Biofuels and sustainability: A view from Brazil

Are biofuels sustainable? It seems the current debate on how to reduce dependence on oil in the transport sector is narrowly limited to this question. The issue is so crucial that the European Union is working on sustainability criteria for biofuels that will be included in two different directives, while EU member states such as Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom have already drafted their own set of sustainability requirements that biofuels must meet to be sold in their respective markets. The debate is propelled by countless articles published around the globe that reshape, at their convenience, the conclusions of more or less serious studies, most of them critical of the environmental performance of biofuels.

The public debate on biofuels deserves a more balanced and objective approach. The main rationale behind the utilization of biofuels is their capacity to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) as a way to reduce global warming. But all biofuels do not have the same potential to reduce emissions, so they cannot be treated as a homogeneous product with similar characteristics. It has been largely demonstrated that sugarcane ethanol can reduce GHG emissions by up to 90%, a reduction unmatched by any other biofuel, including cellulosic ethanol currently produced from straw. Its energy balance is also remarkable, since 9.3 units of renewable energy are produced for each unit of fossil fuels used in the production of sugarcane ethanol.

More recently, there’s been a focus on the environmental impact of biofuels feedstock production because of land use change. It would obviously make no sense to jeopardize the existence of sensitive biomas by encouraging the growing of palm trees in peat lands or the cultivation of sugarcane in the Amazon rainforest for biofuel production. But should we extend the concept of biodiversity protection to all grasslands, as suggested by some environmentalists, and draft legislative initiatives? While this would imply a prohibition against the use of the Brazilian cerrado to produce biofuels feedstock, it would also affect set aside lands and pastures in the European Union and in the United States. And if these areas are to be considered highly sensitive, their use to grow feedstock for heating - such as cereals - should also be banned, as well as any other arable crops since the same supposed loss of biodiversity will occur no matter what the final purpose of the agricultural raw material grown on these lands. However, blames are unfairly concentrated on biofuels as no critic dares to condemn the increase of food production in a world where more than 800 million people go hungry.

New criticisms have recently emerged regarding the potential loss of carbon stocks that could result from land use changes and this preoccupation is clearly legitimate. The use of biofuels would be of no interest if their production releases more carbon in the atmosphere than the CO2 emissions they avoid by replacing fossil fuels. But with the view of reducing global GHG emissions, no production of any feedstock, for biofuels or any other uses, should take place in areas where carbon stocks are substantial. Before banning the use of specific areas, sound scientific studies should measure the quantity of carbon that is stocked in each of the current and potential production areas. This should help to establish the carbon balance that would result if these areas were used for the production of feedstock. Comprehensive calculations do not currently exist, so it cannot be taken for granted that land conversion will create a “carbon debt” or that agricultural expansion will necessarily take place in sensitive areas. Unfortunately, this is the kind of generalization that some academics do not hesitate to establish despite the existence of various counter examples. The use of degraded pastures for sugarcane production in Brazil, for instance, generates a “carbon credit” as sugarcane captures larger amounts of carbon than the quantities stocked in this type of land.

The alleged negative effects of biofuels production because of land use changes have also been extended to indirect land use changes in recently published studies. But the fact is that currently, none of the available models can provide a sound assessment of changes in agricultural production that might be taking place in the world as a result of expanded feedstock production in major biofuels producing countries. The models used to support this theory in recent studies present numerous fallacies. To start with, they ignore the huge improvements in yields that occur in modern agriculture. They also incorrectly assume that any crop production that is displaced by another – for biofuels or otherwise – will be unavoidably reallocated in high biodiversity areas. These are simplistic assumptions that are not validated by scientific evidence.

Biofuels are not a miraculous solution because such a solution simply doesn´t exist. The present debate around biofuels can be summarized as follows: do we want to spend years, perhaps decades, looking for a hypothetical “perfect cure” and creating sustainability expectations and criteria that no renewable fuel can meet, while continuing to encourage dependence on fossil fuels that are environmentally aggressive – through free, unobstructed trade of oil, for instance? Or should we recognize that global warming demands immediate answers and that any solution, even if not perfect, that contributes to reduce its expansion should be promoted?

It is one minute to midnight in the world of climate change: there is no time left to run away from our responsibilities.

Géraldine Kutas
International Advisor
Brazilian Sugarcane Industry Association - UNICA