Climatic Change

, Volume 111, Issue 3–4, pp 627–640 | Cite as

Biofuels and carbon management

  • John M. DeCiccoEmail author


Public policy supports biofuels for their benefits to agricultural economies, energy security and the environment. The environmental rationale is premised on greenhouse gas (GHG, “carbon”) emissions reduction, which is a matter of contention. This issue is challenging to resolve because of critical but difficult-to-verify assumptions in lifecycle analysis (LCA), limits of available data and disputes about system boundaries. Although LCA has been the presumptive basis of climate policy for fuels, careful consideration indicates that it is inappropriate for defining regulations. This paper proposes a method using annual basis carbon (ABC) accounting to track the stocks and flows of carbon and other relevant GHGs throughout fuel supply chains. Such an approach makes fuel and feedstock production facilities the focus of accounting while treating the CO2 emissions from fuel end-use at face value regardless of the origin of the fuel carbon (bio- or fossil). Integrated into cap-and-trade policy and including provisions for mitigating indirect land-use change impacts, also evaluated on an annual basis, an ABC approach would provide a sound carbon management framework for the transportation fuels sector.


Supply Chain Carbon Stock Climate Policy Biogenic Carbon Carbon Management 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Adams DC (2009) Agriculture and greenhouse gas cap-and-trade. Policy Issues (3), June.
  2. Brown RC (2008) Why are we producing biofuels? Presidential lecture, Iowa State University, Oct. 27. Ames, IA: Iowa State University, Bioeconomy Institute.
  3. CARB (2009) California’s low carbon fuel standard: final statement of reasons, December 2009.
  4. CFR (2009) U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 80, “Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives,” Definitions section (accessed 6 Feb 2009 via
  5. Dale B (2009) Biofuels: good science must precede good policy. Biofuels Bioprod Bioref 3:1–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. DeCicco JM (2009) Addressing Biofuel GHG Emissions in the Context of a Fossil-Based Carbon Cap. Discussion Paper. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, School of Natural Resources and Environment, October.
  7. DeCicco J, Lynd L (1997) Combining vehicle efficiency and renewable biofuels to reduce oil use and CO2 emissions. Chapter 4. In: DeCicco J, Delucchi M (eds) Transportation, energy, and the environment: how far can technology take us? American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  8. Del Grosso SJ et al (2008) DAYCENT simulated effects of land use and climate on county level N loss vectors in the USA. Chapter 18. In: Hatfield JL, Follett RF (eds) Nitrogen in the environment: sources, problems, and management, 2nd edn. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  9. Delucchi MA (2010) Impacts of biofuels on climate change, water use and land use. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1195:28–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Duffield JA, Collins K (2006) Evolution of renewable energy policy. Choices 21(1):9–14. Google Scholar
  11. EPA (2009) Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Changes to the Renewable Fuel Standard Program; Proposed Rule. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Federal Register 74(99):24904ff, May 26.—5.pdf
  12. EPA (2010) Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Changes to Renewable Fuel Standard Program; Final Rule. Federal Register 75(58):14669ff. March 26.
  13. EU (2009) Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources. Official Journal of the European Union 5.6.2009, L 140/16-62.Google Scholar
  14. Fargione J et al (2008) Land clearing and the biofuel carbon debt. Science 319:1235–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Farrell AE et al (2006) Ethanol can contribute to energy and environmental goals. Science 311:506–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Geist HJ, Lambin EF (2002) Proximate causes and underlying driving forces of tropical deforestation. Bioscience 52(2):143–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Geman B (2009) House Ag leaders offer plan to alter mandates’ biomass, emissions language. E&E News, May 15, 2009.
  18. Gibbs HK et al (2007) Monitoring and estimating tropic forest carbon stocks: making REDD a reality. Env Res Letters 2:0204523Google Scholar
  19. Gibbs HK et al (2008) Carbon payback times for crop-based biofuel expansion in the tropics: the effects of changing yield and technology. Env Res Letters 3:034001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Guerrero TJ (2010) Lawsuit: LCFS violates U.S. Constitution. Ethanol Producer Magazine, January.
  21. Gullison RE et al (2007) Tropical forests and climate policy. Science 316:985–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hertel TW et al (2010) Effects of U.S. maize ethanol on global land use and greenhouse gas emissions: estimating market-mediated responses. Bioscience 60(3):223–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Holland SP et al (2009) Greenhouse gas reductions under low carbon fuel standards? Am Econ J: Economic Policy 1(1):106–146. doi: 10.1257/pol.1.1.106 Google Scholar
  24. JRC-IE (2010) Indirect land use change from increased biofuels demand: Comparison of models and results for marginal biofuels production from different feedstocks. Report EUR 24485 EN. Ispra, IT: European Commission, Joint Research Centre and Institute for Energy.
  25. Mathews JA (2008) Towards a sustainably certifiable futures contract for biofuels. Energy Policy 36(5):1577–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McCarl BA (2008) Bioenergy in a greenhouse mitigating world. Choices 23(1):31–33. Google Scholar
  27. Melillo JM et al (2009) Indirect emissions from biofuels: how important? Science 326:1397–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mollicone D et al (2007) An incentive mechanism for reducing emissions from conversion of intact and non-intact forests. Clim Chang 83:477–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mullins KA et al (2011) Policy implications of uncertainty in modeled lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of biofuels. Environ Sci Technol 45:132–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nordhaus RR, Danish KW (2003) Designing a mandatory greenhouse gas reduction program for the U.S. Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  31. NRDC (2005) Bringing biofuels to the pump. Issue Paper. Natural Resources Defense Council, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  32. Plevin RJ et al (2010) Greenhouse gas emissions from biofuels’ indirect land use change are uncertain but may be much greater than previously estimated. Environ Sci Technol 44:8015–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Reilly JM, Asadoorian MO (2007) Mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions from land use: creating incentives with greenhouse gas emissions trading systems. Clim Chang 80:173–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Reilly J et al (2007) Prospects for biological carbon sinks in greenhouse gas emissions trading systems. Chapter 8. In: Reay DS et al (eds) Greenhouse gas sinks. CAB International, OxfordshireGoogle Scholar
  35. Righelato R, Spracklen DV (2007) Carbon mitigation by biofuels or by saving and restoring forests? Science 317:902CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Searchinger T et al (2008) Use of U.S. croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions from land-use change. Science 319:1238–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Searchinger T et al (2009) Fixing a critical climate accounting error. Science 326:527–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sissine F (2007) Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007: A Summary of Major Provisions. CRS Report for Congress, Order Code RL34294. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.
  39. Sperling D, Yeh S (2009) Low Carbon Fuel Standards. Issues in Science and Technology, Winter.
  40. Stavins RN (2008) Addressing climate change with a comprehensive US cap-and-trade system. Oxf Rev Econ Pol 24(2):298–321. doi: 10.1093/oxrep/grn017 Google Scholar
  41. Whitehead AN (1927) Science and the modern world: lowell lectures, 1925. Macmillan, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  42. Winchester N, Paltsev S, Reilly J (2010) Will border adjustments work? Report 184, MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, February.
  43. Wise M et al (2009) Implications of limiting CO2 concentrations for land use and energy. Science 324:1183–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Natural Resources and EnvironmentUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations