Biofuels are contributing to environmental harm
Dave Reede/Alamy
It seems straightforward, doesn’t it? Plants harness sunlight to produce food—stored energy. Thus, converting that food into fuel should yield sustainable biofuels with no carbon footprint, right? Wrong. The rise of biofuels is paradoxically linked to an increase in emissions, as well as posing threats to human well-being and ecosystems. And instead of reevaluating this trajectory, production continues to surge. What is happening?
If you believe biofuels are beneficial, you’ve likely fallen prey to significant greenwashing efforts. A plethora of evidence indicates that biofuels inflict more damage than benefits. A recent study by the advocacy group Transport & Environment (T&E) reveals that the transition to biofuels has led to a 16 percent increase in carbon dioxide emissions, on average, in comparison to sticking with fossil fuels.
Why is this occurring? The primary issue lies in agriculture, which contributes significantly to greenhouse gas emissions. To provide context, 16 percent is an average figure worldwide per the T&E report. In specific areas, like Europe, there may be a slight reduction in emissions from biofuels; however, the benefits are minimal. The trade-offs regarding the broader detrimental impacts of biofuels require serious consideration.
For starters, rising food prices are unmistakable. Converting grains and oils into biofuels boosts demand and leads to price hikes. Though quantifying this is complex, experts I’ve consulted over time suggest it plays a significant role in food inflation.
In addition, many biofuel crops necessitate extensive irrigation, exacerbating water shortages across various regions. The T&E report indicates that 3000 liters of water are required to produce enough biofuel for a car to travel just 100 kilometers (62 miles). For comparison, only 20 liters are necessary for the same distance in an electric vehicle powered by solar energy.
The challenges also extend to land use. With a growing global population eager for more calories and particularly meat, our farmland is steadily increasing. Elevated biofuel production necessitates even more land, leading to worrying trends like deforestation in Indonesia for expanding palm oil plantations and other land uses. As a result, biofuels are a contributing factor to the ongoing loss of wildlife and biodiversity, the other significant global crisis.
Ironically, biofuel production is notably inefficient. A report from T&E highlights that solar panels placed on comparable land could generate the same energy utilizing only 3 percent of the space. This means that transitioning to solar energy could drastically lower emissions while exerting a significantly lesser environmental footprint. Apparently, we can optimize sunlight capture beyond nature’s capabilities.
In contrast, the pollution consequences from biofuels mirror those from traditional agriculture. Issues like pesticide effects on health and wildlife and nutrient runoff further jeopardize aquatic ecosystems. Although utilizing non-food-based biofuels from waste could mitigate some of these challenges, the T&E report predicts that over 90 percent of biofuel output will still derive from food crops by 2030.
Why, then, are nations around the globe incentivizing the production of ever-increasing amounts of biofuels? There are substantial profits involved, and powerful lobbying groups consistently advocate for increased governmental support. Still, certain countries and organizations prefer to highlight their emissions reductions without confronting uncomfortable realities.
In the United States, for example, politicians from both major parties have aimed to maintain favorable relations with Corn Belt farmers producing maize for bioethanol. Earlier this year, biofuel tax breaks established in 2022 were renewed.
Furthermore, sectors like shipping and aviation view biofuels as a means to continue operations without drastically altering practices while claiming emission reductions. Although the criteria for what constitutes “sustainable aviation fuels” do account for land use emissions, the shipping industry still lacks a definitive stance on this matter, which may result in even more severe environmental damage. The shipping sector alone could potentially double its biofuel consumption by the 2030s, warns the T&E report, which poses significant concerns for all the reasons previously discussed.
The reality that biofuels meant to reduce emissions are, in fact, producing the opposite effect has been evident for years. Continuing down this path is sheer folly.
