Advertisement

Environmental Management

, Volume 51, Issue 2, pp 279–290 | Cite as

Communicating About Bioenergy Sustainability

  • Virginia H. Dale
  • Keith L. Kline
  • Donna Perla
  • Al Lucier
Article

Abstract

Defining and measuring sustainability of bioenergy systems are difficult because the systems are complex, the science is in early stages of development, and there is a need to generalize what are inherently context-specific enterprises. These challenges, and the fact that decisions are being made now, create a need for improved communications among scientists as well as between scientists and decision makers. In order for scientists to provide information that is useful to decision makers, they need to come to an agreement on how to measure and report potential risks and benefits of diverse energy alternatives in a way that allows decision makers to compare options. Scientists also need to develop approaches that contribute information about problems and opportunities relevant to policy and decision making. The need for clear communication is especially important at this time when there is a plethora of scientific papers and reports and it is difficult for the public or decision makers to assess the merits of each analysis. We propose three communication guidelines for scientists whose work can contribute to decision making: (1) relationships between the question and the analytical approach should be clearly defined and make common sense; (2) the information should be presented in a manner that non-scientists can understand; and (3) the implications of methods, assumptions, and limitations should be clear. The scientists’ job is to analyze information to build a better understanding of environmental, cultural, and socioeconomic aspects of the sustainability of energy alternatives. The scientific process requires transparency, debate, review, and collaboration across disciplines and time. This paper serves as an introduction to the papers in the special issue on “Sustainability of Bioenergy Systems: Cradle to Grave” because scientific communication is essential to developing more sustainable energy systems. Together these four papers provide a framework under which the effects of bioenergy can be assessed and compared to other energy alternatives to foster sustainability.

Keywords

Biofuels Benefits Communication Costs Decisions Landscape design Risk Scale 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was partially supported by the US Department of Energy (DOE) under the Biomass Technologies Office. Oak Ridge National Laboratory is managed by the UT-Battelle, LLC, for DOE under Contract DE-AC05-00OR22725. Comments from Rebecca Efroymson, Matt Langholtz, and three anonymous reviewers were very helpful. Dr. Frederick O’Hara edited an earlier version of this manuscript.

References

  1. Baskaran L, Jager HI, Schweizer PE, Srinivasan R (2010) Progress toward evaluating the sustainability of switchgrass as a bioenergy crop using the SWAT model. Trans Am Soc Agric Biol Eng 53:1547–1556Google Scholar
  2. Bright RM, Cherubini F, Astrup R, Bird N, Cowie AL, Ducey MJ, Marland G, Pingoud K, Savolainen I, Stromman AH (2012) A comment to “large-scale bioenergy from additional harvest of forest biomass is neither sustainable nor greenhouse gas neutral”: important insights beyond greenhouse gas accounting. Glob Change Biol Bioenergy 4:617–619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brundtland GH (ed) (1987) Our common future: the world commission on environment and development. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  4. CBES (Center for BioEnergy Sustainability, Oak Ridge National Laboratory) (2009) Sustainability of bioenergy systems: cradle to grave. Report from 2009 workshop. ORNL/CBES-002, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Center for BioEnergy Sustainability. http://www.ornl.gov/sci/ees/cbes/EPA/SBSWorkshop_Report.pdf. Accessed 9 Jan 2013
  5. CBES (Center for BioEnergy Sustainability, Oak Ridge National Laboratory) (2010) Land-use change and bioenergy: report from the 2009 workshop, ORNL/CBES-001, US Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy and Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Center for BioEnergy Sustainability. http://www.ornl.gov/sci/ees/cbes/workshops/LandReportCover.pdf. Accessed 9 Jan 2013
  6. CSBP (2012) Draft provisional standard for sustainable production of agricultural biomass. Council on Sustainable Biomass Production. http://www.csbp.org/CSBPStandard.aspx. Accessed 9 Jan 2013
  7. Dale VH (2002) Science and decision making. In: Costanza R, Jorgensen SE (eds) Understanding and solving environmental problems in the 21st century: toward a new, integrated hard problem science. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 139–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dale VH, Brown S, Haeuber RA, Hobbs NT, Huntly N, Naiman RJ, Riebsame WE, Turner MG, Valone TJ (2000) Ecological principles and guidelines for managing the use of land. Ecol Appl 10:639–670Google Scholar
  9. Dale VH, Kling C, Meyer JL, Sanders J, Stallworth H, Armitage T, Wangsness D, Bianchi TS, Blumberg A, Boynton W, Conley DJ, Crumpton W, David MB, Gilbert D, Howarth RW, Lowrance R, Mankin K, Opaluch J, Paerl H, Reckhow K, Sharpley AN, Simpson TW, Snyder C, Wright D (2010) Hypoxia in the Northern Gulf of Mexico. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dale VH, Kline KL, Wright LL, Perlack RD, Downing M, Graham RL (2011) Interactions among bioenergy feedstock choices, landscape dynamics and land use. Ecol Appl 21:1039–1054CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dale VH, Efroymson RA, Kline KL, Langholtz MH, Leiby PN, Oladosu GA, Davis MR, Downing ME, Hilliard MR (2013) Indicators for assessing socioeconomic sustainability of bioenergy systems: a short list of practical measures. Ecol Indic 26:87–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Domac J, Richards LK, Risovic S (2005) Socio-economic drivers in implementing bioenergy projects. Conference: Joint IEA bioenergy workshop sustainable bioenergy production systems—environmental, operational and social implications. Belo Horizonte, BrazilGoogle Scholar
  13. Efroymson RA, Dale VH, Bielicki J, McBride A, Smith R, Parish E, Schweizer P, Kline KL, Shaw D (2013) Environmental indicators of biofuel sustainability: what about context? Environ Manage. doi: 10.1007/s00267-012-9907-5
  14. Eisenbies MH, Vance ED, Aust WM, Seiler JR (2009) Intensive utilization of harvest residues in southern pine plantations: quantities available and implications for nutrient budgets and sustainable site productivity. Bioenergy Res 2:90–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) (2007) US Pub.L. 110-140. http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:h6enr.txt.pdf. Accessed 9 Jan 2013
  16. Fischhoff B (2011) Applying the science of communication to the communication of science. Clim Change 108:701–705CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gawande A (2002) Complications: a surgeon’s notes on an imperfect science. Cahners Business Information, Newton, MAGoogle Scholar
  18. GBEP (2011) The global bioenergy partnership sustainability indicators for bioenergy, 1st edn (final version, Dec 15, 2011). GBEP Secretariat, FAO, Environment, climate change and Bioenergy Division, Rome, Italy. ftp://ext-ftp.fao.org/nr/data/nrc/gbep/Report%2016%20December.pdf. Accessed 20 Dec 2011
  19. Grainger A (2008) Difficulties in tracking the long-term global trend in tropical forest area. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:818–823CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hart Energy Consulting (2010) Land use change: science and policy review. Hart Energy Consulting, Houston, TX. http://www.hartenergyconsulting.com. Accessed 9 Jan 2013
  21. Huertas A, Adler D (2012) Is news corp. failing science? Representations of climate science on Fox News Channel and in the Wall Street Journal Opinion. Union of Concerned Scientists. Cambridge, MA, USA. http://www.ucsusa.org/publications. Accessed 9 Jan 2013
  22. Ice GG, Schilling E, Vowell J (2010) Trends in forestry best management practices implementation. J Forest 108:267–273Google Scholar
  23. Ince P (2010) Global sustainable timber supply and demand. In: Sustainable development in the forest products industry, Chap 2. Universidade Fernando Pessoa, Porto. pp. 29–41Google Scholar
  24. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) (2006) Guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories: agriculture, forestry and other land use, vol 4Google Scholar
  25. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) (2011) IPCC Special report on renewable energy sources and climate change mitigation. Prepared by working group III of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. In: Edenhofer O, Pichs-Madruga R, Sokona Y, Seyboth K, Matschoss P, Kadner S, Zwickel T, Eickemeier P, Hansen G, Schlömer S, von Stechow C (eds) Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  26. ISO (International Organization for Standardization) (2011) TC 248. Project committee: sustainability criteria for bioenergy. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland. http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_technical_committee?commid=598379. Accessed 9 Jan 2013
  27. Johnson TL, Bielicki JM, Dodder RS, Hilliard MR, Kaplan PO, Miller CA (2013) Advancing sustainable bioenergy: evolving stakeholder interests and the relevance of research. Environ Manage. doi: 10.1007/s00267-012-9884-8 Google Scholar
  28. Kline KL, Dale VH, Lee R, Leiby P (2009) In defense of biofuels, done right. Issues Sci Technol 25(3):75–84Google Scholar
  29. Kline KL, Dale VH, Grainger A (2010) Challenges for bioenergy emission accounting. Science e-letter. 2 March 2010. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/eletters/326/5952/527#13024
  30. Kline KL, Oladosu GA, Dale VH, McBride AC (2011) Scientific analysis is essential to assess biofuel policy effects: in response to the paper by Kim and Dale on “indirect land use change for biofuels: testing predictions and improving analytical methodologies”. Biomass Bioenergy 35:4488–4491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lattimore B, Smith T, Richardson J (2010) Coping with complexity: designing low-impact forest bioenergy systems using an adaptive forest management framework and other sustainable forest management tools. For Chron 86:20–27Google Scholar
  32. Lee JSH, Rist L, Obidzinski K, Ghazoul J, Koh LP (2011) No farmer left behind in sustainable biofuel production. Biol Conserv 144:2512–2516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lynd LR, Aziz RA, Cruz CHD, Chimphango AFA, Cortez LAB, Faaij A, Greene N, Keller M, Osseweijer P, Richard TL, Sheehan J, Chugh A, van der Wielen L, Woods J, van Zyl WH (2011) A global conversation about energy from biomass: the continental conventions of the global sustainable bioenergy project. Interface Focus 1:271–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Macrina FL (2011) Digitizing the coin of the realm. Am Sci 999:378–381Google Scholar
  35. Mastrandrea MD, Field CB, Stocker TF, Edenhofer O, Ebi KL, Frame DJ, Held H, Kriegler E, Mach KJ, Matschoss PR, Plattner G, Yohe GW, Zwiers FW (2010) Guidance note for lead authors of the IPCC fifth assessment report on consistent treatment of uncertainties. Intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC). http://www.ipcc.ch/. Accessed 9 Jan 2013
  36. McBride A, Dale VH, Baskaran L, Downing M, Eaton L, Efroymson RA, Garten C, Kline KL, Jager H, Mulholland P, Parish E, Schweizer P, Storey J (2011) Indicators to support environmental sustainability of bioenergy systems. Ecol Ind 11:1277–1289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. McCormick K (2010) Communicating bioenergy: a growing challenge. Biofuels, Bioprod Biorefin 4:494–602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Morgan MG, Dowlatabadi H, Henrion M, Keith D, Lempert R, McBride S, Small M, Wilbanks T (2009) Best practice approaches for characterizing, communicating and incorporating scientific uncertainty in climate decision making. US Climate Change Science Program, Synthesis and Assessment Product 5.2. http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap5-2/final-report. Accessed 9 Jan 2013
  39. Muth DJ, McCorkle DS, Koch JB, Bryden KM (2012) Modeling sustainable agricultural residue removal at the subfield scale. Agron J 104:970–981CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Myers IB (1987) Introduction to type. Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, CAGoogle Scholar
  41. NRC (National Research Council) (2010) Verifying greenhouse gas emissions: methods to support international climate agreements. National Academies Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  42. Oladosu G, Kline KL, Martinez R, Eaton L (2011) Sources of corn for ethanol production in the United States: a review and decomposition analysis of the empirical data. Biofuels, Bioprod Biorefin 5:640–653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Parish ES, Hilliard M, Baskaran LM, Dale VH, Griffiths NA, Mulholland PJ, Sorokine A, Thomas NA, Downing ME, Middleton R (2012) Multimetric spatial optimization of switchgrass plantings across a watershed. Biofuels, Bioprod Biorefin 6(1):58–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Parish E, Kline KL, Dale VH, Efroymson RA, McBride AC, Johnson T, Hilliard MR, Bielicki JM (2013) A multi-scale comparison of environmental effects from gasoline and ethanol production. Environ Manage. doi: 10.1007/s00267-012-9983-6
  45. Peck P, Bennett SJ, Bissett-Amess R, Lenhart J, Mozaffarian H (2009) Examining understanding, acceptance, and support for the biorefinery concept among EU policy-makers. Biofuels, Bioprod Biorefin 3:361–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pilgrim S, Harvey M (2010) Battles over biofuels in Europe: NGOs and the politics of markets. Sociol Res Online 15(3):4. doi: 10.5153/sro.2192. http://www.socresonline.org.uk/15/3/4.html
  47. Repo A, Kankanen R, Tuovinen JP, Antikainen R, Tuomi M, Vanhala P, Liski J (2012) Forest bioenergy climate impact can be improved by allocating forest residue removal. Glob Change Biol Bioenergy 4:202–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Ridley CE, Clark CM, LeDuc SD, Bierwagen BG, Lin BB, Mehl A, Tobias DA (2012) Biofuels: network analysis of the literature reveals key environmental and economic unknowns. Environ Sci Technol 46:1309–1315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Robertson GP, Dale VH, Doering OC, Hamburg SP, Melillo JM, Wander MM, Parton WJ, Adler PR, Barney JN, Cruse RM, Duke CS, Fearnside PM, Follett RF, Gibbs HK, Goldemberg J, Mladenoff DJ, Ojima D, Palmer MW, Sharpley A, Wallace L, Weathers KC, Wiens JA, Wilhelm WW (2008) Sustainable biofuels redux. Science 322(5898):49–50. doi: 10.1126/science.1161525 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rohracher H, Bogner T, Spath P, Faber F (2005) Improving the public perception of bioenergy in the EU. http://www.europa.nl/energy/res/sectors/doc/bioenergy/bioenergy_perception.pdf. Accessed 9 Jan 2013
  51. RSB (2010) RSB principles and criteria. École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne. http://rsb.epfl.ch/files/content/sites/rsb2/files/Biofuels/Version2/PCsV2/10-11-12RSBPCsVersion2.pdf. Accessed 9 Jan 2013
  52. Schmidt MWI, Torn MS, Abiven S, Dittmar T, Guggenberger G et al (2011) Persistence of soil organic matter as an ecosystem property. Nature 478:49–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sjolie HK, Latta GS, Adams DM, Solberg B (2011) Impacts of agent information assumptions in forest sector modeling. J For Econ 17:169–184Google Scholar
  54. Swartzman G (1996) Resource modeling moves into the courtroom. Ecol Model 92:277–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Tannert C, Elvers HD, Jandrig B (2007) The ethics of uncertainty. In the light of possible dangers, research becomes a moral duty. EMBO Rep 8(10):892–896CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Tieger PD, Barron-Tieger B (1992) Do what you are: discover the perfect career for you through the secrets of personality type. Little Brown & Co, Boston, MAGoogle Scholar
  57. US EPA SAB (Science Advisory Board) (2012) SAB review of EPA’s accounting framework for biogenic CO2 emissions from stationary sources. A framework for assessing and reporting on ecological condition. Report EPA-SAB-12-011. http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/WebReportsLastFiveBOARD/57B7A4F1987D7F7385257A87007977F6/$File/EPA-SAB-12-011-unsigned.pdf. Accessed 9 Jan 2013
  58. van Dam J, Junginger M, Faaij A, Jurgens I, Best G, Fritsche U (2008) Overview of recent developments in sustainable biomass certification. Biomass Bioenergy 32:749–780CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Van de Velde L, Verbeke W, Popp M, Van Huylenbroeck G (2010) The importance of message framing for providing information about sustainability and environmental aspects of energy. Energy Policy 38:5541–5549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Van de Velde L, Vandermeulen V, Van Huylenbroeck G, Verbeke W (2011) Consumer information (in) sufficiency in relation to biofuels: determinants and impact. Biofuels, Bioprod Biorefin 5:125–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Verbeke W (2007) Consumer attitudes toward genetic modification and sustainability: implications for the future of biorenewables. Biofuels, Bioprod Biorefin 1:215–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wicke B, Verweij P, van Meijl H, van Vuuren DP, Paaij APC (2012) Indirect land use change: review of existing models and strategies for mitigation. Biofuels 3(1):87–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wilhere GF (2009) Three paradoxes of habitat conservation plans. Environ Manage 44:1089–1098CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York (outside the USA) 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Virginia H. Dale
    • 1
  • Keith L. Kline
    • 1
  • Donna Perla
    • 2
  • Al Lucier
    • 3
  1. 1.Environmental Sciences DivisionOak Ridge National LaboratoryOak RidgeUSA
  2. 2.Environmental Protection AgencyWashingtonUSA
  3. 3.National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc.Research Triangle ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations