Is Biofuel a Red Herring?

So maybe this whole biofuel movement isn’t such a good idea after all? This is the conclusion of a recent research study that claims biofuel crops result in net increases in carbon emissions and global warming.

In order to create biofuel, plants such as corn, sugarcane and soybeans have to be grown and harvested. All of that vegetation contains carbon, and when it’s cleared from the fields, it rots and releases CO2 into the atmosphhere. Moreover, the rainforests, peatlands, savannas, and grasslands that are cleared to grow these crops – in Brazil, the U.S., and Southest Asia – are no longer taking in CO2 and converting it into clean air (via photosynthesis).

So when calculating the savings that biofuel produces in greenhouse gases, this initial carbon debt must be factored into the equation. The amount of CO2 released could be between 17 and 420 times more carbon than the annual savings from replacing fossil fuels, the study reports. In Indonesia the researchers found that converting land for palm oil production ran up the worst carbon debts, requiring 423 years to pay off. Producing soybeans in the Amazon would take 319 years of soy biodiesel to offset the carbon debt.

The study does point out that biofuels made from waste biomass or from biomass grown on abandoned agricultural lands planted with perennials incur little or no carbon debt and offer immediate and sustained greenhouse gas advantages.

The EU is currently reviewing its pledge that biofuels such as bioethanol and biodiesel should make up 10% of transport fuel by 2020.

The study was published this week in the journal Science.