New Study Claims Biofuels Harm the Environment Worse Than Fossil Fuels

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.