How Green Are Biofuels?. Scharlemann, J. P. W. & Laurance, W. F. Science, 319(5859):43–44, January, 2008. doi abstract bibtex Many biofuels are associated with lower greenhouse-gas emissions but have greater aggregate environmental costs than gasoline. [Excerpt] Global warming and escalating petroleum costs are creating an urgent need to find ecologically friendly fuels. Biofuels – such as ethanol from corn (maize) and sugarcane – have been increasingly heralded as a possible savior. But others have argued that biofuels will consume vast swaths of farmland and native habitats, drive up food prices, and result in little reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions . An innovative study by Zah et al., commissioned by the Swiss government, could help to resolve this debate by providing a detailed assessment of the environmental costs and benefits of different transport biofuels. [] [...] The findings of Zah et al. are striking. Most (21 out of 26) biofuels reduce greenhouse- gas emissions by more than 30\,% relative to gasoline. But nearly half (12 out of 26) of the biofuels – including the economically most important ones, namely U.S. corn ethanol, Brazilian sugarcane ethanol and soy diesel, and Malaysian palm-oil diesel – have greater aggregate environmental costs than do fossil fuels [...]. Biofuels that fare best are those produced from residual products, such as biowaste or recycled cooking oil, as well as ethanol from grass or wood. The findings highlight the enormous differences in costs and benefits among different biofuels. [] Despite its apparent advantages, the scheme of Zah et al. is not perfect. Collapsing disparate environmental costs into a single number is risky, although it is reassuring that the two different methods used yielded similar results. A bigger worry is that their analyses fail to capture the potentially important indirect effects of different biofuels. [...] [] Zah et al. excluded from their analysis so-called second-generation biofuels, such as those made from the breakdown of plant cellulose or lignin, because of insufficient data. [...] Some second-generation biofuels appear particularly promising in terms of their benefits and costs for biofuel production. [] Not all biofuels are beneficial when their full environmental impacts are assessed; some of the most important, such as those produced from corn, sugarcane, and soy, perform poorly in many contexts. There is a clear need to consider more than just energy and greenhouse-gas emissions when evaluating different biofuels and to pursue new biofuel crops and technologies. Governments should be far more selective about which biofuel crops they support through subsidies and tax benefits. For example, multibillion-dollar subsidies for U.S. corn production appear to be a perverse incentive from a rational cost-benefit perspective.
@article{scharlemannHowGreenAre2008,
title = {How Green Are Biofuels?},
author = {Scharlemann, J. P. W. and Laurance, W. F.},
year = {2008},
month = jan,
volume = {319},
pages = {43--44},
issn = {0036-8075},
doi = {10.1126/science.1153103},
abstract = {Many biofuels are associated with lower greenhouse-gas emissions but have greater aggregate environmental costs than gasoline.
[Excerpt] Global warming and escalating petroleum costs are creating an urgent need to find ecologically friendly fuels. Biofuels -- such as ethanol from corn (maize) and sugarcane -- have been increasingly heralded as a possible savior. But others have argued that biofuels will consume vast swaths of farmland and native habitats, drive up food prices, and result in little reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions . An innovative study by Zah et al., commissioned by the Swiss government, could help to resolve this debate by providing a detailed assessment of the environmental costs and benefits of different transport biofuels.
[] [...]
The findings of Zah et al. are striking. Most (21 out of 26) biofuels reduce greenhouse- gas emissions by more than 30\,\% relative to gasoline. But nearly half (12 out of 26) of the biofuels -- including the economically most important ones, namely U.S. corn ethanol, Brazilian sugarcane ethanol and soy diesel, and Malaysian palm-oil diesel -- have greater aggregate environmental costs than do fossil fuels [...]. Biofuels that fare best are those produced from residual products, such as biowaste or recycled cooking oil, as well as ethanol from grass or wood. The findings highlight the enormous differences in costs and benefits among different biofuels.
[] Despite its apparent advantages, the scheme of Zah et al. is not perfect. Collapsing disparate environmental costs into a single number is risky, although it is reassuring that the two different methods used yielded similar results. A bigger worry is that their analyses fail to capture the potentially important indirect effects of different biofuels. [...]
[] Zah et al. excluded from their analysis so-called second-generation biofuels, such as those made from the breakdown of plant cellulose or lignin, because of insufficient data. [...] Some second-generation biofuels appear particularly promising in terms of their benefits and costs for biofuel production.
[] Not all biofuels are beneficial when their full environmental impacts are assessed; some of the most important, such as those produced from corn, sugarcane, and soy, perform poorly in many contexts. There is a clear need to consider more than just energy and greenhouse-gas emissions when evaluating different biofuels and to pursue new biofuel crops and technologies. Governments should be far more selective about which biofuel crops they support through subsidies and tax benefits. For example, multibillion-dollar subsidies for U.S. corn production appear to be a perverse incentive from a rational cost-benefit perspective.},
journal = {Science},
keywords = {*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM,~INRMM-MiD:c-2194013,~to-add-doi-URL,anthropogenic-changes,array-of-factors,biodiversity,bioeconomy,bioenergy,complexity,ecosystem,ecosystem-change,ecosystem-services,multi-objective-planning,multiplicity,protective-forests,soil-resources,sustainability,trade-offs,tropical-forests,water-resources},
lccn = {INRMM-MiD:c-2194013},
number = {5859}
}
Downloads: 0
{"_id":"TRtsrTCXNXMcr73o3","bibbaseid":"scharlemann-laurance-howgreenarebiofuels-2008","downloads":0,"creationDate":"2016-06-22T10:19:28.689Z","title":"How Green Are Biofuels?","author_short":["Scharlemann, J. P. W.","Laurance, W. F."],"year":2008,"bibtype":"article","biburl":"https://sharefast.me/php/download.php?id=zOUKvA&token=29","bibdata":{"bibtype":"article","type":"article","title":"How Green Are Biofuels?","author":[{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Scharlemann"],"firstnames":["J.","P.","W."],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Laurance"],"firstnames":["W.","F."],"suffixes":[]}],"year":"2008","month":"January","volume":"319","pages":"43–44","issn":"0036-8075","doi":"10.1126/science.1153103","abstract":"Many biofuels are associated with lower greenhouse-gas emissions but have greater aggregate environmental costs than gasoline. [Excerpt] Global warming and escalating petroleum costs are creating an urgent need to find ecologically friendly fuels. Biofuels – such as ethanol from corn (maize) and sugarcane – have been increasingly heralded as a possible savior. But others have argued that biofuels will consume vast swaths of farmland and native habitats, drive up food prices, and result in little reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions . An innovative study by Zah et al., commissioned by the Swiss government, could help to resolve this debate by providing a detailed assessment of the environmental costs and benefits of different transport biofuels. [] [...] The findings of Zah et al. are striking. Most (21 out of 26) biofuels reduce greenhouse- gas emissions by more than 30\\,% relative to gasoline. But nearly half (12 out of 26) of the biofuels – including the economically most important ones, namely U.S. corn ethanol, Brazilian sugarcane ethanol and soy diesel, and Malaysian palm-oil diesel – have greater aggregate environmental costs than do fossil fuels [...]. Biofuels that fare best are those produced from residual products, such as biowaste or recycled cooking oil, as well as ethanol from grass or wood. The findings highlight the enormous differences in costs and benefits among different biofuels. [] Despite its apparent advantages, the scheme of Zah et al. is not perfect. Collapsing disparate environmental costs into a single number is risky, although it is reassuring that the two different methods used yielded similar results. A bigger worry is that their analyses fail to capture the potentially important indirect effects of different biofuels. [...] [] Zah et al. excluded from their analysis so-called second-generation biofuels, such as those made from the breakdown of plant cellulose or lignin, because of insufficient data. [...] Some second-generation biofuels appear particularly promising in terms of their benefits and costs for biofuel production. [] Not all biofuels are beneficial when their full environmental impacts are assessed; some of the most important, such as those produced from corn, sugarcane, and soy, perform poorly in many contexts. There is a clear need to consider more than just energy and greenhouse-gas emissions when evaluating different biofuels and to pursue new biofuel crops and technologies. Governments should be far more selective about which biofuel crops they support through subsidies and tax benefits. For example, multibillion-dollar subsidies for U.S. corn production appear to be a perverse incentive from a rational cost-benefit perspective.","journal":"Science","keywords":"*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM,~INRMM-MiD:c-2194013,~to-add-doi-URL,anthropogenic-changes,array-of-factors,biodiversity,bioeconomy,bioenergy,complexity,ecosystem,ecosystem-change,ecosystem-services,multi-objective-planning,multiplicity,protective-forests,soil-resources,sustainability,trade-offs,tropical-forests,water-resources","lccn":"INRMM-MiD:c-2194013","number":"5859","bibtex":"@article{scharlemannHowGreenAre2008,\n title = {How Green Are Biofuels?},\n author = {Scharlemann, J. P. W. and Laurance, W. F.},\n year = {2008},\n month = jan,\n volume = {319},\n pages = {43--44},\n issn = {0036-8075},\n doi = {10.1126/science.1153103},\n abstract = {Many biofuels are associated with lower greenhouse-gas emissions but have greater aggregate environmental costs than gasoline. \n\n[Excerpt] Global warming and escalating petroleum costs are creating an urgent need to find ecologically friendly fuels. Biofuels -- such as ethanol from corn (maize) and sugarcane -- have been increasingly heralded as a possible savior. But others have argued that biofuels will consume vast swaths of farmland and native habitats, drive up food prices, and result in little reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions . An innovative study by Zah et al., commissioned by the Swiss government, could help to resolve this debate by providing a detailed assessment of the environmental costs and benefits of different transport biofuels.\n\n[] [...]\n\nThe findings of Zah et al. are striking. Most (21 out of 26) biofuels reduce greenhouse- gas emissions by more than 30\\,\\% relative to gasoline. But nearly half (12 out of 26) of the biofuels -- including the economically most important ones, namely U.S. corn ethanol, Brazilian sugarcane ethanol and soy diesel, and Malaysian palm-oil diesel -- have greater aggregate environmental costs than do fossil fuels [...]. Biofuels that fare best are those produced from residual products, such as biowaste or recycled cooking oil, as well as ethanol from grass or wood. The findings highlight the enormous differences in costs and benefits among different biofuels.\n\n[] Despite its apparent advantages, the scheme of Zah et al. is not perfect. Collapsing disparate environmental costs into a single number is risky, although it is reassuring that the two different methods used yielded similar results. A bigger worry is that their analyses fail to capture the potentially important indirect effects of different biofuels. [...]\n\n[] Zah et al. excluded from their analysis so-called second-generation biofuels, such as those made from the breakdown of plant cellulose or lignin, because of insufficient data. [...] Some second-generation biofuels appear particularly promising in terms of their benefits and costs for biofuel production.\n\n[] Not all biofuels are beneficial when their full environmental impacts are assessed; some of the most important, such as those produced from corn, sugarcane, and soy, perform poorly in many contexts. There is a clear need to consider more than just energy and greenhouse-gas emissions when evaluating different biofuels and to pursue new biofuel crops and technologies. Governments should be far more selective about which biofuel crops they support through subsidies and tax benefits. For example, multibillion-dollar subsidies for U.S. corn production appear to be a perverse incentive from a rational cost-benefit perspective.},\n journal = {Science},\n keywords = {*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM,~INRMM-MiD:c-2194013,~to-add-doi-URL,anthropogenic-changes,array-of-factors,biodiversity,bioeconomy,bioenergy,complexity,ecosystem,ecosystem-change,ecosystem-services,multi-objective-planning,multiplicity,protective-forests,soil-resources,sustainability,trade-offs,tropical-forests,water-resources},\n lccn = {INRMM-MiD:c-2194013},\n number = {5859}\n}\n\n","author_short":["Scharlemann, J. P. W.","Laurance, W. F."],"key":"scharlemannHowGreenAre2008","id":"scharlemannHowGreenAre2008","bibbaseid":"scharlemann-laurance-howgreenarebiofuels-2008","role":"author","urls":{},"keyword":["*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM","~INRMM-MiD:c-2194013","~to-add-doi-URL","anthropogenic-changes","array-of-factors","biodiversity","bioeconomy","bioenergy","complexity","ecosystem","ecosystem-change","ecosystem-services","multi-objective-planning","multiplicity","protective-forests","soil-resources","sustainability","trade-offs","tropical-forests","water-resources"],"downloads":0},"search_terms":["green","biofuels","scharlemann","laurance"],"keywords":["anthropogenic-changes","array-of-factors","biodiversity","bioeconomy","bioenergy","complexity","ecosystem","ecosystem-change","ecosystem-services","multi-objective-planning","multiplicity","protective-forests","soil-resources","sustainability","trade-offs","tropical-forests","water-resources","*imported-from-citeulike-inrmm","~inrmm-mid:c-2194013","~to-add-doi-url"],"authorIDs":[],"dataSources":["5S2zj2hKW8TWTkuMq"]}