Advertisement
No access
Policy Forum
Environmental Economics

Do biofuel policies seek to cut emissions by cutting food?

Major models should make trade-offs more transparent
Science
27 Mar 2015
Vol 347, Issue 6229
pp. 1420-1422

Abstract

Debates about biofuels tend to focus separately on estimates of adverse effects on food security, poverty, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions driven by land-use change (LUC) (14). These estimates often rely on global agriculture and land-use models. Because models differ substantially in their estimates of each of these adverse effects (2, 3, 5), some argue that each individual effect is too uncertain to influence policy (6, 7). Yet these arguments fail to recognize the trade-offs; much of the uncertainty is only about which adverse effects predominate, not whether adverse effects occur at all. Our analysis of the three major models used to set government policies in the United States and Europe suggests that ethanol policies in effect are relying on decreases in food consumption to generate GHG savings (1).

Get full access to this article

View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.

Supplementary Material

File (1261221_searchinger_tablesdatafiles.xlsx)
File (searchinger-sm.pdf)

References and Notes

1
See supplementary materials for details.
2
High Level Panel on Food Security, Biofuels and food security (Food and Agricultural Organization, Rome, 2013).
3
National Research Council, Renewable Fuel Standard: Potential Economic and Environmental Effects of U.S. Biofuel Policy (National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2011).
4
U.K. Renewable Fuels Agency, The Gallagher Review of the Indirect Effects of Biofuels Production (Renewable Fuels Agency, London, 2008).
5
Decara S. A., et al., Land-Use Change and Environmental Consequences of Biofuels: A Quantitative Review of the Literature (Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, Paris, 2012).
6
Finkbeiner M., Biomass Bioenergy 62, 218 (2014).
7
Zilberman D., Hochman G., Rajagopal D., AgBiol. Forum 13, 11 (2010).
8
High Level Panel on Food Security, Price volatility and food security (Food and Agricultural Organization, Rome, 2011)
9
Dorward A., Food Security 4, 633 (2012).
10
Filipski M., Covarrubia K., in Agricultural Policies for Poverty Reduction, Brooks J., et al., Eds. (OECD, Paris, 2010).
11
CARB, Proposed regulation to implement the low carbon fuel standard, Volume I, Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons (California Air Resources Board, Sacramento, CA 2009).
12
Edwards R., Mulligan D., Marelli L., Indirect land use change from increased biofuel demand: Comparison of models and results for marginal biofuels production from different feedstocks (European Commission Joint Research Centre, Ispra, Italy 2010).
13
U.S. EPA, Renewable Fuel Standard Program (RFS2) Regulatory Impact Analysis, (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, 2010).
14
Laborde D., Assessing the Land Use Change Consequences of European Biofuel Policies (International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC, 2011)
15
Searchinger T. D., et al., Science 326, 527 (2009).
16
Searchinger T. D., Environ. Res. Lttrs. 5, 024007 (2010).
17
Berry S., Biofuel Policy and Empirical Inputs to GTAP Models, Report to the California Air Resources Board (CARB, Sacramento 2011).
18
Plevin R., Delucchi M., Creutzig F., J. Ind. Ecol. 18, 73 (2014).
19
Hochman G., Rajagopal D., Timilsina G., Zilberman D., Biomass Bioenergy 68, 106 (2014).
20
Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute, Elasticity Database (accessed August 12, 2014); www.fapri.iastate.edu/tools/elasticity.aspx
21
Roberts M., Schlenker W., Am. Econ. Rev. 103, 2265 (2013).

(0)eLetters

eLetters is a forum for ongoing peer review. eLetters are not edited, proofread, or indexed, but they are screened. eLetters should provide substantive and scholarly commentary on the article. Embedded figures cannot be submitted, and we discourage the use of figures within eLetters in general. If a figure is essential, please include a link to the figure within the text of the eLetter. Please read our Terms of Service before submitting an eLetter.

Log In to Submit a Response

No eLetters have been published for this article yet.

Information & Authors

Information

Published In

Science
Volume 347 | Issue 6229
27 March 2015

Submission history

Published in print: 27 March 2015

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the David and Lucile Packard Foundation for financial support.

Authors

Affiliations

T. Searchinger* [email protected]
Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544, USA.
R. Edwards* [email protected]
Joint Research Centre, European Commission, Ispra 21027, Italy.
D. Mulligan
Joint Research Centre, European Commission, Ispra 21027, Italy.
R. Heimlich
Agricultural Conservation Economics, Laurel, MD 20723, USA.
R. Plevin
Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California at Davis, Davis, CA 95616, USA.

Notes

Metrics & Citations

Metrics

Article Usage

Altmetrics

Citations

Cite as

Export citation

Select the format you want to export the citation of this publication.

Cited by

  1. Climate change and the urgency to transform food systems, Science, 376, 6600, (1416-1421), (2022)./doi/10.1126/science.abo2364
    Abstract
Loading...

View Options

Check Access

Log in to view the full text

AAAS ID LOGIN

AAAS login provides access to Science for AAAS Members, and access to other journals in the Science family to users who have purchased individual subscriptions.

Log in via OpenAthens.
Log in via Shibboleth.

More options

Purchase digital access to this article

Download and print this article for your personal scholarly, research, and educational use.

Purchase this issue in print

Buy a single issue of Science for just $15 USD.

View options

PDF format

Download this article as a PDF file

Download PDF

Full Text

FULL TEXT

Media

Figures

Multimedia

Tables

Share

Share

Share article link

Share on social media