According to a recent analysis, biofuels policy has failed to protect the climate.

 According to a recent analysis, biofuels policy has failed to protect the climate.

Its evolution into a massive corn-and-soy-producing machine was made possible by decades of laws that encourage the production of biofuels. The American Midwest is home to some of the world's wealthiest and most fertile farms.

However, a recent report takes a strong stance against the ethanol orthodoxy of American agriculture, accusing the sector of creating social and economic disparities in rural areas and claiming that, despite their alleged climate benefits, the growth of biofuels will raise greenhouse gas emissions.


 

The World Resources Institute, which has previously criticized US biofuel policies, based its research on the effects of biofuel on 100 scholarly publications. It comes to the conclusion that the ethanol program has mostly failed and should be reexamined, particularly in light of the fact that more land is required globally to produce food in order to satisfy the world's expanding demand.

According to the report's principal author, Haley Leslie-Bole, "many studies demonstrate that US biofuel policies have reshaped crop production, displacing food crops and driving up emissions from land conversion, tillage, and fertilizer use." In particular, ethanol made from corn has impacted wildlife habitat, deteriorated water quality, and increased nutrient runoff. In already drought-prone areas of the Midwest, expanding irrigation and refining for first-generation biofuels could exacerbate water scarcity as climate pressures increase.

A vast amount of agricultural land in the Midwest has been converted. The output of ethanol rose by around 500 percent between 2004 and 2024. Approximately one-third of the 92 million acres currently used for corn and 86 million acres for soybean cultivation are used to make ethanol. Even while ethanol makes up only 6% of the nation's transportation fuel, this implies that over 30 million acres of land that could be utilized to grow food crops are instead being used to manufacture ethanol.

maize- and soy-based biofuels are an energy-efficient substitute for fossil fuels, according to the biofuels sector, which comprises refiners, maize and soy growers, and the powerful agriculture lobby writ large. The US Department of Agriculture and Congress have reached a consensus.

The Renewable Fuel Standard, the nation's main biofuels legislation, mandates that biofuels reduce greenhouse gas emissions relative to fossil fuels. For example, ethanol produced in new plants must reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20% when compared to gasoline.

Along with lowering greenhouse gas emissions, the industry and its congressional allies have maintained that ethanol is a key component of the rural economy and that it benefits communities throughout the Midwest.

However, an increasing amount of evidence indicates that ethanol might not genuinely offer the advantages that policies demand, most of which the industry has attempted to refute and mock. Compared to the fossil fuels it was meant to replace, it might actually emit more greenhouse gasses. According to recent studies, biofuel refineries also release higher levels of harmful and carcinogenic chemicals, such as formaldehyde and hexane, than petroleum refineries.

Increased production of biofuels from maize and soy may actually increase greenhouse gas emissions, according to research cited in the new paper. This is primarily due to carbon emissions associated with clearing land in other nations to make up for the usage of land in the Midwest.

Furthermore, maize is a particularly fertilizer-hungry crop that needs a lot of nitrogen-based fertilizer, which interacts with the soil to create a lot of nitrous oxide. Approximately half of domestic nitrous oxide emissions currently come from American farmland. Policies promoting biofuels will probably result in increased production, which will raise emissions of this extremely potent greenhouse gas.

According to the new analysis, ethanol development has not only failed to deliver the economic and social benefits that the industry and lawmakers claim it has for Midwestern communities, but it will also result in an increase in greenhouse gas emissions. (The Midwest is defined in the report as North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, and Nebraska.)

According to Leslie-Bole, the advantages of biofuels are still concentrated in the hands of a select few. The trend of agricultural consolidation, which makes acreage in the Midwest more inaccessible and excludes new or low-resource farmers, may continue as long as subsidies continue to flow. This implies that while more individuals are left to pay the costs, fewer people are benefiting from the development of biofuels.

At a time when food demand is rising and, according to critics, land should be used to grow food instead, new policies being considered in state legislatures and Congress, such as additional tax credits and support for biofuel-based aviation fuel, could expand production and increase land conversion and greenhouse gas emissions, further separating wealthy agribusinesses from rural communities.

In addition to extending tax incentives for biofuel producers, President Donald Trump's tax cut measure, which was approved by the House and is presently being negotiated in the Senate, expressly eliminates emissions estimates from land conversion when defining what constitutes a low-emission fuel.

Requests for comment and interviews from Inside Climate News were not answered by the main trade associations for the biofuels sector, such as Growth Energy and the Renewable Fuels Association.

According to a worker with the Clean Fuels Alliance America, which advocates for producers of sustainable aviation fuel and biodiesel rather than ethanol, the research significantly exaggerates the carbon emissions from crop-based fuels by equating the farmed area with extinct natural landscapes.

Additionally, they pointed out that in 2024, soy-based fuels created over 100,000 employment and had an impact of over $42 billion.

They stated that biomass-based fuel accounts for 10% of the value of each bushel of soybeans.


Top Searching Tags:

Biofuels

Climate policy

Environmental impact

Climate change

Renewable energy policy

Biofuel failure

Green energy alternatives

Sustainability

Government climate policies

Carbon emissions

Renewable energy report

Biofuel regulations

biofuels policy failure USA

climate change biofuel report

environmental impact biofuels USA

renewable energy policy USA"

biofuels and greenhouse gases report

biofuels climate failure UK

UK renewable energy policies

climate change biofuel UK report

biofuels greenhouse gas emissions UK

biofuels policy failure Europe

climate change renewable energy Europe

biofuel impact on climate Europe

EU biofuels policy environmental failure

carbon emissions biofuels Europe

https://www.aitechgadget.com/2025/06/according-to-recent-analysis-biofuels.html