Big Oil Behind Yet Another Biofuels Research Paper
When discussing indirect land use it brings a popular saying to mind: If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it still make a sound? Only in this situation the saying should be modified as follows: If a tree is cut down in a rainforest in Brazil to sell wood, should corn ethanol’s carbon footprint go up? Anyone with an ounce of commonsense would say no.
And here’s why: when a tree is cut down in Brazil, it is not to plant crops for biofuels, it is to sell the wood because the tree is of greater value as wood, then as part of the rainforest. Only then is the land converted to pasture and then to land for crops like soybeans. Sugarcane is rarely grown in the rainforest and Brazil doesn’t produce biofuels from corn. So what I just can’t seem to wrap my head around is what exactly does that tree have to do with corn ethanol?
So what has caused today’s diatribe on indirect land use? A new paper published this month in Bioscience Magazine titled, “Effects of US Maize Ethanol on Global Land Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Estimating Market-mediated Responses.” The paper was authored by Thomas W. Hertel of Purdue University and five co-authors. In a nutshell, the authors argue that the greenhouse gas emission reductions from corn-based ethanol are canceled out when factoring in the increased carbon output from indirect land use change. Therefore, their contribution to California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard is negligible, even when compared to conventional petroleum based fuels.
There are so many things wrong with this paper that I had a hard time deciding where to begin. I’ll dive right in with the authors’ assessment of the number of acres used to produce corn in our country (they use yield numbers from 2001 when yield numbers for 2009 are already available).
They argue that land is going to need to be converted to crops and that this land will come from virgin land such as tearing down a forest. They also assume that current cropland will be converted to produce corn (most commonly away from soybeans). What they don’t factor is is this: In 2009, American farmers produced 13.2 billion bushels of corn, similar to the production numbers reported in 2007. The difference –this yield was produced using 7 million, yes million, less acres of land.
The ethanol industry was quick to respond. Tom Buis, CEO of Growth Energy commented, “The truth is, indirect land use is a heavily disputed theory in the scientific community that has yet to be proven. The theory of ILUC employs no empirical evidence and it is unfair to single out one industry – corn ethanol – as the culprit behind poor environmental practices in other countries.”
Buis continued, “Even when ILUC is included in lifecycle analysis for corn ethanol, the Environmental Protection Agency qualifies it as a low carbon fuel that is 20 percent cleaner than gasoline. Excluding ILUC, ethanol from corn is 59 percent cleaner and can play a significant role in cleaning the air, creating U.S. jobs and securing our national and economic defense.”
What Growth Energy failed to mention is that the paper was written with the help of several organizations including California Air Resources Board and The Energy Biosciences Institute, which was funded by $500 million from oil company BP in 2007 and at the time the largest single research “contribution” in the record books. Also participating was our “best friend forever” Timothy Searchinger. Searchinger is a lawyer by trade and is no more qualified to conduct a study on indirect land use than I, a blogger. So what we really have here is yet another biofuels “study” funded by Big Oil. (And have I mentioned lately that Big Oil is still funding a campaign to discredit global climate change?)
The authors do cede that the concept of indirect land use is largely “uncertain and clearly requires additional analysis,” which brings me to the million dollar question, If indirect land use is so uncertain, then why are we creating policy based on unsound science? Oh, I forgot, our country doens’t make policy decisions on sound science. And that my friends is one reason why our country is in this big energy mess.
17 Comments »
Kum Dollison
On top of everything else, and probably the most important, Brazil is, actually, planting LESS Soybeans than they did in 2003.
Brazil planted 58 Million Acres in Soybeans in 2003,
and 53 Million Acres in 2008.
One reason for this, probably, is the amount of Soy Meal that’s replaced when DDGS are fed.
Oh, and with 150 Million Acres of land Lying Fallow in the Cerrado, why would anyone cut down trees if all they wanted to do was plant soybeans?
Bob Winnson
Terrific investigation! Do you know that many wealthy people have Brazilian Cherry Hardwood floors–straight from the tropical rainforests. Talk about land use change… I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that execs from the Big Oil companies, CARBies such as Mary Nichols (and Exxon attorney husband John Daum) and Daniel Sperling, and even activist attorney Timothy Searchinger have installed these rainforest hardwoods in their estates.
What I don’t understand is how Growth Energy did not know of these connections to Big Oil, CARB, Searchinger, et al. Growth needs to amend their original rebuttal of this tainted research.
Tom Darlington
It is misleading to say that I “participated” in this study. I have provided numerous comments on the GTAP model and various inputs to the GTAP model (and also FAPRI and FASOM) in the past year and a half, as well as the Low Carbon Fuel Standard and RFS2. These comments have been developed for the Renewable Fuels Association.
I think the authors cited contributions I may have made during the submission of these comments, on behalf of RFA. I am honored that they acknowledged these contributions. That does not mean that I participated in this study, and it does not mean that I agree with its conclusions. In fact, I have a number of remaining comments on this study, which I don’t have space to enumerate here.
I would appreciate it if you would clarify this position in your article.
Tom Darlington
Pithy Opiner
“And here’s why: when a tree is cut down in Brazil, it is not to plant crops for biofuels, it is to sell the wood because the tree is of greater value as wood, then as part of the rainforest.”
I can’t believe she doesn’t know the difference between “then” and “than”. Seeing that, I couldn’t read the rest of her report.
Leonardo de Navarro
The LLUC (International land use conversion) argument is just a phony as the Food vs. Energy argument.
The manufactured corn based food industry is making the consuming populations overly FAT. Do we ask that the health impacts of such results be placed in the accounting?
Much better that the extra corn that is being produced be converted to fuel. How about the indirect benefit of becoming energy independent? Or the ability to change our National Security interests in the middle east. I favor American interests over Big Oil interests. Were in a period of transition.
Tim Dillard
You’re stretching saying that Big Oil is behind this. If you’re going to attack Dr. Hertel’s work on this basis, we should attack everything you say because this blog clearly is funded by corn ethanol interests. Just look at your advertisements!
Bob Winnson
Tim, you’re blind to say that the oil companies are not planting big money and insiders into every governmental and environmental agency out there, to overcome alternatives including ethanol. It’s just a big game of chess to them, and they hold the rule book. And by the way, look at the advertisements of the major news outlets that keep mum on the benefits of corn ethanol or even attack it–ad after ad after ad from the Oil companies, Natural Gas companies, Coal companies, etc. They fund the news through marketing income to the news outlets, which ties their hands from actually reporting the truth (You want to say something good about ethanol–well fine I’ll withdraw my $5 million marketing campaign in your news outlet! What’s that? Good…the check’s in the mail and I look forward to that piece on indirect land use change! Next time, don’t even mention ethanol or you’ll be sorry…). And Tim, who is “we?” You said “we” should attack… Do you have some lap dog drones in their jammies posting negative comments here, or on other blogs?
Tom Darlington–I don’t see your name in the article; maybe it was edited out or maybe you were referring to another article? Tom, if you’re reporting the factual truths about corn ethanol and land use change, then thank you, because the only facts that are proven by actual science are very positive for corn ethanol. If you are publishing something negative it is simply not a fact and shame on you. There’s too much guesswork being published about land use change, being promoted as real science. Scientists should get some pride and publish documented, repeatable, empirical science. No more of these foo-foo computer models where input variables are deceptively set at extremes to achieve the desired output negative to corn ethanol. Many land use change scientists are giving science a very bad name. And for anyone that believes those quacks, I’ve got some ocean-front property in Wyoming that I would like to sell to you!
Be Nice
Be nice to Tom Darlington. His very scientific work shuts the door on concerns about deforestation by land use change for corn ethanol (it just won’t happen, and isn’t happening). In fact, fewer soybean acres in S America are needed each year, as the distillers grains from corn ethanol are replacing soy meal. China and the Middle East in facts are importing record multiples of DGS with each passing year. Here is a link to Tom Darlington’s very thoughtful and factual research that shows the positive outcome for using corn ethanol. http://www.airimprovement.com/reports/land_use_effects_of_us_corn.pdf
Free Ranger
Is corn food? Yes. Is corn subsidized? Yes. Is ethanol subsidized? Yes. Is ethanol burned? Yes.
There you have it. Corn ethanol is subsidized food burning!!
I can’t believe grown-ups actually support corn ethanol.
bill wason
It is interesting to note that everyone thinks only about corn and soybeans. they are terrible crops for biofuels because of poor oil content and low net yield. instead focus on new crops like macaw palm, that have yields of 5 tons of oil per hectare, grow in dryland cerrado areas and allow for crops between the trees. (they do not need rainforest to grow and can grow in existing pasture land or unused land). As noted earlier, there is 150 million hectares of cerrado and 50 million hectares is existing pasture land with 1.2 cows per hectare. incredible underutilization of land. I live in Maranhao which has at least 10 million hectares
as for ILUC. it is a theory that can apply in limited places like Indonesia where there is a linkage to forest destruction and subsequent planting of west africa palm, which does require rainforest environment. however, even there they have a backlog of 7 million hectares of cut forest where they promised to plant palm and did not. The reality is that forests are cleared for tropical hardwoods and charcoal and only used as pasture for a few years before the soil gives out. it is not good soil for biofuel crops with the exception of native palms that have adapted to the soil.
If you want to stop forest destruction, you need to put carbon duties on tropical hardwoods and steel made from uncertified vegetable charcoal from forests. but if you really want to stop forest destruction, Brazil is willing to sell carbon credits and the entire Amazon legally committed to no more cutting of wood would cost about $10 a ton and a $1 trillion to produce more than 350 million tons of avoided emissions. that is more than any of the goals being reached in real life by any countries globally prior to 2020 but if you want the brazilians to agree you have to provide alternative employment to logging and charcoal. the best answer is to plant native trees just outside the Amazon that will provide the feedstock needed for biofuels while specifically excluding any biofuel being produced in areas cut going forward.
it is difficult to believe in ILUC when it is used as a tool to keep biofuels out of foreign markets when no efforts are made in parallel to preserve the rainforests with carbon credits.
if you are interested in more information send an email or go to our web sites
billwason@sustainablebiobrazil.org
http://www.sustainablebiobrazil.org
http://www.biopurefuels.com
Study: Corn Ethanol an ‘Unattractive Compliance Option’ for Carbon Mandates « The Sugarcane Blog
[...] from corn ethanol.” The pro-corn blogs, however, did not like the science and immediately attacked the science, see “Big Oil Behind Yet Another Biofuels Research Paper” Possibly related [...]
Bob Winnson
FR–please research distillers grains (DGS). Only 1/3 of the corn kernel becomes ethanol–that is the starch part. Distillers grain is a high value livestock feed that is a co-product of corn ethanol production. It is similar in value to soybean feed. The starch in corn can actually kill cattle if fed in high volumes–cows aren’t actually meant to eat corn. It makes them fat for market, similarly to what corn syrup does for us…hah. 80% of U.S. corn goes to livestock feed. Removing the starch from the corn is a positive, not a negative.
Only 1/3 of corn goes to corn ethanol anyway. That leaves 2/3 of the corn, of which the starch often isn’t needed.
I hope you are kidding that “I can’t believe grown-ups actually support corn ethanol.” Some of the most immature comments I have read are from petroleum supporters and environmental activists, when they spread false myths against corn ethanol.
Corn and corn ethanol are subsidized to compete with other subsidized products and other nations that subsidize their products. I’m fine with removing the subsidies, if you can convince those industries and governments to drop their subsidies. Until then it’s a moot point.
Michael Dawson
EROEI, you jerks.
Aureon Kwolek
The Purdue study is based on outdated information and false conjectures, in order to smear corn ethanol. More current information was available. It used the 2007 corn crop, while the 2009 corn crop had a much higher yield per acre. The study also low-balls the conversion rate of a bushel of corn to fuel at 2.6, when the current rate is 2.9 and going higher. It also used 135 bushels per acre corn yield, when in 2007 it was roughly 150 bushels, and in 2009, it was 165 bushels per acre – much higher. The study extrapolates these low-balled outdated yields 30 years into the future, when in reality, corn yield is on track to double in 30 years….
In 2009, we harvested the same amount of corn as 2007 – but from 7 million FEWER acres – because the yield per acre increased 10%. Corn ethanol can only be responsible for indirect land use change if the acreage keeps expanding. Like Searchinger, Hertel falsely claims that the corn crop used for ethanol will continue to consume additional lands. But that’s Not happening….
The return on the 2009 corn crop shoots holes in Hertel’s conclusions. U.S. Corn acreage dropped in 2008 and dropped again in 2009, while the soy crop expanded dramatically. This is just the opposite of what Searchinger and Hertel falsely project. They both make the false conjecture that corn acreage will keep expanding, displacing soy acreage and other crops, such that foreign lands would be deforested, in order to grow the crops that were displaced. This is only happening in their phony computer models – Not in the real world. Corn ethanol is not displacing any other crops in the U.S. or anywhere else in the world. And that is a cold, hard fact. We also have a huge surplus of arable land and abandoned farm land available….
Many other countries have expanding biofuels programs of their own. Brazil has a plan to expand sugarcane and soy acreage for ethanol and biodiesel respectively, causing their own deforestation. A new German study concludes that Brazil is causing its own land use change, not American corn ethanol. The study, conducted at the University of Kassel, by David M. Lapola, is published in “Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences”. Lapola’s academic team noted – That Brazil has set 2020 goals for expanding cane-based ethanol and soy biodiesel production of their own. And this is a driving force causing indirect land use change and deforestation in Brazil: “Sugarcane ethanol and soybean biodiesel would be responsible for 41% and 59% of this indirect deforestation, respectively.” Prior to this, logging, cattle grazing, and subsistence farming have been the main causes of Brazilian deforestation, with soy farming less than a 16% impact. And 80% of that is used for livestock feed to produce food. Let’s see if Hertel can explain why Brazil’s expanding biofuel crops aren’t causing indirect land use change in the U.S. and other countries….
Hertel omits two other corn ethanol byproducts in his analysis – the corn cobs and corn stover biomass, integrated into corn ethanol refineries and made into additional ethanol – From the same acre of corn that was used to produce fuel from the grain. Hertel also omits GreenShift corn oil extraction, which is sweeping the Industry. Roughly 10 corn ethanol refineries already have it. This process extracts crude corn oil from distillers grains and increases the fuel yield by 7%. This is a new co-product made into biodiesel fuel. Another new process is fractionation and micro-fractionation, that increases ethanol production 3.5 to 5%. These upgrades also invalidate Hertel’s conclusions….
The objective of the study was to prop-up the controversial and illegal California ARB rules, erroneously based on the unproven indirect land use change theory. Using fancy computer modeling does Not prove that a land theory is real. If you put false assumptions and inaccurate information into a software program, you’ll get false conclusions out, no matter how good the modeling is.
Biofuels Brazil » Study: Corn Ethanol an ‘Unattractive Compliance Option’ for Carbon Mandates
[...] away from corn ethanol.” The pro-corn blogs, however, did not like the science and immediately attacked the science, see “Big Oil Behind Yet Another Biofuels Research Paper.” As usual, Growth Energy [...]
John Q. Galt
This simply goes to show that science has been corrupted when Ph.D.s can make claims on subjects they know nothing about.
Soybeans are not grown because corn protein co-products (gluten feed and meal, ddgs and eventually state-of-the-art dry-fractionation corn protein isolate) replace those 45 corn bushel equivalent soybean acres with 160 corn bushels per acres. The stupidity of these Purdue “scientists” is astounding.
No doubt some hippy will claim “whaaaah but you gots to rotate corn wit teh soybeans waaaa.” We don’t – even 140 continuous corn bpa still beats 45 cbepa in this Universe.
Oh yeah, and corn doesn’t actually replace average yielding soybean acres; rather they replace the marginal 10-20 bushel soybean acres.
I could go on…
John Q. Galt
bill wason said:
“It is interesting to note that everyone thinks only about corn and soybeans. they are terrible crops for biofuels because of poor oil content and low net yield.”
Corn and soybeans are not grown for biofuels. They are grown as commodity grains. If the ethanol industry wanted to maximize yield they would grow sugar beets behind their industrial plants. Replace mechanized commodity grains with manual labor under third-world conditions (sorry, but true and oh the irony) and just see the food crisis that ensues.
Comments RSS feed — TrackBack URI
Leave a Comment