Skip to main content

Biofuels have been a commercial and strategic success, but have failed to address sustainability concerns regarding land usage and food scarcity

Summary​

First generation biofuels, primarily derived from edible crops like corn and soybeans, were initially promoted as sustainable energy solutions but have faced significant criticism. The rapid expansion of biofuel production in the United States contributed to global food price increases and raised concerns about competition between food and fuel resources. While some studies show emissions reductions compared to fossil fuels, the inclusion of land use change in lifecycle analyses often reveals minimal or negative environmental benefits.

Biofuels were once touted as a major solution to the world's energy needs that would revolutionize the way that humans produce and consume energy. Under the false pretenses that biofuels were sustainable because they were technically 'grown', industrial capacity and billions of dollars were invested to usher in this newest energy transition. However, two decades later, the biofuel industry is seen at best as an expensive but operational success, and at worst as a complete failure that has caused more damage to the environment than it has helped.

First generation biofuels​

When the term biofuels is used in the United States, it is generally used to refer to the 1st generation of biofuels. First generation biofuels generally come in the form of bioethanol, which utilizes edible sugar-based crops such as sugar beets and sugarcane, or starch-based crops such as corn, whilst biodiesel utilizes edible oil-based crops such as soybeans, rapeseed, palm oil and sunflower seeds 1. With sugar and starch based crops, ideally the sugars and starches are easily accessible with minimal preparation and preprocessing so they can be readily fermented into alcohols such as ethanol. Oil based crops generally undergo a process called transesterification that converts the oil into a more usable form fuel that we know as biodiesel. In the United States, biofuels made from corn are the most common, where the extracted starch undergoes a pretreatment that breaks down the long polymer glucose structure into shorter chains that can be fermented and then distilled into ethanol 1.

First generation biofuels in the United States​

When looking at the history of the United States' biofuel industry, it is evident that the initial push was not intended as a 'sustainable' or 'renewable' solution, but rather a way for the United States to shore up its energy security by reducing its dependence on imported oil. In 2008 alone, the United States government provided over $11 billion in subsidies to make the biofuel industry more affordable 1. Between 2004 and 2009, production of corn derived bioethanol more than tripled from 3.17 billion gallons (13 billion liters) up to 10.8 billion gallons (41 billion liters) where it accounted for more than 50% of global bioethanol production 2. This rapid upscaling of production has been identified as one of the contributing factors to the 2007 – 2008 global food price crisis and brought to the public's attention the issues of 'food vs fuel' 2 3.

Food vs Fuel​

The main argument against the use of biofuels, especially 1st generation biofuels, is the food vs fuel debate. As many of the edible feedstocks used in 1st generation biofuels like corn and soybeans are a globally traded commodity, the prices are susceptible to fluctuation in demand and supply. Therefore when there is a rapid demand shock like the one that occurred with the rise of biofuels in the early 2000s, the price of these commodities will rise. The global food market is especially susceptible to price changes of US corn, as the US accounts for approximately one third of global production and two thirds of global exports 2. Between 2004 and 2008, the global price for a metric ton of corn rose from $98.51 to $223.36, representing a rise of 126.7% after which it has not fallen below $154.60 per ton 4. The prices of the actual commodities used for feedstock are not the only ones to experience price increases. It is estimated that US prices of a wide range of food items such as beef, eggs and milk rose by between 10% and 30% as a result of the increased demand for corn for bioethanol due to competition for land, water and other resources 5.

GHG emissions benefits​

The emissions reduction benefits that stem from the first generation of biofuels is highly disputed due to the varying methodologies, assumptions and omissions in the accounting process. The largest variation in the accounting process is related to the inclusion of land use change. Due to the large investments and sufficient time provided to 1st generation biofuel to reach maturity, the industry has achieved large scale emissions reductions when compared to regular petroleum gasoline. Life cycle analysis (LCA) of corn derived bioethanol has shown in some cases a 44% reduction in carbon emissions when land usage change is not included. However, this changes to a 27% increase of emissions compared to standard petroleum when accounting for land use change 1. Other studies into the effects of land usage change have found that lifetime greenhouse gas emissions of corn ethanol can double when land use change is included 1. Yet there is still a large degree of disagreement throughout the literature, with a number of studies on corn derived bioethanol with the inclusion of land use change showing an average overall emissions reduction compared to fossil fuels 6 7. Irrespective of the disparities in the research, the fact that there exists a significant portion of the body of research into 1st generation biofuels that highlights net negative benefits to the environment is sufficient to conclude that the emissions reductions of the industry are minimal and verge on being insignificant.

Sources​

Footnotes​

  1. Mat Aron, N. S., Khoo, K. S., Chew, K. W., Show, P. L., Chen, W.-H., & Nguyen, T. H. P. (2020). Sustainability of the four generations of biofuels – A review. International Journal of Energy Research, 44(13), 9266–9282. https://doi.org/10.1002/er.5557 ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  2. Timilsina, G. R., & Shrestha, A. (2011). How much hope should we have for biofuels? Energy, 36(4), 2055–2069. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2010.08.023 ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  3. Breetz, H. L. (2020). Do big goals lead to bad policy? How policy feedback explains the failure and success of cellulosic biofuel in the United States. Energy Research & Social Science, 69, 101755. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101755 ↩

  4. International Monetary Fund. (2025). Global price of corn [PMAIZMTUSDA]. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PMAIZMTUSDA ↩

  5. Pimentel, D., Marklein, A., Toth, M. A., Karpoff, M. N., Paul, G. S., McCormack, R., Kyriazis, J., & Krueger, T. (2009). Food versus biofuels: Environmental and economic costs. Human Ecology, 37(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-009-9215-8 ↩

  6. Jeswani, H. K., Chilvers, A., & Azapagic, A. (2020). Environmental sustainability of biofuels: A review. Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 476(2243). https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.2020.0481 ↩

  7. Wang, M., Han, J., Dunn, J. B., Cai, H., & Elgowainy, A. (2012). Well-to-wheels energy use and greenhouse gas emissions of ethanol from corn, sugarcane and cellulosic biomass for US use. Environmental Research Letters, 7(4), 045905. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/7/4/045905 ↩