Report Based on False Assumption of Either-Or Land Use Approach

(Environmental and Energy Study Institute) In the World Resources Institute (WRI) working paper, “Avoiding Bioenergy Competition for Food Crops and Land,” the authors work off the assumption that land-use decisions are used making an “either-or” approach, i.e., land can either be used to grow food -- or biofuels crops. Land can either store carbon --or grow food and fiber. Land can either be devoted to wildlife habitat -- or food and fiber production. The ‘either-or’ approach, while straight forward, lacks a basic understanding of the complexities of agricultural and working forest land use, emerging research on the carbon cycle in working lands, and the very real economic pressures on land owners to divert working lands to development.

The report, authored by Dr. Searchinger, a Senior Fellow at WRI and scholar at Princeton University, and WRI consultant Ralph Heimlich, leaves no sector of the biofuels economy untouched in their indictment of renewable fuels, as they have concerns about traditional starch based feedstocks (corn starch ethanol, beets, sugar cane), cellulosic feedstocks (such as purpose grown grasses and short-rotation woody trees), and wood wastes (such as waste from pulp, paper and timber industries). Last week, SBFF promised readers that we would devote more time to understanding the assumptions and conclusions in WRI paper, and we address some of the main conclusions and assumptions employed in our discussion below.

The ‘Calorie Deficit’ Ignores Inequities Already Present in Food Systems

The basic premise of the report is that no productive land should be directed towards biofuels crops, due to the looming issue of a worldwide food shortage by 2050. This is despite the fact that food currently is over-produced, and worldwide, 50 percent of food is wasted. In the United States, EPA reports that food waste is the number one ingredient in landfills – imagine, every other bite of food is thrown away! Therefore, growing ever more crops is not the answer to issues of individual and community equity in food politics. In fact, growing more and more food without addressing issues of food distribution, food waste (both in homes and across supply chains) will only exacerbate issues of environmental quality and do nothing to address affordable access to food.

Instead, EESI and others argue – the time is ripe for a dramatic shift in the food production and distribution system. Growing ever more food on large farms won’t address the environmental and food justice issues the world faces. Instead, integrated farms where food, fiber, fuels, feedstocks for chemicals and animal husbandry is practiced in sustainable ways is the food revolution that is so badly needed. ...

The WRI report continually implies that bioenergy’s potential is overblown due to a ‘carbon accounting error’. According to Dr. Searchinger, this double counting is a result of “assuming incorrectly that bioenergy can freely divert biomass or land that is already in use.” This same argument was raised by Dr. Searchinger in 2009, and since then, much research has been devoted to the topic.

Instead of forcing more land into production – research has actually found the opposite. Recent research from Dr. Bruce Babcock, an Iowa State University professor and a former California Air Resources Board consultant, finds that “the primary land use change response of the world's farmers from 2004 to 2012 has been to use available land resources more efficiently rather than to expand the amount of land brought into production. This finding is not necessarily new … however, this finding has not been recognized by regulators who calculate indirect land use.” ...

Paints a Picture of an Inefficient Industry – Ignores Years of Progress in Renewable Fuels

While Searchinger admits that other renewable technologies have seen great improvements in the last decade, he’s unwilling to give biofuels a second look. That’s despite the evidence of lower inputs and rising yields across the industry. Life-cycle assessment of both biofuels and traditional gasoline has found that while the carbon footprint of biofuels is dropping, it is steadily rising for traditional petroleum fuels. ...

... According to scientists at Argonne, energy use for the production of corn-based ethanol dropped 25 percent, corn farming energy use has dropped 24 percent, and ethanol yields per bushel have risen three percent since 2008. Soil research also finds that soil organic carbon in corn fields has risen due to increased use of no till and conservation tilling practices. This is backed up by findings from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) National Resource Conservation Service (NCRS), which also models soil carbon.

Using solar energy as an example, the authors state that “PV systems today can generate more than 100 times the usable energy per hectare than bioenergy is likely to produce in the future even using optimistic assumptions.” While it is unclear how Dr. Searchinger calculated these numbers, the basic assumption is that we have time to wait for a perfect answer to our transportation needs. Currently, no country has the electric capacity, or the engine technology, to switch the entire vehicle fleet to plug-in electric. Most dangerously, Dr. Searchinger is content to wait for a future that’s several years away, at best guess, and ignore the very real benefits of utilizing biofuels today. READ MORE and MORE (New York Times) and MORE (Epoch Times) and MORE (TreeHugger.com)