, instead of making generalizations.
Good article and does make sense. However, certain natural products can be used for this, such as Coir, which is an environmentally sustainable product.
Good article and does make sense. However, certain natural products can be used for this, such as Coir, which is an environmentally sustainable product.
“…everything this article mentions about biofuels is discredited” ???
Nothing in this article has been discredited and it clearly is not making generalizations. He is obviously not talking about waste and algae based fuels.
I agree with Jacob, and for biodiesel producers who use waste restaurant
grease, pretty much everything this article mentions about biofuels is
discredited.
I agree with Jacob, and for biodiesel producers who use waste restaurant
grease, pretty much everything this article mentions about biofuels is
discredited.
“…everything this article mentions about biofuels is discredited” ???
Nothing in this article has been discredited and it clearly is not making generalizations. He is obviously not talking about waste and algae based fuels.
“…everything this article mentions about biofuels is discredited” ???
Nothing in this article has been discredited and it clearly is not making generalizations. He is obviously not talking about waste and algae based fuels.
what will happen in 50 years if we dont do anything about climate change