The debate over whether biofuels are actually good continues. This week two studies published in Science come down on the ‘they’re not so great’ side.
In the first, Timothy Searchinger and colleagues argue that those who think using biofuels instead of petrol will reduce greenhouse gases have failed to account for farmers clearing forests and grassland to replace the cropland diverted to biofuels. They say that rather than a 20% reduction in greenhouse gases, a wholesale switch to corn-based ethanol “nearly doubles greenhouse emissions over 30 years and increases greenhouse gases for 167 years”. (Research abstract.)
In the second paper Joseph Fargione and colleagues say converting rainforests, peatlands, savannas, or grasslands to produce food-based biofuels in Brazil, Southeast Asia, and the United States creates a ‘biofuel carbon debt’. This would release “17 to 420 times more CO2 than the annual greenhouse gas reductions these biofuels provide by displacing fossil fuels”. (Research abstract.)
More media reports below the fold…
“If you’re trying to mitigate global warming, it simply does not make sense to convert land for biofuels production,” says Fargione in AFP’s coverage.
“We’re rushing into biofuels, and we need to be very careful. It’s a little frightening to think that something this well intentioned might be very damaging,” says Jason Hill, one of Fargione’s co-authors in the LA Times.
The Washington Post suggests that the findings could mean incentives for ethanol-based fuels are rethought.
The NY Times says “Almost all biofuels used today cause more greenhouse gas emissions than conventional fuels if the full emissions costs of producing these ‘green’ fuels are taken into account, two studies being published Thursday have concluded.”
Image: Palm seedling in a burned peatland rainforest in Riau, Indonesia / courtesy of Wetlands International