#Oil Industry Report Ignores #Biofuel Climate Benefits

Joanna Schroeder

A new study has been released out of the University of Michigan Energy Institute led by anti-biofuel Professor John DeCicco. The report challenges the assumption that biofuels such as ethanol and biodiesel, are inherently carbon neutral. The study, based on USDA crop-production data, finds that during the period of increased biofuel growth, the increased carbon dioxide uptake by the crops was only enough to offset 37 percent of the CO2 emissions. The cause? The report says biofuel combustion. The study was published online today in the journal Climate Change, and was funded by the American Petroleum Institute (API).

The biofuels industry was quick to respond.

rfalogo1“This is the same study, same flawed methodology, and same fallacious result that Professor DeCicco has churned out multiple times in the past. He has been making these arguments for years, and for years they have been rejected by climate scientists, regulatory bodies and governments around the world, and reputable lifecycle analysis experts,” said Renewable Fuels Association (RFA) President and CEO Bob Dinneen.

He continued, “As crazy as it sounds, Prof. DeCicco is essentially suggesting that plants ultimately used for bioenergy don’t absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as they grow. In other words, he and his sponsors at the API are arguing that the scientific community’s centuries-old understanding of photosynthesis and plant biology is wrong. DeCicco’s assertion that plants somehow emit more carbon when burned as fuel than they take in from the atmosphere during photosynthesis defies the most basic laws of plant physiology.

“Just like Prof. DeCicco’s last study, this work was funded by the API, which obviously has a vested interest in obscuring and confusing accepted bioenergy carbon accounting practices. It’s a bit like the tobacco industry funding a study that says bubble gum is worse for the human body than cigarettes. While it’s flattering that API has taken such an interest in the climate benefits of biofuels, the public would be better served if the oil industry spent its time and money examining and owning up to the very real — and very negative — climate impacts of petroleum.”

growth-energy-logo1Emily Skor, CEO of Growth Energy, also responded to the study. “Overwhelmingly, objective research demonstrates that biofuels are among the best tools we have to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and combat the effects of climate change. The latest attacks from John DeCicco and his sponsors in the oil industry reflect the same bogus arguments they have made for years, and policymakers aren’t going to be fooled. As the Department of Energy’s Argonne National Laboratory has demonstrated, ethanol is an earth-friendly biofuel that reduces greenhouse gas emissions by an average of 34 percent over their its lifecycle, while advanced biofuels can reduce emissions by 100 percent or more over conventional gasoline.”

She added, “This latest report is just another desperate attempt discredit the nation’s most successful clean energy program. The Renewable Fuels Standard is bringing cleaner, more affordable options to the gas pump, and those biofuels have helped to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 110 million metric tons every year – the equivalent of taking nearly 20 million vehicles off the road. Ethanol also has helped save consumers as much as $0.50 to $1.50 per gallon. More bogus climate science from the oil industry can’t change that.”

Dinneen also added, “The truth is, biomass crops used to produce energy act as temporary carbon sinks. During growth, they quickly absorb CO2 that was just in the atmosphere. The same amount of CO2 is then returned to the atmosphere when the carbon in the crop is combusted for energy. In this way, the use of biomass for energy recycles atmospheric carbon as part of a relatively rapid cycle. In contrast, the use of fossil fuels adds to atmospheric CO2 by emitting carbon that was previously sequestered deep underground for millions of years.”

He continued, “According to researchers at Duke University, the University of Minnesota, and Oak Ridge National Laboratory: ‘A critical temporal distinction exists when comparing ethanol and gasoline lifecycles. Oil deposits were established millions of years in the past. The use of oil transfers into today’s atmosphere GHGs that had been sequestered and secured for millennia and would have remained out of Earth’s atmosphere if not for human intervention. While the production and use of bioenergy also releases GHGs, there is an intrinsic difference between the two fuels, for GHG emissions associated with biofuels occur at temporal scales that would occur naturally, with or without human intervention. …Hence, a bioenergy cycle can be managed while maintaining atmospheric conditions similar to those that allowed humans to evolve and thrive on Earth. In contrast, massive release of fossil fuel carbon alters this balance, and the resulting changes to atmospheric concentrations of GHGs will impact Earth’s climate for eons.’”

Click here to read a more detailed statement from RFA. Click here to view a technical response sent March 2015 from a handful of other researchers to the previous DeCicco paper.

Biodiesel, biofuels, Ethanol, Growth Energy, RFA