Global Consequences of the Bioenergy Greenhouse Gas Accounting Error

Chapter

Abstract

Like the global financial crisis, which resulted in part from misguided accounting of mortgages, global policies to expand transportation biofuels and bioelectricity reflect an accounting error. Although the carbon accounting in these policies assumes that plant growth offsets all carbon released by burning biofuels, only “additional” plant growth can provide an offset. Because they double count biomass and land already used by people or sequestering carbon, many policy proposals aim for bioenergy to supply 20% or more of the world’s energy by 2050. That would require almost doubling the present global harvest of plants for all uses, which would likely lead to extensive deforestation and increase greenhouse gases. Fixing the accounting would focus policies on the more limited potential for truly low carbon biofuels.

References

  1. 1.
    Abt R, Galik CS, Henderson JD (2010) The near-term market and greenhouse gas implications of forest biomass utilization in the Southeastern United States. Climate Change Policy Partnership, Duke University, DurhamGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Agriculture CAoWMi (2007) Water for food, water for life: a comprehensive assessment of water management in agriculture. Earthscan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Arima EY, Walker RT, Caldas MM (2011) Statistical confirmation of indirect land use change in the Brazilian Amazon. Environ Res Lett 6:024010Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Atanasiu B (2010) The role of bioenergy in the national renewable energy action plans: a first identification of issues and uncertainties. Institute for European Environmental Policy, LondonGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bauen M (2009) Bioenergy—A sustainable and reliable energy source. A review of status and prospects. International Energy Agency, ParisGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Beringer T, Lucht W, Schaphoff S (2011) Bioenergy production potential of global biomass plantations under environmental and agricultural constraints. Glob Chang Biol Bioenergy 3:299–312Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Berndes G, Hoogwijk M, van den Broek R (2003) The contribution of biomass in the future global energy supply: a review of 17 studies. Biomass Bioenergy 25:1–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Buckholz T, Canham C (2011) Forest biomass and bioenergy: opportunities and constraints in the Northeastern United States. Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies, MillbrookGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chum H, Faaij A, Moreira J (2011) Bioenergy. In: Special report renewable energy sources: international panel on climate changeGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Danielsen F et al (2009) Biofuel plantations on forested Lands: double jeopardy for biodiversity and climate. Conserv Biol 23:348–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    de Vries BJM, van Vuuren DP, Hoogwijk MM (2007) Renewable energy sources: their global potential for the first-half of the 21st century at a global level: an integrated approach. Energ Policy 35:2590–2610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dehue B, Cornelissen S (2011) Indirect effects of biofuel production: overview prepared for GBEP. Ecofys, UtrechtGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dornburg V et al (2010) Bioenergy revisited: key factors in global potentials of bioenergy. Energy Environ Sci 3:258–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    EPA US (2010) Regulation of fuels and fuel addiatives: changes to renewable fuel standard program; final rule. In: 70–Agency USEP (ed). Federal Register 14670–14904Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    EPA US (2011) Deferral for CO2 emissions from bioenergy and other biogenic sources under the prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) and Title V Programs. Federal Register 76:43490–43508Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Erb K, Gaube V, Krausmann F, Plutzar C, Bondeau A, Haberl H (2007) A comphreneisve global 5 min resolution land-use data set for the year 2000 consistent with national census data. J Land Use Sci 2:191–224Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fairley P (2011) Introduction: next generation biofuels. Nature 474:S2–S5Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fargione J, Hill J, Tilman D, Polasky S, Hawthorne P (2008) Land clearing and the biofuel carbon debt. Science 319:1235–1238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Garrity DP et al (1996) The Imperata grasslands of tropical Asia: area, distribution, and typology. Agroforest Syst 36:3–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Goldemberg J (2010) Are biofuels ruining the environment? Biofuel Bioprod Bior 4:109–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gómez DR et al (2006) Energy: stationary combustion. In: Eggleston S, Buendia L, Miwa K, Ngara T, Tanabe K (eds) 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, HayamaGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Group BT (2008) Sustainability criteria and certification systems for biomass production final report: prepared for DG TrenGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gruber N, Galloway JN (2008) An Earth-system perspective of the global nitrogen cycle. Nature 451:293–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Haberl H, Beringer T, Bhattacharya SC, Erb KH, Hoogwijk M (2010) The global technical potential of bio-energy in 2050 considering sustainability constraints. Curr Opin Sust 2:394–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hoogwijk M, Faaij A, x00e, Eickhout B, de Vries B, Turkenburg W (2005) Potential of biomass energy out to 2100, for four IPCC SRES land-use scenarios. Biomass Bioenergy 29:225–257Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Houghton RE (2008) Carbon flux to the atmosphere from land-use changes: 1850–2005. In: TRENDS: A compendium of data on global change oak ridge. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, TNGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    IEA (2008) Energy technology perspectives: scenarios and strategies to 2050. International Energy Agency, ParisGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Jackson RB, Canadell J, Ehleringer JR, Mooney HA, Sala OE, Schulze ED (1996) A global analysis of root distributions for terrestrial biomes. Oecologia 108:389–411Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kirschbaum MUF (2003) To sink or burn? A discussion of the potential contributions of forests to greenhouse gas balances through storing carbon or providing biofuels. Biomass Bioenergy 24:297–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lapola DM et al (2010) Indirect land-use changes can overcome carbon savings from biofuels in Brazil. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107:3388–3393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lewis M (2010) The big short: inside the doomsday machine. W.W. Norton & Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Malhi Y, Meir P, Brown S (2002) Forests, carbon and global climate. Philos T R Soc A 360:1567–1591Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Mallaby S (2010) More money than god: hedge funds and the making of a New Elite. Penguin Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Marelli L, Mulligan D, Edwards R (2011) Critical issues in estimating ILUC emissions: outcomes of an expert consultation, 9–10 Nov 2010. European Commission Joint Research Center, Ispra (Italy)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Melillo JM et al (2009) Indirect emissions from biofuels: how important? Science 326:1397–1399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Moomaw WR, Moreira JR (2001) Technical and economic potential of greenhouse gas emissions reduction. In: Melz B (ed) Climae change 2001: mitigation (climate change 2001 IPCC third assessment. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Nasser A (2010) An allocation methodology to assess GHG emissions associated with land use change, final report. Icone, Sao PauloGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    O’Hare M, Plevin RJ, Martin JI, Jones AD, Kendall A, Hopson E (2009) Proper accounting for time increases crop-based biofuels’ greenhouse gas deficit versus petroleum. Environ Res Lett 4:024001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    OECD (2008) Biofuel support policies: an economic assessment. Organization for economic co-operation and developmentGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Pacca S, Moreira JR (2009) Historical carbon budget of the brazilian ethanol program. Energy Policy 6:182017Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Pan Y et al (2011) A large and persistent carbon sink in the world’s forests. Science 333:988–993Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Plevin RJ (2010) Comments on US EPA’s final rulemaking for the renewable fuel standard. UC BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Roberts MJ, Schlenker W (2009) World supply and demand of food commodity calories. Am J Agr Econ 91:1235–1242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Schlamadinger B, Marland G (1996) Full fuel cycle carbon balances of bioenergy and forestry options. Energy Convers Manag 37:813–818CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Science UGOf (2010) Foresight project on global food and farming futures: synthesis report CI: trends in food demand and production. U.K. Government Office for Science, LondonGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Searchinger T (2009) Government polices and drivers of world biofuels, sustainability criteria, certification proposals and their limitations. In: Howarth RW, Bringezu S (eds) Biofuels, environmental consequences and interactions with changing land use. Cornell University, IthacaGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Searchinger T et al (2008) Use of U.S. croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions from land use change. Science 319:1238–1240Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Searchinger TD et al (2009) Fixing a critical climate accounting error. Science 326:527–528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Smeets E, Faaij A (2007) Bioenergy potentials from forestry in 2050. Climatic Change 81:353–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Smeets EMW, Faaij APC, Lewandowski IM, Turkenburg WC (2007) A bottom-up assessment and review of global bio-energy potentials to 2050. Prog Energy Combust Sci 33:56–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Smil V (1999) Crop residues: agriculture’s largest harvest. Bioscience 49:299–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Smith JE, Heath LS, Skog KE, Birdsey RA (2005) Methods for calculating forested ecosystem and harvested carbon with standard estimates for forest types of the United States. In: General Technical Report. United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Northeastern Research StationGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Smith P, Gregory PJ, van Vuuren D, Obersteiner M, Havlik P, Rounsevell M, Woods J, Stehfest E, Bellarby J (2010) Competition for land. Philos Trans R Soc Biol Sci 365:2941–2957Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Somerville C, Youngs H, Taylor C, Davis SC, Long SP (2010) Feedstocks for lignocellulosic biofuels. Science 329:790–792CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Walker T et al (2010) Biomass sustainability and carbon policy study. Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences, Brunswick, p 182Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Wise M et al (2009) Implications of limiting CO2 concentrations for land use and energy. Science 324:1183–1186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Yan X, Tan D, Inderwildi O, Smith JAC, King D (2011) Life cycle energy and greenhouse gas analysis for agave-derived bioethanol. Energ Environ Sci 4:3110–3121Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International AffairsPrinceton UniversityPrincetonUSA

Personalised recommendations