The Wildfuels Alternative

Environmental Science and Technology has a special feature on the water demands of expanded biofuels production. This is another one of those elephants in the room (possibly the biggest of them all) that industry and politicians refuse to see.

The Water Footprint of Biofuels: A Drink or Drive Issue?

The report focuses not only on water use, but also on water quality.
It also makes the debate tangible by asking, "Are We Ready for Fifty Gallons of Water per Mile Driven?".

Biofuels digest has summarized several reports that imply biofuels have not caused extreme Amazonian deforestation:

Amazon deforestation dropping, despite land use change predicted by ILUC?

Again, they are missing the point. Current biofuels production is tiny in relation to petroleum production, and represents a very small sliver of global agricultural output. We would not yet expect massive deforestation.
The relevant issue here is what WILL happen if we follow the renewable fuel standards, or any other mandates for biofuels use. If we do, we would largely replace petroleum with biomass derived fuels, and the global agricultural sector would no longer be primarily involved with fiber, food, and fodder. It would be hard to believe that a manyfold increase in agrofuel production would have no indirect land use effects.

Minnesota's Collin Peterson (whom I have written about before) and my home state's Frank Lucas are introducing legislation to bypass the EPA ruling on indirect land use effects of agrofuels on greenhouse gas emissions. This may be good news for King Corn, but it is not a good move for global climate, nor for the idea (which is getting to be a myth) that the new Congress will listen to the voice of Science.

Lawmakers try to ease regulation on biofuel's environmental effect

Michael Grunwald of TIME wrote an excellent article on how the EPA's recent indirect land use decision was rigged in favor of the ethanol industry:

Stress-Testing Biofuels: How the Game Was Rigged

It is interesting to note that the majority of the media is reporting that the EPA ruling is viewed as devastating to the biofuels industry.

Collin Peterson, Chair of the US House agriculture committee, has drawn a non-negotiable line in the sand.

Peterson cries foul on EPA ethanol proposal, vows not to support climate change bill

Many in the scientific community were hoping that the new congress would be interested in listening to scientific opinion, and in seriously tackling climate change. This sort of willful putting-your-hands-over-your ears might have been expected in the past, but is truly shocking now. Can we really afford to hold the climate hostage in defense of unsustainable Minnesota corn ethanol?

In today's biofuels digest, Jim Lane advocates "tuning out" to the debate of indirect effects of biofuels production:

Drop In, Tune Out, Turn On: new thinking for new days in bioenergy

A quote follows. This argument is fundamentally bizarre. The issues are completely ignored, but are deflected by name calling, and 'guilt by association'. He does not mention the large number of scientists who have raised concerns about sodbusting, land clearing, nitrous oxide emissions, and biodiversity loss. By 'scientists', I mean scientists who actually study climate, soil science, landscape ecology, and vegetation science. I don't mean the land-grant agronomist, geneticist, or industrial microbiologist (who are all great scientists, but have little qualifications for discussing mass landscape conversion).

The debate is not about genetic modification. "Tuning out" is precisely the wrong thing to do at this critical stage. Although the earth has displayed remarkable resilience to past mistakes, there may come a tipping point. Just because there are uncertainties about the tipping point is no excuse to 'tune out'.

One telling phrase below is "cultivated on otherwise useless land or ocean." No serious student of earth systems would use such a phrase. The greenhouse consequences of converting 'useless' land and oceans to biomass production are far from trivial.

I worry a bit that even advocates of indirect land use criteria are 'tuning out'. The greenhouse currency under consideration is mostly a contrast between a mature petroleum energy base, and a mature biofuels energy base. But the biggest greenhouse (and biodiversity) impact may come from the initial land clearing and soil turning of the 'useless land'. In addition to the steady-state comparison, we MUST contrast the conversion costs with the benefits (and costs) of mothballing the fossil fuel infrastructure. This sort of accounting has not been seriously considered, and of course there would be serious resistance by the biofuels apologists, who have 'tuned out'.

I also worry that the debate is too corn-centric. Switchgrass and Miscanthus are still praised by biofuels advocates and most environmentalists alike. However, the obvious has been ignored: these relatively untarnished species will be replacing existing 'useless' vegetation. This will be at a strong environmental cost. It may be easy for urban armchair advocates to 'tune out', but those of us who live around 'useless land' will simply be unable to 'tune out'.

Tune Out: The great debate over land use change, greenhouse gas emissions and the wisdom of the ethanol tariff and alt-fuel subsidies, is a debate about yesterday. The protagonists - such as Friends of the Earth, the Environmental Working Group and the Grocery Manufacturers Association on the one hand, and Growth Energy, the Renewable Fuels Association and the National Biodiesel Board on the other hand - are committing the cardinal sin of a commander in the field, the sin of fighting the last war.

The battle over biofuels is a proxy fight in the Cold War over corn and genetic modification of the food supply, more than a debate about fuel. The waving of the red flag of Third World poverty is a canard: far more calories are diverted to fat bellies in the North than are diverted to ethanol distilleries; it’s not even a close race. The best thing Westerners can do to provide more food at affordable prices for hungry people in the South is to, borrowing a phrase from the cows at Chick-Fil-A, “Eat more chicken,”, or even better, eat less highly-processed foods altogether.

Not all debates go away if ignored, but the debate over renewable fuel emissions and land use change is an exception. In the future, which is less far away than most people think, fuels will be generated from waste or cultivated on otherwise useless land or ocean, diverting nary a drop of water from our freshwater aquifers, and will cause less indirect land use change than throwing an unwanted serving of broccoli in the garbage.

Meanwhile, our attention has been diverted from the development and support of advancing and advanced fuels by this Grand Inquisition into the purity of existing alternatives to fossil fuels. The whole process has the theatrical elements of the Salem witch hunt: it’s a continuation of corn politics by other means.

Tune out the debate, and move on.

Alpha Galileo reports that increasing European biofuels targets will harm biodiversity:

Is Biofuel Policy Harming European Biodiversity?

Bibliographic information:

Is biofuel policy harming biodiversity in Europe? by Jeannette Eggers, Katja Tröltzsch, Alessandra Falcucci, Luigi Maiorano, Peter H. Verburg, Erik Framstad, Gerald Louette, Dirk Maes, Szabolcs Nagy, Wim Ozinga and Ben Delbaere. GCB Bioenergy 1, 2009, pp. 18-34, doi 10.1111/j.1757-1707.2009.01002.x

Despite all of the interest in cellulosic biofuels, biomethane seems to be sorely neglected. A new study from Ireland stresses the benefits of using biomethane from established stands of grass:

Murphy, J. D. and N. M. Power (2009). "An argument for using biomethane generated from grass as a biofuel in Ireland." Biomass & Bioenergy 33(3): 504-512.

The Biofuels Directive proposes 5.75% of transport fuel (by energy) to be replaced by biofuel in the year 2010. This equates to 11.3 PJ in Ireland, which equates to 538 million litres of ethanol or 323 million litres of biodiesel. However, if using biodiesel produced through bioesterification of rapeseed oil, then 6.3% of Irish agricultural land is required to produce 5.75% of transport fuel. Furthermore this equates to 70% of arable land. Using ethanol produced from wheat, 3.9% of Irish agricultural land is required to produce 5.75% of transport fuel. Ethanol produces less energy from a crop, than the energy in the biogas generated when the crop is digested. The ethanol production process uses up to 60% of the produced energy in the final ethanol product. It is shown for compressed biomethane generated from silage that the total parasitic demand of the process is of the order of 25%. Grass/silage is a crop that Irish farmers are familiar with, over 90% of Irish agricultural land is under grass. Grass does not require rotation, it does not require annual ploughing (releasing NO.), and it sequesters carbon into the soil. Digesting silage, scrubbing the biogas to biomethane, and compressing and utilizing it as a transport fuel, is suggested to be the optimum biofuel for Ireland. The 2010 biofuels target can be met with 1.6% of agricultural land; this is four times less land than required using rapeseed. A conservative economic analysis would suggest a lower cost than ethanol produced from wheat. (C) 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

With very few changes in words, the following passage can hold for much of North America. Just replace "Irish" with "American", and change the numbers accordingly.

" Grass/silage is a crop that Irish farmers are familiar with, over 90% of Irish agricultural land is under grass. Grass does not require rotation, it does not require annual ploughing (releasing NO.), and it sequesters carbon into the soil. Digesting silage, scrubbing the biogas to biomethane, and compressing and utilizing it as a transport fuel, is suggested to be the optimum biofuel for Ireland."

A new paper in Conservation Biology stresses the climatic and biodiversity consequences of biofuels expansion:

Danielsen, F., H. Beukema, N. D. Burgess, F. Parish, C. A. Bruhl, P. F. Donald, D. Murdiyarso, B. Phalan, L. Reijnders, M. Struebig and E. B. Fitzherbert (2009). "Biofuel Plantations on Forested Lands: Double Jeopardy for Biodiversity and Climate." Conservation Biology 23(2): 348-358.

The growing demand for biofuels is promoting the expansion of a number of agricultural commodities, including oil palm (Elaeis guineensis). Oil-palm plantations cover over 13 million ha, primarily in Southeast Asia, where they have directly or indirectly replaced tropical rainforest. We explored the impact of the spread of oil-palm plantations on greenhouse gas emission and biodiversity. We assessed changes in carbon stocks with changing land use and compared this with the amount of fossil-fuel carbon emission avoided through its replacement by biofuel carbon. We estimated it would take between 75 and 93 years for the carbon emissions saved through use of biofuel to compensate for the carbon lost through forest conversion, depending on how the forest was cleared. If the original habitat was peatland, carbon balance would take more than 600 years. Conversely, planting oil palms on degraded grassland would lead to a net removal of carbon within 10 years. These estimates have associated uncertainty, but their magnitude and relative proportions seem credible. We carried out a meta-analysis of published faunal studies that compared forest with oil palm. We found that plantations supported species-poor communities containing few forest species. Because no published data on flora were available, we present results from our sampling of plants in oil palm and forest plots in Indonesia. Although the species richness of pteridophytes was higher in plantations, they held few forest species. Trees, lianas, epiphytic orchids, and indigenous palms were wholly absent from oil-palm plantations. The majority of individual plants and animals in oil-palm plantations belonged to a small number of generalist species of low conservation concern. As countries strive to meet obligations to reduce carbon emissions under one international agreement (Kyoto Protocol), they may not only fail to meet their obligations under another (Convention on Biological Diversity) but may actually hasten global climate change. Reducing deforestation is likely to represent a more effective climate-change mitigation strategy than converting forest for biofuel production, and it may help nations meet their international commitments to reduce biodiversity loss.

Biofuels Digest has a perceptive commentary on overeating as a cause of indirect land use change:

Fat vs Fuel: Biofuels Digest special report on Indirect Land Use Change and biofuels emissions: first in a series

However, as with most commentaries on 'food vs. fuel', the debate largely misses the point. The main problem is agricultural intensification, no matter the cause. When land is treated as a commodity, it matters little whether the crop goes to food or fat or fuel or toilet paper. The land is lost to performing ecosystem services. The net result is that climate and biodiversity suffer. The real tradeoff is "food and fuel vs. the biosphere".

Yet another agrofuel crop is facing serious problems due to lack of foresight:

The Blunder Crop: a Biofuels Digest special report on jatropha biofuels development

So far, there have been scathing criticisms of corn, poplar, sugar cane, oil palm, and jatropha as agrofuel crops. Are switchgrass and miscanthus next?

A number of news outlets are reporting Shell Oil's decision to stop investing in wind and solar power, putting all of its development resources into agrofuels:

Shell To Stop Investments in Wind, Solar, hydrogen

This should come as no surprise, given that transportation fuels are the tails wagging the dog of the energy economy. However, it does come as a great disappointment and a sign that Shell is not considering the big picture of global climate change and biodiversity.

UNESCO reports on some of the serious strains that biofuel demand are creating for the global water supply.

This summary is available via farming UK:

Global water shortage could involve us all.

Energy Justice has a harsh but well-researched critique on the environmental impacts of cellulosic ethanol:

Fact Sheet: Cellulosic Ethanol

Yet another official doesn't quite seem to get the 'indirect effects' argument.

Iowa Ag Secretary worried about unfriendly ethanol rule from EPA

Iowa Secretary of Agriculture Bill Northey makes a very familiar case: because there are uncertainties in the numbers, we shouldn't let unintended consequences of agrofuels expansion worry us. Isn't this what the petroleum industry has been arguing for a long time?

--Mike Palmer

These findings should come as no surprise to ecologists, but certainly run against the modern push for agrofuels:

Cropland diversity reduces nitrogen pollution

This is another clear reason to seriously consider wildfuels.

Yet another reason why clearing 'marginal lands' for biofuels may be a huge mistake:

One-fifth of fossil-fuel emissions absorbed by threatened forests

A long article by Donald Stotts in Oklahoma State University's research magazine, Vanguard, showcases OSU's switchgrass agrofuel research. The article is reprinted here:

EPSCoR funding playing vital role in OSU biofuels research

For the first time since the OSU Biofuels Center was established, there is no attempt to stress the environmental 'benefits' of agrofuels. The word 'sustainable' is used frequently, but the clear implication is that the word implies 'economically viable' instead of ecologically viable. Except for this unfortunate but increasing misuse of terminology, it is refreshing to see an article on agrofuels that does not claim an unproven environmental benefit to cellulosic technologies.
--Mike Palmer

In one of his first moves, US Secretary of Energy Steven Chu has announced new funding for biofuels research:

USDA, DOE Announce Up to $25 Million in Funding for Biomass Research and Development Initiative

For the most part, this is a continuation of business as usual. There is more megafunding for crop development and conversion technologies.

To quote from the announcement

This funding opportunity announcement (FOA) covers three technical areas: biomass feedstocks development; cellulosic biofuels and biobased products; and biofuels development analysis, including strategic guidance, analyses of the energy and environmental impact of biofuels production, and an assessment of the potential for biomass feedstock production on federal lands.

There is a promising hint that ecological effects will be considered (though low on the list). However, I think the general public is not aware that our public lands are being considered for biofuels feedstocks.

There is an interesting irony here: an administration that criticizes oil leases on public land is seriously considering the possibility of plowing up the same public lands for agriculture.

Daniel Starling of the Kansas City Tribune has a well-articulated commentary on the environmental consequences of President Obama's positions on agrofuels:

Our Clean Energy Future Should Minimize Ethanol

***spoiler alert****
The concluding sentence is:

As the debate over energy independence and alternative fuels rages, President Obama should take a second look at the alleged benefits of expanded ethanol use and give more resources to real alternative energy solutions that are both environmentally sound and fiscally sustainable.

Bernard Keane of crikey.com reports on the politics of greenhouse gas emissions from biofuels in NSW, Australia:

Ethanol: Not really all that green

To the US reader, the kinds of politics described here will be quite familiar: a brew of conflict involving pledges of politicians, environmental interests, big agriculture, industry, and mandates. However, what is not commonplace in the US is that the environmental costs of biofuels are taking central stage as part of the public discourse.

--Mike Palmer

I have heard a sentiment that environmental concerns over biofuels are a first-world, academic luxury. However, even a casual read of the global literature proves this perception to be false. A case in point is a recent commentary by Imelda Maidir from Indonesia:

Rethinking biofuel policies

A quote from the commentary:

Environmental concerns may be a valid reason for tax exemption, but whether the environmental effects would be positive is highly questionable, especially as the transition toward fast-growing sources has not been taken into considerations.

The conversion of natural ecosystems for the production of biofuel is not limited to the establishment of new feedstock farms and plantations. Rising global demand for biofuel production would send a strong market signal to increase production, leading to the clamorous clearing of land for non-feedstock commodities.

Displacement of existing agricultural production, as a result of biofuel demand is accelerating land-use change and, if left unchecked, will reduce biodiversity and may even cause increased GHG emissions.

Escience News reports on a new study that critically evaluates yield estimates of agrofuel crops:

Nations that sow food crops for biofuels may reap less than previously thought

The authors of the study, Matt Johnston and Tracey Holloway of the University of Wisconsin, estimate that yields have been overestimated by twofold or even more. The consequences of the error are tremendous, as it relates directly to the amount of land that "needs" to be cleared for agrofuels.
--Mike Palmer

I found a copy of the (allegedly deceptive) RFA advertisement as described in the preceding post:

OPEC RAKES IN BILLIONS, BUT BLAMES BIOFUELS… CONFUSED?

John Kemp of Reuters has an insightful commentary on the future of biofuels in the new administration:

Obama's biofuel challenge: John Kemp

Unfortunately, he perpetuates a misunderstanding:

There is only one problem: the United States is not producing any second-generation non-corn ethanol in significant quantities at the moment. So a whole new industry will have to be brought into existence within less than four years and become one of the largest industries in the United States within the next 10 years.

There is a widespread feeling amongst the press and policy makers (and increasingly, the public) that once we 'solve' the technological cellulosic hurdle, we will have the perfect cure for our transportation fuel woes. Unfortunately, this view is profoundly naive: there will still be unintended (but not unanticipated!) negative environmental consequences of converting landscapes worldwide to production of agrofuels.
Wildfuels are an attractive alternative for solving environmental problems, but they run so counter to the agricultural mindset that a serious discussion is unlikely to reach the table.
--Mike Palmer

An opinion piece by Ron Leng in Science Alert (a publication from Australia and New Zealand) stresses the unsustainability of biofuels, for reasons that have been blogged previously in this forum. However, an interesting twist in this report is that the United States is viewed as leading the rest of the world (and in particular, Australia) down the wrong path.

Ethanol as a biofuel - immoral, costly and stupid

In short, the answer is no.

Waiting for Godot in the switchgrass
Robert Rapier on ever-delayed cellulosic ethanol
Posted by Tom Philpott at 10:18 AM on 31 Dec 2008

The media have already described a new paper in PNAS that demonstrates yet another unintended consequence of corn biofuel production:

Landis, D. A., M. M. Gardiner, W. van der Werf and S. M. Swinton (2008). "Increasing corn for biofuel production reduces biocontrol services in agricultural landscapes." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105(51): 20552-20557.
Increased demand for corn grain as an ethanol feedstock is altering U.S. agricultural landscapes and the ecosystem services they provide. From 2006 to 2007, corn acreage increased 19% nationally, resulting in reduced crop diversity in many areas. Biological control of insects is an ecosystem service that is strongly influenced by local landscape structure. Here, we estimate the value of natural biological control of the soybean aphid, a major pest in agricultural landscapes, and the economic impacts of reduced biocontrol caused by increased corn production in 4 U.S. states (Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin). For producers who use an integrated pest management strategy including insecticides as needed, natural suppression of soybean aphid in soybean is worth an average of $33 ha. At 2007-2008 prices these services are worth at least $239 million y in these 4 states. Recent biofuel-driven growth in corn planting results in lower landscape diversity, altering the supply of aphid natural enemies to soybean fields and reducing biocontrol services by 24%. This loss of biocontrol services cost soybean producers in these states an estimated $58 million y in reduced yield and increased pesticide use. For producers who rely solely on biological control, the value of lost services is much greater. These findings from a single pest in 1 crop suggest that the value of biocontrol services to the U.S. economy may be underestimated. Furthermore, we suggest that development of cellulosic ethanol production processes that use a variety of feedstocks could foster increased diversity in agricultural landscapes and enhance arthropod-mediated ecosystem services.

The article gives some support to the idea of using diverse wildfuels as part of the solution:

"Mixed prairie communities could be used as a low-input high-diversity biofuel crop (28), contributing to flowering plant diversity and supporting a variety of pollinator and natural enemy arthropods (32). The vital services these arthropods provide to other crops may make such multispecies biofuel crops especially beneficial components of agricultural landscapes."

(note: reference #28 is the famous Tilman et al. 2006 paper in Science, and reference #32 is now in press, and is by some of the same authors as the current paper).

---Mike Palmer

In my recent posting, I assumed that agrofuels was a well-recognized term. This may not be the case. I found an interesting discussion of agrofuels on the web page of GRAIN:

We believe that the prefix bio, which comes from the Greek word for “life”, is entirely inappropriate for such anti-life devastation. So, following the lead of non-governmental organisations and social movements in Latin America, we shall not be talking about biofuels and green energy. Agrofuels is a much better term, we believe, to express what is really happening: agribusiness producing fuel from plants to sustain a wasteful, destructive and unjust global economy.

I have found that the distinction between HILD and LIHD fuels does not capture many of the most important points that need to be made concerning biofuel alternatives. For example, it has been my premise that wild, low-diversity grasslands systems can serve as a promising low-input feedstock with numerous environmental benefits. Similarly, I have heard a number of people promoting genetic modification of multiple species creating a'dream combination' high-yielding polyculture plantations. Also, the HILD vs. LIHD dichotomy implies that diversity promotes productivity - an interesting ecological premise does not promise to be universally applicable.

Thus, I propose a new dichotomy: wildfuels vs. agrofuels. Agrofuels are almost everthing we have been hearing about in the media: maize, switchgrass, oilpalms, etc.: Things that are intentionally planted for the sake of being harvested. Wildfuels (I do not know whether I am hereby coining term) consists of spontaneously growing vegetation (it may or may not be diverse; it may or may not be native) which can be harvested. It can consist of oldfields, native meadows, successional forests, roadsides, etc. Its harvest is not necessarily benign (e.g. you would not want to level a redwood forest) but I posit, as readers of this blog know, that there will be numerous systems which would benefit tremendously from such harvest (especially systems that have evolved under regimes of chronic biomass removal).

So let us give wildfuels serious consideration!

--Mike

We constantly must remind ourselves that the environmental consequences of biofuels are not merely of academic concern. A recent article from the BBC describes the effects of oilpalms in rural Colombia:

Afro-Colombians fight biodiesel producers

The report includes an interview with Jose Caceido, a displaced steward of the land:

The changes make it harder for the Afro-Colombians to ever recover their former way of life, observes Mr Caceido. "Once palm oil is planted we cannot hunt anymore because the animals have fled," he says. "There is no more birdsong because the forests have been cut down. The soil hardens for lack of shade. Rivers dry up. Nothing else grows except palm."

Although the details will be different, biofuels plantations of all sorts (including switchgrass, a supposedly benign 'cellulosic' crop) will have environmental impacts that will be felt by rural people almost everywhere.

Dan Simberloff has a perceptive piece in Weed Science on the concerns of invasion biologists:

Simberloff, D. (2008). "Invasion Biologists and the Biofuels Boom: Cassandras or Colleagues?" Weed Science 56(6): 867-872.

Modern invasion biology, is a new science, with the holy grail OF being able to predict the trajectory of particular invasions. Although this goal has yet to be achieved, there has been much progress through experimental research and meticulous Study of the scope and mechanisms of existing invasions. Several well-established patterns are relevant to potential biofuel feedstocks: (1) ca. half of all damaging plant invaders were deliberated introduced, not accidental hitchhikers or escapees; (2) some native plants have become invasive; coevolution with native community members was nor proof against unexpected damage; (3) many introduced plants were innocuous for decades or even centuries in their new locations before suddenly exploding across the landscape; lack Of Current observed impact does not guarantee safety; and (4) control or even eradication of widespread invaders is sometimes possible, but it is fit from certain and it is often very expensive. We cannot Count On effectively, managing an introduction gone awry. Because much invasion biology is targeted at developing 0 methods of preventing anthropogenic movement or establishment of species, invasion biologists have occasionally been assailed as obstructionists by various interests who fear their livelihoods will be impeded: the seed and horticulture trades, foresters, the pet industry, fish and game biologists, etc. A Fringe group of philosophers, sociologists, Landscape architects, and others have even taken to calling invasion biology a thinly veiled form of xenophobia. Some biofuels advocates have joined this litany, accusing invasion biologists of playing oil the emotions of all uneducated public by, raising fears of a new kudzu. Invasion biologists need not be cast in this role. In collaboration with agronomists, geneticists, physiologists, and other scientists, they have much to offer in understanding the risks posed by particular feedstocks and developing approaches that would minimize these risks and mitigate unforeseen consequences.

I agree with this view, but I strongly suspect that invasion biologists will not be invited to the table.

I also worry a bit that too much focus is being placed on the invasive potential of biofuels crops. This is indeed a serious concern. But from my perspective, it is orders of magnitude less of a concern than the conversion of wildlands (i.e. the 'marginal agricultural lands') to biofuels crops, and the ensuing emission of greenhouse gasses and loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services.

---Mike Palmer

Here is a review on environmental impacts in the UK. The operational phrase that reverberates the most with the main message of this blog is "Compared to replacement of set-aside and permanent unimproved grassland, benefits are less apparent." I read "less apparent" as "possibly nonexistent". --Mike Palmer

Rowe, R. L., N. R. Street and G. Taylor (2009). "Identifying potential environmental impacts of large-scale deployment of dedicated bioenergy crops in the UK." Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews 13(1): 260-279.

There is momentum, globally, to increase the use of plant biomass for the production of heat, power and liquid transport fuels. This review assesses the evidence base for potential impacts of large-scale bioenergy crop deployment principally within the UK context, but with wider implications for Europe, the USA and elsewhere. We focus on second generation, dedicated lignocellulosic crops, but where appropriate draw comparison with current first-generation oil and starch crops, often primarily grown for food. For lignocellulosic crops, positive effects on soil properties, biodiversity, energy balance, greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation, carbon footprint and visual impact are likely, when growth is compared to arable crops. Compared to replacement of set-aside and permanent unimproved grassland, benefits are less apparent. For hydrology, strict guidelines on catchment management must be enforced to ensure detrimental effects do not occur to hydrological resources. The threat of climate change suggests that action will be required to ensure new genotypes are available with high water use efficiency and that catchment-scale management is in place to secure these resources in future. In general, for environmental impacts, less is known about the consequences of large-scale deployment of the C4 grass Miscanthus, compared to short rotation coppice (SRC) willow and poplar, including effects on biodiversity and hydrology and this requires further research. Detailed consideration of GHG mitigation and energy balance for both crop growth and utilization suggest that perennial crops are favoured over annual crops, where energy balances may be poor. Similarly, crops for heat and power generation, especially combined heat and power (CHP), are favoured over the production of liquid biofuels. However, it is recognized that in contrast to heat and power, few alternatives exist for liquid transportation fuels at present and research to improve the efficiency and energy balance of liquid transport fuel production from lignocellulosic sources is a high current priority. Although SRC, and to a lesser extent energy grasses such as Miscanthus, may offer significant benefits for the environment, this potential will only be realized if landscape-scale issues are effectively managed and the whole chain of crop growth and utilization is placed within a regulatory framework where sustainability is a central driver. Land resource in the UK and throughout Europe will limit the contribution that crops can make to biofuel and other renewable targets, providing a strong driver to consider sustainability in a global context. (C) 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

The finding that plant diversity supporting soil carbon storage is not unique to Minnesota, and benefits of Low Input High Diversity (LIHD) systems may prove to be near universal in grasslands:

Steinbeiss, S., H. Bessler, C. Engels, V. M. Temperton, N. Buchmann, C. Roscher, Y. Kreutziger, J. Baade, M. Habekost and G. Gleixner (2008). "Plant diversity positively affects short-term soil carbon storage in experimental grasslands." Global Change Biology 14(12): 2937-2949.

Increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration and related climate change have stimulated much interest in the potential of soils to sequester carbon. In 'The Jena Experiment', a managed grassland experiment on a former agricultural field, we investigated the link between plant diversity and soil carbon storage. The biodiversity gradient ranged from one to 60 species belonging to four functional groups. Stratified soil samples were taken to 30 cm depth from 86 plots in 2002, 2004 and 2006, and organic carbon contents were determined. Soil organic carbon stocks in 0-30 cm decreased from 7.3 kg C m(-2) in 2002 to 6.9 kg C m(-2) in 2004, but had recovered to 7.8 kg C m(-2) by 2006. During the first 2 years, carbon storage was limited to the top 5 cm of soil while below 10 cm depth, carbon was lost probably as short-term effect of the land use change. After 4 years, carbon stocks significantly increased within the top 20 cm. More importantly, carbon storage significantly increased with sown species richness (log-transformed) in all depth segments and even carbon losses were significantly smaller with higher species richness. Although increasing species diversity increased root biomass production, statistical analyses revealed that species diversity per se was more important than biomass production for changes in soil carbon. Below 20 cm depth, the presence of one functional group, tall herbs, significantly reduced carbon losses in the beginning of the experiment. Our analysis indicates that plant species richness and certain plant functional traits accelerate the build-up of new carbon pools within 4 years. Additionally, higher plant diversity mitigated soil carbon losses in deeper horizons. This suggests that higher biodiversity might lead to higher soil carbon sequestration in the long-term and therefore the conservation of biodiversity might play a role in greenhouse gas mitigation.

These findings are important enough to warrant more broad-scale funding of LIHD research and demonstration projects. Instead of having biofuels crops replace natural grasslands, we should at least consider keeping diverse grasslands intact for the purpose of biofuels production AND conservation AND carbon sequestration.

---Mike Palmer

Here is yet another study on the benefits of DIVERSE prairie restorations on roadsides. In most locations in North America, prairies will not remain prairies unless the biomass is regularly removed. Thus, this represents an ideal win-win-win-win-win (etc.) situation for biofuels. The benefits include plant diversity, net carbon sequestration, pollinators for agriculture, roadside beautification, runoff control, ease of harvest and transport, no conflict of food vs. fuel, no clearing of native forests and grasslands, energy independence, etc. Such an option should be considered first, not last.

Hopwood, J. L. (2008). "The contribution of roadside grassland restorations to native bee conservation." Biological Conservation 141(10): 2632-2640.
Marginal habitats such as hedgerows or roadsides become especially important for the conservation of biodiversity in highly modified landscapes. With concerns of a global pollination crisis, there is a need for improving pollinator habitat. Roadsides restored to native prairie vegetation may provide valuable habitat to bees, the most important group of pollinators. Such roadsides support a variety of pollen and nectar sources and unlike agricultural fields, are unplowed, and therefore can provide potential nesting sites for ground-nesting bees. To examine potential effects of roadside restoration, bee communities were sampled via aerial netting and pan trapping along roadside prairie restorations as well as roadsides dominated by non-native plants. Management of roadside vegetation via the planting of native species profoundly affected bee communities. Restored roadsides supported significantly greater bee abundances as well as higher species richness compared to weedy roadsides. Floral species richness, floral abundance, and percentage of bare ground were the factors that led to greater bee abundance and bee species richness along restored roadsides. Traffic and width of roadside did not significantly influence bees, suggesting that even relatively narrow verges near heavy traffic could provide valuable habitat to bees. Restored and weedy roadside bee communities were similar to the prairie remnant, but the prairie remnant was more similar in bee richness and abundance to restored roadsides. Restoring additional roadsides to native vegetation could benefit pollinator conservation efforts by improving habitat on the millions of acres of land devoted to roadsides worldwide, land that is already set aside from further development

EScience News has a report on an upcoming paper by Evan Delucia (incidentally, a former grad school classmate of mine) and others on the carbon footprint of different biofuels crops:

Replacing corn with perennial grasses improves carbon footprint of biofuels

A quote from Evan:

"From a purely carbon perspective, our research indicates that putting perennial biofuel crops on landscapes that are dominated by annual row crops will have a positive effect on soil carbon."

I completely agree with this. But I also question its relevance. The current emphasis of the biofuels movement is to plant perennial grasses on 'marginal farmland' or 'wasteland', i.e. landscapes that are NOT currently dominated by annual row crops. In other words, landscapes that have high natural history value. But more to the point, replacing diverse natural and seminatural grasslands with miscanthus and switchgrass plantations are unlikely to have marked conservation benefits.
--Mike Palmer

A news item in Reuters alerts to the climatic (and conservation) dangers of clearing forests for biofuels plantations:

Clearing forests for biofuel hurts climate - study

I hope to read the study in detail when it comes out in Conservation Biology. However, I do have a concern with all of the focus on clearing of forests. In North America (and perhaps in other places) grasslands are at great risk. I have written elsewhere about the sodbusting that is already occurring due to biofuels, as well as the accelerating loss of CRP lands. Sodbusting is the grassland equivalent of clearcutting old-growth forests. Its effects on the climate are potentially severe: turning of the soil leads to enhanced nitrous oxide emissions, enhanced soil respiration, and under certain circumstances methanogenesis. All of these mean more greenhouse gas emissions. We are just beginning to understand the biodiversity of the grassland rhizosphere, and it seems that it does not recover after plowing. Indeed, the damage is likely to be permanent.

Grasslands are also being ignored in the food vs. fuel debate. The ethanol industry spokespeople (and researchers on cellulosic feedstocks) are continually saying there is no conflict between food and fuel, because we can always plant cellulosic fuels on 'marginal agricultural land' or 'waste land'. Do not be misled by these terms. An agronomist may view certain lands as marginal or waste, but these may be the very same lands that have high value for conservation and biodiversity. Many will have substantial soil carbon stores that will be lost (i.e. by conversion to greenhouse gasses) upon cultivation.

We definitely need to study the effects of biofuels development on the world's forests, as well as the conflict between food and fuel. I look forward to continuing literature on these subjects. But let us not forget the grasslands

The European Union seems genuinely dedicated to minimizing the environmental impacts of biofuels:

EU plans to limit biofuel impact on forests

The Canadians seem to recognize the environmental downside of biofuels, although until recently some of that concern seems to have been kept under wraps:

Biofuels could increase environmental problems, gas prices: Environment Canada told

A coalition of six environmental groups has drafted a letter to the EPA, requesting that greenhouse gas emissions and land use be considered when implementing biofuels mandates:

Letter to Stephen Johnson

This letter is in part a response to pressure from the biofuels industry to ignore the Greenhouse implications of land clearing for biofuels.

Richard Harris filed a story this morning on NPR's morning edition:

Plants: The Fuel Of The Future?
by Richard Harris

At first, this paper seemed to be a straight industry-driven piece - like many we have seen before. The report was extolling the virtues of plants, and there was a glowing evaluation of Miscanthus, the miracle grass. but then there was the voice of Chris Somerville, who is leading much of the cellulosic ethanol research:

"We're only interested in it, frankly, if it can be environmentally positive and socially positive," Somerville says. "So as we proceed with the technical innovation, we want to make sure we understand these other dimensions, and so that we can make appropriate choices, including one possible choice is that we shouldn't do this."

I was dumbfounded, given by how much plant research is supported by the biofuels industry. This quote was followed by another enlightened one from British Petroleum Vice President Paul Willems:

"If biofuels are going to become a big part of our company in the long run, then our view is the only way that can be the case is if biofuels are done in a sustainable way that is clearly good for the environment and land use," Willems says. "We don't want to be building a big part of our company on a shaky foundation."

Unfortunately, the game is in play for the industry to receive massive incentives for biofuels, regardless of the environmental consequences. I hope calm and clear voices such as those of Somerville and Willems will prevail.
--Mike

E! Science News has a news item, apparently based on a Cornell University Press release (though I could not find the press release on Cornell's press office page):

Which grass is greener? Study to select Northeast grasses that can power the bioenergy era

I found this news item to be more perplexing than promising, and it is difficult to know how much of that is the fault of the scientists or the reporters. The report critiques the use of 'monoculture food crops such as corn', yet fails to mention that the research seeks to improve new monoculture crops. It is almost as if the word 'monoculture' is conveniently used as a derogatory word to justify the research, while not considering the relevance.

The report also stresses native plants, e.g. "In the wild, many of these native perennial grasses can survive, and even thrive, on marginal land." However, two paragraphs earlier, tall wheat grass and tall fescue are specifically mentioned. both of these species are EXOTIC, not native. Tall fescue, in particular, is highly invasive throughout much of its North American range.

So the verdict is unclear. Is the news story a case of incomplete scientific reporting, or is it greenwashing?

According to the Des Moines Register, the EPA is about to issue rules related to the environmental impact of the renewable fuels mandates. Subtle differences in how the rules are formulated can have huge effects on whether or not corn ethanol, or even cellulosic switchgrass, will be allowable.

Brasher: Biofuel rules could chill future projects

I have previously posted about the ESA workshop on biofuels. It has now yielded its first fruit, in the form of a policy paper in Science.

Some press releases:

Experts agree: Environmental standards needed for biofuels

Oklahoma researchers support biodiversity in biofuels production

Mandate For Biofuels Production Requires Science-Based Policy

The article is here, though you might need a subscription to read it:

Sustainable Biofuels Redux

It is truly amazing that 23 scientists can agree on anything. This document (expertly crafted by lead author Phil Robertson) emphasizes that we are ignoring some of the most important issues with respect to the sustainability of biofuels.

---Mike

A new report from energy daily implies that the renewable energy mandates will cause widespread destruction of forests.

A news report is here.

I admit to not having read the report from RISI, a forest industry group - the price tag is $9000! Information about the report is here:

Emerging Biomass Study

Solazyme has announced that it has produced algal biofuels that pass the grade suitable for jet fuels:

Solazyme Produces World’s First Algal-Based Jet Fuel

But can we really call these algal biofuels? The algae apparently are raised heterotrophically on sugar supplied by other plants. They are not primary producers. It is the original plants that are the real feedstocks, the algae are merely converting the energy. We don't call bacteria the feedstock for cellulosic conversion - so what makes these algae any different? For those thinking that algae are the ultimate environmentally sound biofuel feedstock, think again. The algae may just be the middlemen.

From Business Week:

Africa Becoming a Biofuel Battleground
Western companies are pushing to acquire vast stretches of African land to meet the world's biofuel needs

The Inter-American Development Bank has developed a scorecard for assessing the sustainability of biofuels:

IDB Biofuels Sustainability Scorecard

Overall, this is a step in the right direction. The developers admit it is an experimental project. The biodiversity and the greenhouse gas aspects to be somewhat underemphasized and/or vague. There is no provision for feedstocks that contribute to biodiversity (such as LIHD grasslands).

Perhaps because they are currently minimal players on the biofuels market, or perhaps because few people are familiar with them, algal biofuels have largely avoided intense scrutiny by critics. Now they are in the crosshairs.

From Low Tech Magazine:

Leave the algae alone
While the first generation of biofuels is wreaking havoc on the environment and the food markets, the second generation is set to make things even worse.

Whether or not you agree with the premise of this piece, it is clear that there are major issues of sustainability with respect to algal biofuels.

While the initial rhetoric of Range Fuels Inc. has been very promising, they have now firmly moved into the High-Input, Low-Diversity biofuels camp by partnering with Ceres, Incorporated.

Range Fuels Partners with Ceres

This is bad news for intact tallgrass prairie, naturally revegetated wild grasslands, and CRP lands, which are widely considered 'marginal agricultural land' suitable for planting 'advanced cellulosic feedstocks'. The loss of biodiversity and (arguably more important for climate change) outgassing of nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide from the soil are unlikely to be considered, despite argument that "the high-yield crops are expected to minimize the environmental footprint while supplying greater volume of biomass to create ethanol"

The International Herald Tribune reports on an address by the recent recipient of the Stockholm Water Prize:

A British professor, John Anthony Allan, said the effect of the growing use of biofuels "is too frightening to even begin to realize."

A new article in the Farmers Guardian details the inability of the UK biofuels industry to meet environmental standards:

UK biofuels fall short of environmental targets
Arable News | 12 August, 2008 by William Surman

THE UK biofuel industry is dominated by imports that fall short of basic environmental standards, the Renewable Fuel Agency (RFA) has revealed.

Groom, M. J., E. M. Gray and P. A. Townsend (2008). "Biofuels and biodiversity: Principles for creating better policies for biofuel production." Conservation Biology 22(3): 602-609.
Biofuels are a newpriority in efforts to reduce dependence on fossil fuels; nevertheless, the rapid increase in production of biofuel feedstock may threaten biodiversity. There are general principles that should be used in developing guidelines for certifying biodiversity friendly biofuels. First, biofuel feedstocks should be grown with environmentally safe and biodiversity friendly agricultural practices. The sustainability of any biofuel feedstock depends on good growing practices and sound environmental practices throughout the fuel-production life cycle. Second, the ecological footprint of a biofuel, in terms of the land area needed to grow sufficient quantities of the feedstock, should be minimized. The best alternatives appear to be fuels of the future, especially fuels derived from microalgae. Third, biofuels that can sequester carbon or that have a negative or zero carbon balance when viewed over the entire production life cycle should be given high priority. Corn-based ethanol is the worst among the alternatives that are available at present, although this is the biofuel that is most advanced for commercial production in the United States. We urge aggressive pursuit of alternatives to corn as a biofuel feedstock. Conservation biologists can significantly broaden and deepen efforts to develop sustainable fuels by playing active roles in pursuing research on biodiversity friendly biofuel production practices and by helping define biodiversity-friendly biofuel certification standards.

A breath of fresh air: Saint Lawrence University is seeking campus-wide input into plans for biofuels development.

Biomass Panel Discussion

According to the BBC, a court has stalled plans for an ambitious conversion of a vast natural wetland into biofuels plantations.

Kenya sued over biofuel project

Environmental and community groups have taken Kenya's government to court over a controversial project to grow sugar in the River Tana Delta.