http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23057867/

Greenhouse emissions much higher if land use factored in, researchers say
IMAGE: CORN FIELD AROUND ETHANOL PLANT
Fields of corn surround this ethanol plant in Mason City, Iowa.


WASHINGTON - The widespread use of ethanol from corn could result in nearly twice the greenhouse gas emissions as the gasoline it would replace because of expected land-use changes, researchers concluded Thursday.

The study challenges the rush to corn-based ethanol as a response to global warming, but says there is a future for ethanol from waste products that do not require uprooting land where carbon is already absorbed by trees and plants.

The researchers said that past studies showing the benefits of ethanol in combating climate change have not taken into account almost certain changes in land use worldwide if ethanol from corn — and in the future from other feedstocks such as switchgrass — become a prized commodity.
Story continues below ↓advertisement

"Using good cropland to expand biofuels will probably exacerbate global warming," concludes the study published in Science magazine.

The researchers said that farmers under economic pressure to produce biofuels will increasingly "plow up more forest or grasslands," releasing much of the carbon formerly stored in plants and soils through decomposition or fires. Globally, more grasslands and forests will be converted to growing the crops to replace the loss of grains when U.S. farmers convert land to biofuels, the study said.

Ethanol industry responds
The Renewable Fuels Association, which represents ethanol producers, called the researchers' view of land-use changes "simplistic" and said the study "fails to put the issue in context."

"Assigning the blame for rainforest deforestation and grassland conversion to agriculture solely on the renewable fuels industry ignores key factors that play a greater role," said Bob Dinneen, the association's president.

There has been a rush to developing biofuels, especially ethanol from corn and cellulosic feedstock such as switchgrass and wood chips, as a substitute for gasoline. President Bush signed energy legislation in December that mandates a six-fold increase in ethanol use as a fuel to 36 billion gallons a year by 2022, calling the requirement key to weaning the nation from imported oil.

The new "green" fuel, whether made from corn or other feedstocks, has been widely promoted — both in Congress and by the White House — as a key to combating global warming. Burning it produces less carbon dioxide, the leading greenhouse gas, than the fossil fuels it will replace.

During the recent congressional debate over energy legislation, lawmakers frequently cited estimates that corn-based ethanol produces 20 percent less greenhouse gases in production, transportation and use than gasoline, and that cellulosic ethanol has an even greater benefit of 70 percent less emissions.

The study released Thursday by researchers affiliated with Princeton University and a number of other institutions maintains that these analyses "were one-sided" and counted the carbon benefits of using land for biofuels but not the carbon costs of diverting land from its existing uses.

"The other studies missed a key factor that everyone agrees should have been included, the land use changes that actually are going to increase greenhouse gas emissions," said Tim Searchinger, a research scholar at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs and lead author of the study.

The study said that after taking into account expected worldwide land-use changes, corn-based ethanol, instead of reducing greenhouse gases by 20 percent, will increases it by 93 percent compared to using gasoline over a 30-year period. Biofuels from switchgrass, if they replace croplands and other carbon-absorbing lands, would result in 50 percent more greenhouse gas emissions, the researchers concluded.

Biofuels from waste urged
Not all ethanol would be affected by the land-use changes, the study said.

"We should be focusing on our use of biofuels from waste products" such as garbage, which would not result in changes in agricultural land use, Searchinger said in an interview. "And you have to be careful how much you require. Use the right biofuels, but don't require too much too fast. Right now we're making almost exclusively the wrong biofuels."

The study included co-authors affiliated with Iowa State University, the Woods Hole Research Center and the Agricultural Conservation Economics. It was supported by a grant from NASA's Terrestrial Ecology Program, and by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. Searchinger, in addition to his affiliation with Princeton, is a fellow at the Washington-based German Marshall Fund of the United States.

 

*sigh* said it before and will say it again, corn based ethanol makes NO sense.

 

so much for all those commercials that make ethanol sound like the way to go... I was reading somewhere that gas mileage is also worse with this stuff.

 

I had also read that one of the byproducts of ethanol combustion is formaldehyde which is even worse for the environment. Not sure if this is completely true or not.

 

E85 is only good as an alternative to race gas. Their octane rating is around 110. (RON+MON / 2)

 

Paid for by your friendly neighborhood Oil Co......

 

E85 is more of a response to rising gas prices than it is to global warming.

 

Corn based ethanol is a disaster and counterproductive.

I only admit this because I sold off my ADM stock

 

only in the "land of the wasteful" would people convert food to fuel... some countries would kill if they could do the reverse.

 

If you are politician and you/friends/family/somebody you know owned a lot of corn field...money in the bank.....

 

I already though ethanol was a stupid solution this just makes it worse. No only is it hurting our environment it is making all corn based products more expensive. Only a stupid president, such as ours, would back it as a solution.

 

so why does my steak have to cost me more?? i'd rather pay 1 cent more at the pump versus a couple extra dollars on meat.


if i recall properly, this was actually started by democrats in the senate.

 

If you recall, you'll remember Al Gore and the other UN idiots that released a farce of a study on global warming mentioned that Ethanol was a good solution. Don't blame THAT on the president, everyone on the Global Warming bandwagon is to blame for that one.

Now there is evidence to suggest a Global Cooling that will rival that of the 17th century for the next 100 years. So much for manmade global warming

And I agree with ElitistK, E85 is an excellent cheap alternative to race fuel if you have a fuel system that can pump enough of it out (requires more powerful pumps and injectors than conventional gas). We are supposed to get one down here soon; a friend of mine has seen the giant holding tank being built for it at one of the nearby OilCo refineries

 

bunch of politicians trying to turn America's cornfields into oilfields.

ridiculous.

 

E85 is probably the worst fuel to use for races where less frequent pit stops is key, fine for the drag strip