Biofuels and Biodiversity

On Thursday I submitted a post on biodiversity and climate change, important ecological trends that compete for the attention of environmentalists. In at least some cases the two topics are linked, either through the potential effects of climate change or various proposed solutions. An example of the latter is biofuel production, which shares many of the ecological problems of industrial agriculture.

A recent paper by Eggers et al. presents a new method of assessing biodiversity impacts resulting from changing land use due to the production of biofuel crops in Europe, distinguishing between arable (first generation) and woody (second-generation) crop types. In particular, Eggers et al. focus on two questions: (1) what might happen if we doubled the current EU biofuel target of 5.75%, and (2) what might happen if we abolished the current biofuel target. While biodiversity as such includes all forms of life, their impact assessment was restricted to a set of 313 species pertaining to four taxonomical groups.

The results indicate that more species might suffer from habitat losses rather than benefit from a doubled biofuel target, while abolishing the biofuel target would mainly have positive effects. However, the possible impacts vary spatially and depend on the choice of biofuel crop, with woody crops being less detrimental than arable crops. The results give an indication for policy and decision makers of what might happen to biodiversity under a changed biofuel policy in the European Union. The presented approach is considered to be innovative as to date no comparable policy impact assessment has been applied to such a large set of key species at the European scale.

Currently biofuel production uses mostly sugar, corn, or other cereals. Multiple studies have shown that biofuel production using these ingredients produces more greenhouse gases per unit of energy than ordinary petroleum, largely because of the high carbon costs of agriculture. Cellulosic ethanol – fuel produced from wood and grass – may be have less lifecycle impact on the climate, and if this study is correct, will destroy less biodiversity as well. The only trouble is that an efficient process for producing these second-generation biofuels awaits invention.

So for now we face an apparent choice between preventing catastrophic climate change and preserving biodiversity. However, given the problems with the current generation of biofuels, this may not be much of a choice at all. It seems to me that both goals warrant slowing the pace of biofuel production until such time as we have a process with less impact on climate and biodiversity.

As an aside, Nate from The Drinking Bird wrote a thoughtful response to the previous article on climate change and biodiversity, particularly the use of palm oil and desert solar arrays.

Conserved Farmland Safe for Now

Earlier this month, there was some talk that the USDA might lift penalties for farmers taking land out of the federal Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). The CRP subsidizes farm owners who leave portions of their land fallow to serve as wildlife habitat. This conserved habitat provides breeding ground for waterfowl and many other bird species. Many business interests put pressure on the government to lift penalties in the wake of the flooding earlier this year. That, food crises elsewhere in the world, and ethanol mandates raised the price of grain. Instead, the USDA just announced that it would not lift penalties because the crop forecasts had improved.

The ruling was a major victory for conservationists and hunting groups, who had argued that lifting the penalties would have gutted the Conservation Reserve Program, which pays farmers not to cultivate marginal land. Currently, 34.7 million acres are enrolled in the program, much of it in the Great Plains.

Under the terms of the program, farmers sign contracts for up to a decade or more. Farmers who terminate the contract must reimburse the government, with interest and a 25 percent penalty on the total rent payments they received.

“The Conservation Reserve Program is the holy grail of conservation, and we are pleased that the U.S.D.A. will maintain the program and the benefits that it has had,” said Barton James, director of agriculture conservation policy for Ducks Unlimited, an advocacy group.

If demand for ethanol continues to increase in coming years, the issue of the CRP lands is going to keep coming back. Even in the face of today's ruling, so far 288,726 acres have been removed from the program this year. Another 1.1 million acres will need to be renewed in September, which would give many farmers to remove land from the program without penalty. This trend bears watching. It may be time for the government to rethink its renewable energy strategy.

A Legless Lizard, a Dwarf Woodpecker, and Climate Change

Yesterday, several news agencies reported a story about new species being discovered in Brazil. The highlight was a legless lizard of the Bachia genus (pictured left); the 13 other possible new species included a small woodpecker of the genus Picumnus. (I would love to see a picture of the new woodpecker!) Other significant finds included hyacinth macaw (Anodorhynchus hyacinthinus), Brazilian merganser (Mergus octosetaceus), and dwarf tinamou (Taoniscus nanus), all of which are threatened species.

As the linked article mentions, the new species were discovered in Brazil's Cerrado, a wooded grassland area. The region, like many in the tropics, is a biodiversity hotspot with globally significant populations of many species. New species are constantly being discovered in such regions; I am sure that there are many more waiting to be found.

It sounds like an exciting area for research and conservation. The fly in the ointment is that, like many places in the tropics, the Cerrado is under constant threat. The region is being turned into cropland and ranchland at twice the rate of Brazil's rainforests. Why not leave it alone?

Well, the answer is that Brazilian cropland is in great demand. Brazil's Agriculture Ministry has projected record biofuel production for 2008, up to 27,400 million liters. About 4,200 million liters of that will be exported; the rest is used internally. At the same time, there is a food crisis. Part of the reason is that biofuel mandates cause cropland to be used for fuel instead of food. (Other factors include transportation costs, fertilizer shortages, and severe droughts in Australia.)

The president of Brazil denies that the current food crisis is due in any way to growing biofuel production. Other powerful people have a ready-made solution: expand agricultural land:

Blairo Maggi, the governor of Mato Grosso state and Brazil's largest soy producer, was quoted in the Folha de Sao Paulo newspaper as defending deforestation.

"With the worsening of the global food crisis, the time is coming when it will be inevitable to discuss whether we preserve the environment or produce more food. There is no way to produce more food without occupying more land and taking down more trees," said Maggi, a farming pioneer in the vast western state who is widely known as the "King of Soy."

"In this moment of crisis, the world needs to understand that the country has space to raise its production."

Last year the Amazonian rain forest lost about 2,700 square miles, the first increase in deforestation in about three years. Other natural habitats face similar threats. As I have noted before on this blog, conversion of natural habitat for grain production is happening in the United States, as many farmers are taking their land out of the federal Conservation Reserve Program. When it happens here, it reduces the breeding populations of known species. When it happens in the tropics, it threatens to wipe out species with small ranges, perhaps even ones that have yet to be discovered.

Expanding cropland into Amazonian rainforest or the Cerrado is not just a threat to biodiversity; it is also a major cause of climate change. Clearing a forest releases the carbon that had been stored in the trees. Subsequent land use absorbs airborne carbon dioxide at a far lower rate than natural habitats. Reducing the impact of climate change and protecting biodiversity go hand. Existing arable land ought to be used for food rather than fuel, and existing natural habitats should be left alone as carbon sinks.

Biofuel Airlines

The news on Sunday was full of references to Virgin Atlantic's first biofuel-powered flight from Heathrow to Amsterdam. The fuel combined 20% biofuel, which powered one engine, and 80% traditional jet fuel, which powered the Boeing 747's other three engines. The biofuel for this flight was a mixture of coconut palm and Brazilian babassu nut oil.

Richard Branson, the flamboyant president of Virgin Atlantic, presents the flight as the first step towards environmentally friendly air travel. As he says in the article linked above: "This pioneering flight will enable those of us who are serious about reducing our carbon emissions to go on developing the fuels of the future." However, there is reason to be skeptical of this sort of flight as a solution to the emissions problems associated with air travel.

First, there are problems inherent to biofuel. For some time now there has been evidence that the most common types of biofuel currently in use - ethanol and biodiesel - are net energy losers. Presumably the production process could be made more efficient in the future, but both have a long way to go before they can become sustainable from an energy perspective.

Even without the energy loss, it would take a massive amount of agricultural land to produce sufficient biofuel to replace current petroleum use. To get that land, one could either convert current agricultural land to biofuel production rather than food production, or convert other types of land into agricultural land. Taking land away from food production would result in higher prices for corn and other grains, and higher prices for food overall. Since we all need to eat, and since conversion of suburban subdivisions into cornfields is unlikely, the most likely source of production would be "unused" land - basically the forests, fields, and marshes that have not yet been paved over.

The biggest areas of agricultural expansion have been in the tropics, especially southeast Asia, Kenya, and Brazil. Tropical rainforest is being cleared for biofuel production or for other economic purposes displaced by biofuel production. A recent study concluded that conversion of native ecosystems into cropland causes more greenhouse gas emissions than are saved by the use of biofuel over petroleum. Clearing tropical rainforests exacerbates the problem, since rainforests act as a global carbon sink. Deforestation in the tropics also brings terrible results for biodiversity. The Virgin Atlantic flight used fuels derived from tropical plants, including over 150,000 coconuts.

All of these problems have led me to believe that biofuels are not sustainable as energy sources. I would be glad to change my mind if evidence were presented to the contrary, but I am afraid that the current options are not a solution to climate change.

Second, air travel would be wasteful even if biofuel could be made environmentally friendly. Powered flight requires significantly greater amounts of fuel than automobile or rail travel, and emits significantly greater amounts of pollution. While we may eventually have more efficient aircraft, we should not expect significant improvement compared to other transportation modes.

This is not to say that no one should fly, or that research into alternative fuels should cease. Research should certainly continue into any promising alternatives. As for air travel, in some cases it is the easiest way to get from one location to another, and for now it is hard to see a suitable alternative.

In the long term, the best way to reduce the environmental impact of air travel is the development of high speed rail networks for short and medium distance trips, so that airlines are reserved for long-range travel. Of course, corporations like Virgin Atlantic would not favor diverting their customers to other transportation modes, but serious reformers should not be swayed by such parochial interests.