Scientists: conservationists' studies about biofuel emissions "misleading" and "bad science"

Scientists from several universities, from the U.S. Department of Energy's Argonne National Laboratory and scientists from the DOE Biomass Program are questioning the conclusions and assumptions of two reports that were published recently in the journal Science. The reports about the carbon footprint of biofuels resulting from land use changes - written by conservationists - were "narrowly constructed" to demonstrate "worst-case scenarios" only and did not examine all the facts of biofuel production. The basic facts are now put into question by scientists who see the studies as "misleading" and "bad science". This fact brings into question the role conservationists can play in the bioenergy debate.

The studies made claims that land-use change from biofuels results in large greenhouse gas emissions (previous post). While this is true for highly exceptional forms of land-use change, such as the conversion of peat swamps that store high amounts of carbon, scientists doubt whether this is true for the vast bulk of other types of land used to grow energy or food crops. Peat swamps occur in selected sites on Borneo Island, for example. But Borneo's peat swamps are hardly representative for the rest of the world's land base. Likewise, the data about land use emissions in other types of land are seriously put into question. Lastly, new land use techniques eliminate the problem alltogether (more here).

The bioenergy community accepts that the entire lifecycle of biofuel and biomass production must be taken into account. But conservationists' attempts to narrow down the debate and make it look as if all biofuels are based on deforestation or the destruction of special types of high carbon land, is not helpful. It damages their case, as their views on biofuels lose credibility each time they publish such misleading material.

Conservationists have launched a hard campaign against bioenergy, and they will not hesitate to distort realities, by extrapolating exceptional excesses and representing them as the rule. Just recently, a group made headlines by claiming that "biofuels fuel human rights abuses" - another report based on practises in Indonesia that are much less clear cut, but that are being presented as the rule. Cultural anthropologists cautioned against this practise of simplifying debates, because they are not only bad science, they also result in paternalistic and even racist representations of 'indigenous communities' (previous post).

In short, conservationists are quickly losing their legitimacy to play a role in the bioenergy debate - both when it comes to their view on the environmental and the social impacts of biofuels. They are potentially destroying an opportunity to help fight climate change. Worse, they are also potentially eliminating the possibility for poor people in developing countries to make a living from participating in bioenergy production. Even more, smart biofuels can actually help conserve ecosystems, but surprisingly conservationists are not willing to recognise this important aspect of an emerging sector.

Dr. Michael Wang of Argonne’s Transportation Technology R&D Center and Zia Haq of the DOE’s Office of Biomass Program spoke out against the study about the indirect land use change effects of ethanol production in the U.S. They say that there has been no indication that production has so far caused land use changes in other countries because U.S. corn exports have been maintained at about 2 billion bushels a year.

While scientific assessment of land use change is needed, Wang and Haq say conclusions about green house gas emissions and biofuels based on "speculative, limited land use change modeling is misguiding".

Dr. Lou Honary, Director of the National Ag-Based Lubricants Center at the University of Northern Iowa says the reports are "overly simplistic", "don't take in many related factors", and "cause misconceptions":
energy :: sustainability ::biomass :: bioenergy :: biofuels :: ethanol :: biodiesel :: lifecycle :: emissions :: land use change :: conservationism :: bad science ::

Michigan State University's Dr. Bruce Dale agrees with Honary and says there are strong reasons to question the assumptions, data and comparisons made in these two papers.

David Morris of the Institute of Self-Reliance, a former member of the Advisory Committee for Biomass to the Departments of Energy and Agriculture, finds many contradictions in the reports.

"The report notes that the vast majority of today’s ethanol production comes from corn cultivated on land that has been in corn production for generations," Morris says. "Since little new land has come into production, either directly or indirectly, the current use of ethanol clearly reduces greenhouse gas emissions."

References:
Farm Futures: Doubts Raised About Recent Global Warming Studies - February 18, 2008.

Argonne National Laboratory: Transportation Technology R & D Center.

U.S. DOE, Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy: Biomass Program.

Biopact: New land use techniques boost benefits of biofuels - February 08, 2008

Biopact: Two studies state the obvious: clearing high carbon land for first-generation biofuels can lead to higher emissions - February 08, 2008

Biopact: Anthropologists caution against essentialism in discussion about social sustainability of biofuels - February 13, 2008