Are biofuels a good idea? Only if you’re a farmer or shipping company

It’s obvious, isn’t it. Plants turn sunlight into food – into stored energy – so if we turn that food into fuel, we should get sustainable biofuels with no carbon emissions, right? False, completely false. The growth of biofuels actually leads to increased emissions and also harms people and wildlife. Yet instead of stopping, we are doubling our efforts and production is increasing rapidly. What is happening?

If you think biofuels are a good idea, you’ve fallen for the blatant greenwashing surrounding them. There is a mountain of evidence showing that biofuels do more harm than good overall. The latest addition is a report from campaign group Transport & Environment (T&E), concluding that switching to biofuels increased carbon dioxide emissions by 16 percent on average, compared to sticking with fossil fuels.

For what? Because growing agricultural produce is one of the largest sources of greenhouse gases. To be fair, 16 percent is the global average, according to the T&E report. For some regions, such as Europe, it concludes that biofuels reduce emissions overall – but only to a limited extent. And for a minimal at best reduction in emissions, we pay the price for all the other negative effects of biofuels.

For starters, there are those big increases in food bills that we’ve all seen. The transformation of wheat and corn into bioethanol and vegetable oils into biodiesel increases demand and therefore prices. It’s difficult to put a number on this phenomenon, but every expert I’ve spoken with over the years believes it’s a significant factor contributing to food price inflation.

Additionally, biofuel crops often require irrigation, meaning they increase water scarcity in many regions. According to the T&E report, 3,000 liters of water are needed to produce enough biofuel for a car to travel just 100 kilometers (62 miles). For comparison, it only takes 20 liters to cover such a distance in a solar-powered electric car.

Then there is the need for land. Agricultural land continues to expand around the world to feed a growing population that consumes more meat. Increasing biofuel production requires even more land, which means, for example, cutting down more rainforests in Indonesia to make way for more palm oil plantations. Biofuels therefore contribute to the loss of wildlife and biodiversity, the other major global crisis.

What is particularly perverse about this situation is the inefficiency of biofuel production. If solar panels were installed on land, the same amount of energy could be produced on 3% of the area, the T&E report said. In other words, solar energy can significantly reduce emissions with much less environmental impact. It turns out we can do a better job than nature when it comes to catching the sun.

With biofuels, on the other hand, the impacts include the same pollution problems as conventional agriculture, from pesticides harmful to people and wildlife to nitrogen and phosphorus runoff destroying rivers, lakes and seas. Using biofuel sources that are not food-based, such as waste, can reduce some of these problems. Yet by 2030, more than 90 percent of biofuel production will still rely on food crops, according to the T&E report.

So why are countries around the world subsidizing the production of more and more biofuels? On the one hand, they bring in a lot of money and influential lobby groups are lobbying for more government subsidies and support. On the other hand, there are countries and organizations that want to be able to check boxes that they are reducing their emissions as required and don’t want to know any inconvenient truths.

In the United States, for example, politicians on both sides have tried to stay in the good graces of Corn Belt farmers who grow corn for bioethanol. Earlier this year, biofuel tax breaks introduced in 2022 in the United States were further expanded.

Then there are the shipping and aviation sectors, which see biofuels as a way to continue business as usual, while claiming to reduce their emissions. The aviation industry’s criteria for “sustainable aviation fuels” at least take into account emissions from increased land use, thereby limiting the use of the highest-emitting biofuels. The shipping industry has not yet decided whether to take land use into account, so its actions could be even more damaging. Relying on maritime transport alone could double biofuel consumption by the 2030s, warns the T&E report. This would be disastrous for all the reasons mentioned above.

It has been clear for many years that producing biofuels to reduce emissions has the opposite effect. To do even more is madness.