Sound science debunks attack on biofuels

When the U.S. began phasing out the use of certain toxic fuel additives more than two decades ago, plant-based bioethanol became the natural alternative. It offers superior octane, cleaner combustion, and even a lower price point than alternatives like methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE). Best of all, bioethanol is a homegrown fuel, made and used here in the U.S., supporting economic opportunity across rural America.

At the time, critics argued that harvesting field corn and grains for energy would lead to an explosion of new cropland. As it turned out, the naysayers were flat wrong. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) data clearly shows that U.S. cropland acreage has fallen – not risen – over the last century, and that trend has continued under the Renewable Fuel Standard. But that hasn’t stopped opponents from periodically resurrecting the same old false claims – most recently in widely reported study funded by longtime biofuel critics – to hold back progress on climate change efforts.

In reality, the same team of researchers, led by Tyler Lark, has been circulating similar reports on a regular basis since 2015. As one might expect, their work contains a host of wildly overstated and speculative claims that have been debunked by researchers at our national labs, the University of Illinois at Chicago, Ramboll, and other leading institutions.

According to a scathing review by the nation’s top modelers, including those at the Department of Energy’s Argonne National Lab, Lark’s latest anti-biofuel study is once again guilty of making “questionable assumptions,” "double counting” emissions, and using "outdated and inaccurate projections” in order to discredit the vast contributions of low-carbon biofuels to our fight against climate change.

For example, the authors not only overestimate land usage, they assume that agriculture generates 10 times more emissions than the latest peer-reviewed report from Environmental Health & Engineering (EH&E), authored by scientists from Harvard, Tufts, and MIT.

Unfortunately, the entire anti-biofuel study is just more of the same anti-biofuel politics disguised as science. That’s not just insulting to America’s biofuel workers, farmers, and clean energy advocates – it’s a dangerous attack on an invaluable tool available today to deliver immediate carbon reductions, with today’s infrastructure and today’s vehicles.

Simply put, when it comes to the climate benefits of homegrown bioethanol, there is an overwhelming scientific consensus backed by researchers at Argonne, Environmental Protection Agency, USDA, California Air Resources Board (CARB), and a host of other leaders in the field of emissions lifecycle modeling. In fact, the latest science has bioethanol reaching a nearly 50 percent carbon advantage over gasoline, and that number continues to improve with industry innovation.

U.S. bioethanol producers are leading the charge on carbon capture, utilization, and storage capabilities. We’re also offering a growing range of nutritious livestock feeds (co-products of bioethanol production), decreasing the amount of land needed to supply ranchers, poultry farms, and even aquaculture.

Those advantages don’t stop with the climate. High-octane, plant-based bioethanol offers the most affordable way to immediately reduce tailpipe emissions of carbon monoxide, particulate matter, and toxic chemicals – resulting in cleaner air and a healthier environment. Bioethanol can also play an important role in emissions-heavy industries that are more difficult to decarbonize, including aviation. And despite misinformation circulated in the wake of President Biden’s embrace of higher ethanol blends, namely E15, those fuels are proven to have lower evaporative emissions than traditional blends, which means less summer smog – not more.

These advantages are why President Biden has said that “you simply can’t get to net zero by 2050 without biofuels.” And why EPA Administrator Michael Regan vowed to grow the role of biofuels as “a critical strategy to secure a clean, zero-carbon energy future.”

To keep that vision strong, it’s vital that rural leaders are armed with the facts and continue to set the record straight. This is not the first time critics have attacked renewable fuels with pseudo-science, and it won’t be the last.

Emily Skor is the CEO of Growth Energy, the nation’s largest association representing biofuel producers and supporters.