Biofuels: Green Energy or Greenwashing?

You can hardly open up a major newspaper without encountering the latest hype about biofuels: they're going to save oil, reduce pollution, and prevent climate change. Bill Gates, Sun Microsystems' Vinod Khosla, and other major venture capitalists are investing millions in new biofuel production, whether in the form of ethanol (mainly derived from corn in the US today), or biodiesel (mainly from soybeans and canola seed).

Several well-respected analysts have raised serious concerns about the rapid diversion of food crops toward the production of fuel for automobiles. WorldWatch Institute founder Lester Brown, long concerned about the sustainability of world food supplies, warns that "Cars, not people, will claim most of the increase in grain production this year." The grain required to make enough ethanol to fill an SUV tank is enough to feed a person for a whole year.

The biofuel boom is having a significant impact worldwide as well. Brazil, often touted as the most impressive biofuel success story, is using half its annual sugarcane crop to provide 40% of its auto fuel, while accelerating deforestation to grow more sugarcane and soybeans. Malaysian and Indonesian rainforests are being bulldozed for oil palm plantations -- threatening endangered orangutans, rhinos, tigers, and countless other species -- in order to serve the booming European market for biodiesel.

Are these reasonable tradeoffs for a troubled planet, or merely another corporate push for profits? Two recent studies aim to document the full consequences of the new biofuel economy and realistically assess its impact on fuel use, greenhouse gases and agricultural lands.

One study, originating from the University of Minnesota, is moderately hopeful in the first two areas, but offers a strong caution about land use. This paper, published in the July 25, 2006 edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, concluded that ethanol production and use offers a modest net energy gain of 25% over oil, resulting in 12% less greenhouse gases than an equivalent amount of gasoline. The numbers for biodiesel are more promising, with a 93% net energy gain and a 41% reduction in greenhouse gases.

However, the other study concludes that every domestic biofuel source -- those currently in use as well as those under development -- produces less energy than the amount consumed in growing and processing the crops. Published in July 2005 in the journal Natural Resources Research, this study found that, on balance, making ethanol from corn requires 29% more fossil fuel than the net energy produced, and biodiesel from soy results in a net energy loss of 27%. Other crops (switchgrass, wood biomass, and sunflowers, for example), promoted as solutions to the apparent inefficiency of current methods, offer even worse results.

Even Brazilian sugarcane, touted as the world's model for conversion from fossil fuels to sustainable "green energy," has its downside. The energy yield appears beyond question. It is claimed that ethanol from sugarcane may produce as much as eight times as much energy as it takes to grow and process. But a recent World Wildlife Fund report for the International Energy Agency raises serious questions about this approach to future energy independence. It turns out that 80% of Brazil's greenhouse gas emissions come not from cars, but from deforestation -- the loss of embedded carbon dioxide when forests are cut down and burned. A hectare of land may save 13 tons of carbon dioxide if it is used to grow sugarcane, but the same hectare can absorb 20 tons of CO₂ if it remains forested. If sugarcane and soy plantations continue to spur deforestation, both in the Amazon and in Brazil's Atlantic coastal forests, any climate advantage will be more than outweighed by the loss of the forest.

Genetic engineering, which has utterly failed to produce healthier or more sustainable food (and also failed to create a reliable source of biopharmaceuticals without threatening the safety of our food supply) is now being hyped as the answer to sustainable biofuel production. Biofuels were all the buzz at the biotech industry's most recent mega-convention in April 2006, and biotech companies are all competing to cash in on the biofuel bonanza. Syngenta (the world's largest herbicide manufacturer and number three, after Monsanto and DuPont, in seeds) is developing a genetically engineered corn variety that contains amylase, one of the enzymes needed to convert corn starch into sugar before it can be fermented into ethanol.Companies are vying to increase total starch content, reduce lignin (necessary for the structural integrity of plants but a nuisance for chemical processors), and increase crop yields. Others are proposing huge plantations of fast-growing genetically engineered low-lignin trees to temporarily sequester carbon and ultimately be harvested for ethanol.

However, the utility of incorporating the amylase enzyme into crops is questionable (it's also a potential allergen), gains in starch production are marginal, and the use of genetic engineering to increase crop yields has never proved reliable. Even Monsanto has opted to rely on conventional plant breeding for its biofuel research, according to the New York Times (Sept. 8, 2006). Like "feeding the world" and biopharmaceutical production before it, genetic engineering for biofuels mainly benefits the biotech industry's public relations image.

Biofuels may still prove advantageous in some local applications, such as farmers using crop wastes to fuel their farms, and running cars on waste oil that is otherwise thrown away by restaurants. But as a solution to long-term energy needs on a national or international scale, the costs appear to far outweigh the benefits. The solution lies in technologies and lifestyle changes that can significantly reduce energy use and consumption, but no one has figured out how to make a fortune on conservation and efficiency. The latest biofuel hype once again affirms that the needs of the planet, and of a genuinely sustainable society, are in fundamental conflict with the demands of wealth and profit.