New Study Claims Biofuels Harm the Environment Worse Than Fossil Fuels

Steph Willems
by Steph Willems

A new study from the University of Michigan adds (bio)fuel to the growing backlash against supposedly clean and green fossil fuel substitutes.

The study claims that the environmental benefits of ethanol and biodiesel — championed by both the federal government and the lucrative biofuel industry — are based on completely false assumptions, the Detroit Free Press reports.

The controversial study comes a week after the Environmental Protection Agency’s Inspector General slammed the Obama administration for not living up to its promise to study the effects of biofuels. An Associated Press study from 2013 stated that biofuels have a greater impact on the environment than fossil fuels, yet the federal government only plans to issue a report on the missing studies next year — seven years behind schedule.

In his study, U-M Energy Institute research professor John DeCicco claims that biofuel production emits more greenhouse gas (carbon dioxide) than gasoline. His research has come under fire for being sponsored by the American Petroleum Institute.

The government’s Renewable Fuel Standard, created in 2005 and expanded in 2007, is based on the false assumption that biofuels are inherently carbon-neutral, DeCicco claims. Plants, like corn, absorb carbon dioxide, so that should offset the CO2 created when burning biofuels, right? Wrong, says DeCicco.

Government policy scrutinizes fossil fuels to a greater degree when measuring environmental harm, he claims. For gas and diesel, lawmakers look at total emissions — those created through extraction, refining, and burning the final product. For biofuels, DeCicco claims the government only looks at the first half — farming and production. Tailpipe emissions aren’t factored into the equation because of the carbon-offset assumption.

The carbon dioxide absorbed by biofuel crops only offsets 37 percent of carbon emissions from its combustion, he says.

“Carbon neutrality has really just been an assumption,” DeCicco told the Detroit Free Press. “To verify the extent to which that assumption is true, you really need to analyze what’s going on on the farmland, where the biofuels are being grown. People haven’t done that in the past — they felt like they didn’t need to.”

DeCicco claims he discovered the problem four years ago, adding that, “A lot of interests have kind of congealed around this assumption.”

Corn production devoted to ethanol has tripled in the past decade, while soybean production geared towards biodiesel has more than doubled. Not surprisingly, the Renewable Fuels Association and various corn growers associations panned DeCicco’s study.

NFA senior vice-president Geoff Cooper claims the study’s findings have been “rejected by climate scientists, regulatory bodies and governments around the world, and reputable life-cycle analysis experts.”

Jim Zook, executive director of the Corn Marketing Program of Michigan and Michigan Corn Growers Association, echoed that sentiment. Other studies show that biofuels reduce greenhouse gasses, he told Freep. Side benefits, like a byproduct used as cattle feed and reduced dependency on foreign oil, can’t be ignored.

DeCicco counters the backlash by saying his studies are peer-reviewed.

Steph Willems
Steph Willems

More by Steph Willems

Comments
Join the conversation
3 of 50 comments
  • Pch101 Pch101 on Aug 26, 2016

    “Carbon neutrality has really just been an assumption,” DeCicco told the Detroit Free Press. “To verify the extent to which that assumption is true, you really need to analyze what’s going on on the farmland, where the biofuels are being grown. People haven’t done that in the past — they felt like they didn’t need to.” ____ This is what one would refer to as a strawman argument. This guy has completely distorted the point about carbon neutrality, which should make it clear that he has an agenda. He's trying to knock down an argument that nobody is making. You need go no further than the EIA website, which makes it quite clear what is meant by carbon neutrality. DiCerco is either incompetent or lying, and I doubt that he's incompetent. _____ Ethanol can be considered atmospheric carbon-neutral because the plants used to make fuel ethanol (such as corn and sugarcane, the two major feedstocks for fuel ethanol production) absorb carbon dioxide (CO2) as they grow and may offset the CO2 produced when ethanol is made and burned. In the United States, coal and natural gas are used as heat sources in the fermentation process to make fuel ethanol. The impact of greater ethanol use on net CO2 emissions depends on how ethanol is made. It also depends on whether or not indirect impacts on land use are included in the calculations. Growing plants for fuel is a controversial topic because some people believe the land, fertilizers, and energy used to grow biofuel crops should be used to grow food crops instead. The U.S. government is supporting efforts to produce ethanol with methods that use less energy than conventional fermentation, and that use cellulosic biomass, which requires less cultivation, fertilizer, and pesticides than corn and sugar cane. http://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/?page=biofuel_ethanol_environment

  • Jimbob457 Jimbob457 on Aug 28, 2016

    Ethanol subsidies were never really about CO2 emissions. They were about OPEC price gouging - $100+ per barrel crude oil. Now that fracking is limiting crude oil prices to $40 to $70, the matter is ancient history.

    • Redav Redav on Aug 30, 2016

      I doubt enough corn can be grown to produce enough ethanol to significantly affect crude prices. But on that topic, a better claim is that ethanol has a greater impact on the trade deficit by reducing money going offshore to pay for that crude. But even then, the limitation on how much ethanol can be produced limits the efficacy of that strategy. No, I suspect subsidies are purely a means to buy votes.

Next