Last month, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack announced steps the administration is taking to implement President Biden’s plan to increase US energy independence by boosting homegrown biofuels. As described by the Secretary, the plan appears to have no downside:

President Biden understands that by expanding our ability to meet our energy needs with homegrown biofuels, we can ensure a more reliable and affordable source of fuel for American consumers, while supporting American agriculture and sustainable, domestic energy production, creating good-paying jobs, and generating economic opportunities, especially in rural and farm communities. - USDA Press Release 

But is the administration’s plan good for the planet? That is, does it help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and protect biodiversity? Sure, it’s called “sustainable”, but WTF does that mean in practice? As Bartleby puts in this week’s Economist:

A word like “sustainability” is so fuzzy that it is used to encompass everything from a business that thinks sensibly about the long term to the end of capitalism. This column may well count as sustainable because it keeps recycling the same ideas. - The woolliest words in business. Innovation. Sustainability. Purpose. Yuck. Bartleby/The Economist May 14, 2022

Here’s the short answer: if the biofuels plan leads to the expansion of agricultural land in the US at the expense of wild and carbon-absorbing habitat, it’s a bad thing for the planet. Unfortunately, the administration’s plan lacks details in that department, so the jury’s out.

In the meantime, some discouraging words on biofuels:

EU plan for cutting emissions from planes could end up increasing them. By Michael Le Page/New Scientist  April 27, 2022

New legislation that would see planes forced to use "sustainable aviation fuel"... Overall, this is good, says Chelsea Baldino at the International Council on Clean Transportation, a non-profit research organisation. But several suggested amendments to the legislation widen the definition of sustainable aviation fuels to include food-based biofuels, she says. And it isn’t just about the climate. The loss of habitat is the main driver of biodiversity loss around the world. “The main message is that there should not be any food and feedstock biofuels,” says Baldino. 

Food-based biofuels also push up food prices, hitting the poorest people hardest. “There is competition between land for fuel and land for food,” says Ciarán Cuffe, a member of the European Parliament, who is part of the Green group. 

But growing food requires land, which drives land clearance and deforestation. If the emissions from these effects are counted, they “negate some or all of the [greenhouse gas] emission savings of individual biofuels”, according to a 2019 European Commission report.

Report on the status of production expansion of relevant food and feed crops worldwide. European Union (2019)

If land with high stocks of carbon in its soil or vegetation is converted for the cultivation of raw materials for biofuels, some of the stored carbon will generally be released into the atmosphere, leading to the formation of carbon dioxide (CO2). The resulting negative greenhouse gas impact can offset the positive greenhouse gas impact of the biofuels or bioliquids, in some cases by a wide margin.

Our chance to transform aviation — and help the climate. Environmental Defense Fund Site accessed 4/28/22.

Credible [approaches to emissions reduction], such as large-scale tropical forest protection, advance climate progress. Dubious ones, such as biofuels made by destroying forests, do more harm than good.

Cleaning the Air, by Joanna Foster. Environmental Defense Fund/Solutions Vol 53, No 2, pp16-17. Spring 2022.

Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage, or BECCS, is [the process of burning crops or agricultural residue for electricity or using them to produce biofuels, and sequestering the related emissions underground. It counts as CDR [Carbon Dioxide Removal] because crops draw down carbon dioxide as they grow and sequestration ensures it is never re-released…What's the catch? The math only works out if the emissions from growing, harvesting, transporting and processing the biomass don’t outweigh the carbon sequestered.

From an earlier post, How Increased Biofuel Production Harms the Environment and Contributes to Climate Change:

The US government has spent billions in biofuel subsidies over the past two decades, accomplishing little except to line the pockets of US corn farmers. Good for them, bad for the rest of us and the planet. To quote:

“…because many biofuel feedstocks require land, water, and other resources, research suggests that biofuel production may give rise to several undesirable effects. Potential drawbacks include changes to land use patterns that may increase GHG emissions, pressure on water resources, air and water pollution, and increased food costs. Depending on the feedstock and production process and time horizon of the analysis, biofuels can emit even more GHGs than some fossil fuels on an energy-equivalent basis.” - Economics of Biofuel/Environmental Protection Agency, March 4, 2021

To be even more specific…

Thanks to political pressure from farmers and various industry groups, and despite abundant evidence that increasing biofuel production does the planet more harm than good, the federal government continues to spend billions on biofuel subsidies every year. This has got to change.

And this just in, from The coming food catastrophe: War is tipping a fragile world towards mass hunger. Fixing that is everyone’s business. The Economist May 19, 2022: 

Russia and Ukraine supply 28% of globally traded wheat, 29% of the barley, 15% of the maize and 75% of the sunflower oil…The war is disrupting [food exports] because Ukraine has mined its waters to deter an assault, and Russia is blockading the port of Odessa…China, the largest wheat producer, has said that, after rains delayed planting last year, this crop may be its worst-ever. Now, in addition to the extreme temperatures in India, the world’s second-largest producer, a lack of rain threatens to sap yields in other breadbaskets, from America’s wheat belt to the Beauce region of France. The Horn of Africa is being ravaged by its worst drought in four decades. 

The high cost of staple foods has already raised the number of people who cannot be sure of getting enough to eat by 440m, to 1.6bn. Nearly 250m are on the brink of famine. If, as is likely, the war drags on and supplies from Russia and Ukraine are limited, hundreds of millions more people could fall into poverty. Political unrest will spread, children will be stunted and people will starve. 

There is scope for substitution. About 10% of all grains are used to make biofuel; and 18% of vegetable oils go to biodiesel. Finland and Croatia have weakened mandates that require petrol to include fuel from crops. Others should follow their lead.

Are you listening, Joe Biden?

—

Updated May 20, 2022

Additional References

Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2022. The White House https://whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/

Economics of Biofuels. Environmental Protection Agency March 4, 2021 https://www.epa.gov/environmental-economics/economics-biofuels

Munaretto, S., & Witmer, M. (2017). Water-Land-Energy-Food-Climate nexus: policies and policy coherence at European and international scale: Deliverable 2.1 SIM4NEXUS project - Horizon 2020 - 689150. (D2.1 ed.) PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. http://www.sim4nexus.eu/userfiles/Deliverables/WP2_Deliverable%202.1_FINAL_1.pdf