Leading Scientists Urge Court to Reject Faulty Land Use Change Arguments

July 08, 2024

Print This Article Share it With Friends

(Renewable Fuels Association) The nation’s leading experts in agricultural economics and biofuels lifecycle analysis urged the D.C. Circuit Court last week to reject erroneous claims made by the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) in its lawsuit challenging EPA’s 2023-2025 Renewable Fuel Standard volumes.

In its challenge to EPA’s so-called “RFS set rule,” CBD relied on debunked studies by University of Wisconsin researcher Tyler Lark, and others, to wrongly suggest the RFS has caused habitat loss and conversion of grasslands into cropland. In their detailed amicus brief submitted last week, eight scientists informed the court that the Lark studies and CBD’s claims are “divorced from scientific evidence and reality” and “based on outdated, flawed, and disproven research.” They pointed out that “there is simply no valid scientific evidence behind claims that RFS-driven demand for ethanol production leads to the conversion of grasslands not previously farmed.”

The independent brief was submitted by experts from the University of California Davis, University of Idaho, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, University of Illinois at Chicago, Oak Ridge National Laboratory/University of Tennessee, South Dakota State University, WSP USA and CropGrower LLC. Over the past 20 years, these scientists have conducted extensive peer-reviewed research on land use and biofuels lifecycle greenhouse gas analysis, much of which has informed regulatory decision-making by EPA on the RFS program.

“Neither biofuel production nor the RFS has been scientifically linked to the conversion of ‘natural’ lands, such as native prairies, forests, and wetlands, to crop production,” the researchers told the court. “Experts in the field of biomass and agricultural economics have demonstrated that much of the outlier research was based on flawed assumptions and methods related to land use.”

In reality, biofuels like ethanol have significant GHG benefits, according to the experts’ brief. “Updated analyses have repeatedly confirmed that low-carbon biofuels reduce GHG emissions in the transportation sector,” they wrote. “The GHG intensity for biofuels decreased by about 50 percent and is currently estimated to be more than 40 percent lower than gasoline produced from crude oil.”

They also noted ethanol producers are on a pathway to net zero lifecycle emissions, specifically highlighting the pledge made by RFA members in 2021. “Members of the Renewable Fuels Association have announced a commitment to further reduce the carbon intensity of corn ethanol, aiming to achieve a 70-percent reduction compared to petroleum gasoline by 2030 and net neutral status by 2050,” according to the brief.

The amicus brief cites a robust body of recent research that thoroughly debunks Lark’s previous work, including a new study showing that more than 98 percent of the land claimed by Lark to be “converted” from “native lands” to cropland had actually been previously engaged in crop production.

RFA President and CEO Geoff Cooper offered the following comment on the amicus brief: “As we pointed out last week, the walls are closing in around the Center for Biological Diversity, Tyler Lark, the National Wildlife Federation, and other anti-biofuel activists who perpetuate the ridiculous land use change myth. In his newest work, even Lark is now admitting that U.S. cropland continued to shrink as biofuels production expanded. We applaud this group of experts for their independent efforts to stand up for scientific integrity. Their amicus brief deftly exposes the flawed and misleading claims made by CBD about the environmental impacts of biofuels like ethanol.”

EPA filed its initial reply to CBD’s claims last week, noting that the agency’s own analysis of potential land use impacts “…found all potential effects to be either discountable, insignificant, or both.” RFA has intervened on behalf of EPA in the litigation challenging the 2023-2025 RFS volumes. READ MORE

Related articles

Top Scientists Defend Biofuels in RFS Court Filing (Growth Energy)
Considering Historical Land Use When Estimating Soil Carbon Stock Changes of Transitional Croplands (MDPI/Sustainability) PDF
Response to comments from Lark et al. regarding Taheripour et al. March 2022 comments on Lark et. al. original PNAS paper (Growth Energy)
New Lark Study on ESA Impacts Continues History of Unsupported Claims, Debunked Science (Growth Energy)
Changing Their Minds on “Land Use Change”? (Renewable Fuels Association)
REBUTTAL TO THE LARK ET AL. REPORT “ENVIRONMENTAL OUTCOMES OF THE U.S. RENEWABLE FUEL STANDARD” (Renewable Fuels Association)
Response to comments from Lark et al. regarding Taheripour et al. March 2022 comments on Lark et. al. original PNAS paper (Argonne National Laboratory)
Cropland abandonment between 1986 and 2018 across the United States: spatiotemporal patterns and current land uses (Environmental Research Letters)
DOE Shares Concerns on Lark Study Letter (Growth Energy)
Scientists Urge Court to Reject Land Use Claims (Energy.AgWired.com)
Scientists: RFS Land Use Claims False -- Scientists Push Court to Reject Land-Use Change Arguments in RFS Lawsuit (DTN Progressive Farmer)
Biofuels Industry Leads Defense Of RFS In US Court Of Appeals (Growth Energy/Ethanol Producer Magazine)
Must-Read Court Brief: Top Scientists Debunk Biofuel Myths (Growth Energy)

Excerpt from Growth Energy: Eight of the nation’s top agricultural, biomass, and greenhouse gas (GHG) lifecycle scientists filed an amicus brief on July 3rd that challenged the faulty assumptions underpinning a number of attacks on the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). The brief was filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) v. EPA et al. (Case No. 23-1177).

Growth Energy, the nation’s largest biofuel trade association, highlighted the importance of the brief in a statement:

“The new brief from America’s top lifecycle experts sends a clear signal—it’s time for environmental advocates to stop parroting fossil fuel companies and start supporting low-carbon biofuels at the gas pump,” said Growth Energy CEO Emily Skor. “Decades of data have demonstrated again and again that bioethanol has not increased crop acreage—in fact, U.S. farm acreage has been largely unchanged since the 1930s. Even the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) rejected similar claims in a letter to Growth Energy, acknowledging the scientific consensus that U.S. ethanol slashes greenhouse gas emissions by 44 to 52 percent.”

“It’s time for environmentalist skeptics of biofuels to listen to the experts and let go of outdated and debunked research” she added. “The scientists who filed the amicus brief in support of EPA provide a clear-eyed and honest assessment of the environmental profile of biofuel production, and we look forward to working with any group that wants to help us expand access to lower-carbon bioethanol.”

To access the full brief, users can register for an account through the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system and search for the case (U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Case No. 23-1177, Center for Biological Diversity v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al.). It was submitted on behalf of:

Dr. David Clay, Distinguished Professor of Soil Science at South Dakota State University, Fellow of the American Society of Agronomy, Editor in Chief for the American Society of Agronomy, and the South Dakota Corn Endowed Chair of Precision Farming.

Kenneth Copenhaver, former scientist for NASA and Founding Principal at CropGrower LLC.

Dr. Isaac Emery, environmental sustainability scientist, consultant and project director at WSP USA.

Dr. Stephen Kaffka, Professor Emeritus of Cooperative Extension at the University of California Davis and Director of the California Biomass Initiative.

Dr. Madhu Khanna, ACES Distinguished Professor in Environmental Economics at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign.

Keith Kline, Distinguished Scientist in the Environmental Sciences Division and the Climate Change Science Institute of Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and Adjunct Professor in the Biosystems Engineering and Soil Science Department at the University of Tennessee Institute of Agriculture.

Dr. Steffen Mueller, leader of the Bioenergy and Transportation Emissions Research Group at the University of Illinois Chicago.

Dr. Dev Shrestha, professor of chemical and biological engineering at the University of Idaho.

Background

In the underlying case, CBD is challenging EPA’s most recent “Set” rule for the 2023-2025 renewable volume obligations (RVOs) under the RFS. They argue that, in promulgating the rule, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) failed to properly consult with both the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service regarding the rule’s potential impact on the habitats of endangered species, pursuant to the Endangered Species Act (ESA). In August 2023, Growth Energy filed a motion to intervene in the case, as its outcome would have a material impact on the association and its membership.

Some of CBD’s arguments against the RVOs rely on research published by Tyler Lark, whose work has been previously debunked and dismissed by leading scientists, including those at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the U.S. Department of Energy, and Argonne National Laboratory, among others. Today’s brief from the aforementioned group of scientists takes direct aim at Lark’s claims and research methods, adding to the chorus of voices using science to undermine Lark’s anti-ethanol claims.

The RFS was first enacted in 2005 as part of the Energy Policy Act. It was then expanded in 2007 with the passage of the Energy Independency and Security Act. It sets the number of gallons of renewable fuels (like biofuels) that must be blended into the nation’s total fuel supply each year. The RFS remains one of America’s most successful clean energy policies, reducing carbon emissions, offering consumers more affordable options at the pump, and delivering greater energy security for more than 15 years. READ MORE

Excerpt from DTN Progressive Farmer: Eight scientists told a federal appeals court last week that claims made in a lawsuit that the Renewable Fuel Standard has led to the loss of habitat for endangered species and loss of grasslands are untrue.

The Center for Biological Diversity filed a lawsuit in July 2023 challenging the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's so-called RFS set rule that finalized biofuels volumes for multiple years, https://www.dtnpf.com/….

The scientists intervened in the lawsuit in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on July 3, 2024.

"There is no compelling scientific evidence linking the RFS to the conversion of grasslands and loss of biodiversity," the scientists said in a brief.

"Research based on misclassifications of land use and flawed assumptions and methodologies spurred skepticism about the environmental and GHG emission reduction benefits of biofuels but that research has since been disproven."

The scientists said that analyses based on "more complete, updated data" found that the average carbon intensity of biofuels is "significantly less" than conventional gasoline.

"Over time, as technologies and practices advance and with various incentives the federal government has put into place, that benefit is expected to continue growing at an accelerated pace," they said in a brief.

"Although the EPA conservatively referenced some of the outdated and inaccurate research, petitioners' arguments based on that research necessarily inherit its flaws."

Biofuel groups including the Renewable Fuels Association and Growth Energy also have intervened in the lawsuit. READ MORE