Bio-economy as a New Perspective for Solving Climate Change?



The EU roadmap for a low carbon economy in 2050 suggests scenarios for massive decarbonization by 2050, aiming to achieve a 80% decrease of overall GHG emissions (compared to 1990) and almost the total decarbonization of the energy sector (European Union 2011). The bio-economy, which is based on bio-energy produced from biomass and waste opens up the possibility to escape from coal and oil resource dependence. Bio-energy is expected to have a crucial role among renewables by 2020. Replacing fossil fuels with biomass could lead to a decrease of CO2 emissions and help solve the problem of global climate change. This chapter attempts to explore the promises and real possibilities of the bio-economy in fulfilling this expectation focusing on some serious risks in the case of its sustainable global application.


European Union Environmental Kuznets Curve European Environment Agency Circular Economy Political Document 
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. Asveld L, Van Est R, Stemerding D (2011) The bio-economy: fertile soil for policy targets. In: Asveld L, Van Est R, Stemerding D (eds) Getting to the core of the bio-economy: a perspective on the sustainable promise of biomass. Rathenau Instituut, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  2. Biofuelwatch, Global Forest Coalition, Global Justice Ecology Project, EcoNexus, Biomass Accountability Project, Partnership for Policy Integrity, PT AirWatchers (Port Townsend, Washington) and Ozark Riverkeepers Network (2011) Submission to Rio Plus 20 zero draft: a green economy” cannot run on biofuels or bioenergy.
  3. Bringezu S, O’Brien M, Schütz H (2012) Beyond biofuels: assessing global land use for domestic consumption of biomass. A conceptual and empirical contribution to sustainable management of global resources. Land Use Policy 29(1):224–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown RC (2003) Biorenewable resources: engineering new products from agriculture. Iowa State Press, AmesGoogle Scholar
  5. Dauber J, Brown C, Fernando AL, Finnan J, Krasuska E, Ponitka J, Styles D, Thraen D, Van Groenigen KJ, Weih M, Zah R (2012) Bioenergy from “surplus” land: environmental and socio-economic implications. BioRisk 7:5–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. De Schutter O (2011) How not to think of land grabbing: three critiques of largescale investment in farmland. J Peasant Stud 38(2):249–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2016) Circular economy. Accessed 10 Oct 2016
  8. Enriquez J, Martinez R, Cabot A (1998) Biotechnology in Europe. Ingenioren, Denmark, p 14, August 5 1998Google Scholar
  9. EPA (2016) Global greenhouse gas emissions data. US Environmental Protection Agency. Accessed 8 Oct 2016
  10. European Commission (2011) Bio-based economy in Europe: state of play and future potential - Part 2 Summary of the position papers received in response of the European Commission’s Public on-line consultation. Accessed 8 Oct 2016Google Scholar
  11. European Commission (2016a) Climate action: Paris Agreement. Accessed 15 Oct 2016Google Scholar
  12. European Commission (2016b) Agriculture and rural development: biomass potential. Accessed 15 Oct 2016Google Scholar
  13. European Environment Agency (2006) How much bioenergy can Europe produce without harming the environment? EEA Report No 7/2006. Accessed 8 Oct 2016
  14. European Union (2011) A roadmap for moving to a competitive low carbon economy in 2050, COM/2011/112 final. Accessed 8 Oct 2016Google Scholar
  15. European Union (2012) Innovating for sustainable growth: a bioeconomy for Europe, COM/2012/060 final. Accessed 8 Oct 2016Google Scholar
  16. George DAR, Chi-ang Lin B, Chen Y (2015) A circular economy model of economic growth. Environ Model Softw 73:60–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. IPCC (2001) In: Houghton JT, Ding Y, Griggs DJ, Noguer M, van der Linden PJ, Dai X, Maskell K, Johnson CA (eds) Climate change 2001: the scientific basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the third assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change, Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  18. IPCC (2014) Climate change 2014 synthesis report summary for policymaker.
  19. ISIS (2010) Scientists expose devastating false carbon accounting for biofuels. Institute of Science in Society ISIS, Report 29/11/10. Accessed 8 Oct 2016
  20. Johnson TG, Altman I (2014) Rural development opportunities in the bioeconomy. Biomass Bioenergy 63:341–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kornerup Bang J, Follér A, Buttazzoni M (2009) Industrial biotechnology. More than green fuel in a dirty economy? Exploring the transformative potential of industrial biotechnology on the way to a green economy. WWF Denmark, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  22. Lehtonen O, Okkonen L (2016) Socio-economic impacts of a local bioenergy-based development strategy – the case of Pielinen Karelia. Renew Energy 85:610–619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lewandowski I (2015) Securing a sustainable biomass supply in a growing bioeconomy. Glob Food Sec 6:34–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lewis SM, Kelly M (2014) Mapping the potential for biofuel production on marginal lands: differences in definitions, data and models across scales. Int J Geo-Inf 3(2):430–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Maciejczak M (2015) How to analyze bioeconomy? Roczniki (Annals), issue 6Google Scholar
  26. McCormick K, Kautto N (2013) The bioeconomy in Europe: an overview. Sustainability 5(6):2589–2608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Melillo JM, Gurgel AC, Kicklighter DW, Reilly JM, Cronin TW, Felzer BS, Paltsev S, Schlosser CA, Sokolov AP, Wan X (2009) Unintended environmental consequences of a global biofuels program. Report No 168. Accessed 10 Oct 2016Google Scholar
  28. National Research Council (2009) A New Biology for the 21st Century. National Academies Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  29. O’Brien M, Schütz H, Bringezu S (2015) The land footprint of the EU bioeconomy: Monitoring tools, gaps and needs. Land Use Policy 47:235–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. OECD (2009) The bioeconomy to 2030 designing a policy agenda: main findings and policy conclusions. OECD International Futures Project. Accessed 10 Oct 2016
  31. OECD (2014) Working party on biotechnology issues paper for the OECD workshop on sustainable biomass drives the next bioeconomy. Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry Committee for Scientific and Technological Policy, OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris. Accessed 15 Oct 2016
  32. Paula L, Birrer F (2006) Including public perspectives in industrial biotechnology and the biobased economy. J Agric Environ Ethics 19:253–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Paustian K., Babcock, BA., Hatfield J., Lal R, McCarl, BA, McLaughlin S, Mosier A, Rice C, Robertson GP, Rosenberg, NJ, Rosenzweig C, Schlesinger WH, Zilberman D (2004) Agricultural mitigation of greenhouse gases: science and policy options. CAST (Council on Agricultural Science and Technology) Report. Accessed 10 Oct 2016
  34. Pavanan KC, Roeland AB, Cornelissen R, Philp JC (2013) Biomass sustainability and certification. Trends Biotechnol 31(7):385–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Perella, M. (2016) 10 things you need to know about the circular economy. Guardian Sustainable Business. Accessed 10 Oct 2016
  36. Petersen A, Krisjansen I (2015) Assembling ‘the bioeconomy’: exploiting the power of the promissory life sciences. J Sociol 51(1):28–46Google Scholar
  37. Pfau SF, Hagens JE, Dankbaar B, Smits AJM (2014) Visions of sustainability in bioeconomy research. Sustainability 6:1222–1249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ros J, Olivier J, Notenboom J, Croezen H, Bergsma G (2012) Sustainability of biomass in a bio-based economy. A quick-scan analysis of the biomass demand of a bio-based economy in 2030 compared to the sustainable supply. PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. Accessed 15 Oct 2016
  39. Sauvé S, Bernard S, Sloan P (2016) The environmental sciences, sustainable development and circular economy: alternative concepts for transdisciplinary research. Environ Dev 17:48–56Google Scholar
  40. Scarlat N, Dallemand J-F, Monforti-Ferario F, Nita V (2015) The role of biomass and bioenergy in a future bioeconomy: policies and facts. Environ Dev 15:3–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Staffas L, Gustavsson M, McCormick K (2013) Strategies and policies for the bioeconomy and bio-based economy: an analysis of official national approaches. Sustainability 5(6):2751–2769Google Scholar
  42. Schmid O, Padel S, Levidow L (2012) The bio-economy concept and knowledge base in a public goods and farmer perspective. Bio-based Appl Econ 1(1):47–63Google Scholar
  43. Searchinger T, Heimlich R, Houghton RA, Dong F, Elobeid A, Fabiosa J, Tokgoz S, Hayes D, Yu TH (2008) Use of U. S. croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions from land-use change. Science 319(5867):1238–1240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Smith P, Martino D, Cai Z, Gwary D, Janzen H, Kumar P, McCarl B, Ogle S, O’Mara F, Rice C, Scholes B, Sirotenko O (2007) Agriculture. In Metz B, Davidson OR, Bosch PR, Dave R, Meyer LA (eds) Climate Change 2007: mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge/New YorkGoogle Scholar
  45. Soetaert W, Vandamme E (2006) The impact of industrial biotechnology. Biotechnol J 1:756–769CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. The White House (2012) National bioeconomy blueprint. White House, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  47. United Nations (1992) AGENDA 21: United Nations conference on environment & development. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, Accessed 10 Oct 2016
  48. von Braun J (2013) Bioeconomy – science and technology policy for agricultural development and food security. Accessed 10 Oct 2016Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Regional Management, Faculty of EconomicsUniversity of South Bohemia in České BudějoviceČeské BudějoviceCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations