Ethanol Blog

ISU Finds no Indirect Land-Use Change from Biofuels

Todd Neeley
By  Todd Neeley , DTN Staff Reporter
Connect with Todd:

A new study found farmers around the world have responded to higher crop prices during the past decade mainly by using existing land more efficiently and not by converting forest and grassland to cropland. States like California, Oregon and Washington have set or are considering low-carbon fuel standards that penalize Midwest ethanol producers with higher carbon penalties. This has prevented that ethanol from largely entering the California market, for example.

The state of California's LCFS levies a carbon penalty on Midwest ethanol for alleged indirect land use change -- the theory that expanded demand for corn to support ethanol production in the U.S. is causing farmers in other countries to make land-use decisions based on that biofuels demand.

The study was conducted by Professor Bruce Babcock and Zabid Iqbal at the Center for Agricultural and Rural Development, examined actual observed global land use changes between 2004 to 2012, and compared data to predictions from the economic models used in California and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, to develop ILUC penalty factors for regulated biofuels.

"The primary land use change response of the world's farmers in the last 10 years has been to use available land resources more efficiently rather than to expand the amount of land brought into production," they stated in the Iowa State University study. "This finding is not new ... But this finding has not been recognized by regulators who calculate indirect land use."

Renewable Fuels Association President and Chief Executive Officer Bob Dinneen said in a statement that state and federal agencies need to take the real-world data seriously in setting LCFS policies. "This study should serve as a badly needed reality check for CARB (California Air Resources Board), EPA, and regulators in Oregon and Washington who are implementing low carbon fuels policies. There is simply no defensible science or empirical evidence to support the continued penalization of ethanol and other biofuels for purported ILUC (indirect fuel use change) emissions. Favoring the results of flawed and arcane computer models over real-world observations is just bad public policy. It is time to set the models aside and take a hard look at what has actually been happening with land use in the real world."

Dinneen said the real-world data proves that "doomsday predictions" were inaccurate.

P[L1] D[0x0] M[300x250] OOP[F] ADUNIT[] T[]

The ISU study takes a close look at land use practices include growing multiple crops on the same land in a single year (double- or triple-cropping), increasing the amount of planted cropland that is harvested, and reducing fallow or idle cropland and temporary pasture.

The RFA said in a news release Monday that "economic models used by CARB and EPA have been unable to account for these efficiencies and their impacts on land use change emissions. Importantly, higher crop yields were not included in the ISU study's methodology, meaning the results likely understate the gains in land use efficiency witnessed over the past decade.

"Ignoring the more efficient use of existing cropland means both the CARB and EPA models overstate conversion of non-agricultural lands." The report said "the pattern of recent land use changes suggests that existing estimates of greenhouse gas emissions caused by land conversions due to biofuel production are too high because they are based on models that do not allow for increases in non-yield intensification of land use. Intensification of land use does not involve clearing forests or plowing up native grasslands that lead to large losses of carbon stocks."

Other findings from the ISU study include:

-- A number of key crop-producing countries and regions including the European Union, Canada, United States, Russia, China, India, and Ukraine had "negligible or negative" cropland expansion during the past decade, and thus "should be presumed to not have converted pasture or forest to crops in response to biofuel-induced higher prices."

-- The only net contributor to U.S. cropland increases from 2007 to 2010 was a reduction in Conservation Reserve Program land. The study found no net increase in cropland from conversion of forests, urban land, or from conversion of pasture.

-- Nearly half of the emissions charged to corn ethanol by CARB's model result from predicted conversion of U.S. forestland, but real-world data did not reveal such conversions ever occurred.

The ISU study was funded in part with a grant from the Renewable Fuels Foundation.

Read the ISU analysis here, http://tinyurl.com/…

Todd Neeley can be reached at todd.neeley@dtn.com

Follow me on Twitter @toddneeleyDTN

(ES)

P[] D[728x170] M[320x75] OOP[F] ADUNIT[] T[]
P[L2] D[728x90] M[320x50] OOP[F] ADUNIT[] T[]

Comments

To comment, please Log In or Join our Community .