Dennis Avery

National Security Risks of Biofuel Mandates — Corrected*

by Marlo Lewis on August 24, 2010 · 1 comment

in Ethanol, Global Warming

Those amazing Idsos who run the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change review a paper recently published in AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment by Mulder et al. (2010), who assess the energy return on water invested (EROWI) of several renewable and non-renewable fuels.

In the paper, provocatively titled “Burning Water,” the Mulder team find that “the most water-efficient, fossil-based technologies have an EROWI one to two orders of magnitude [10 to 100 times] greater than the most water-efficient biomass technologies, implying that the development of biomass energy technologies in scale sufficient to be a significant source of energy may produce or exacerbate water shortages around the globe and be limited by the availability of fresh water.”

The Idsos note that these findings “will not be welcomed” by those who promote biofuels as a means of combating the alleged national security risks of global climate change.

We often hear, for example, that climate change will increase the risk of “water wars” by intensifying summer heat and drought. There’s not much evidence to support this alarm. About 90% of global fresh water consumption is for agriculture. As British scientist Wendy Barnaby found to her surprise when she set out to research a book about the coming “century of water wars,” nations in water-stressed regions typically do not come to blows but instead cooperate and import “virtual water” in the form of grain, leaving more water available for drinking and bathing. Even in the water-stressed, conflict-prone, Middle East, nations do not go to war over water. Nonetheless, to the extent that water stress undermines stability and peace, government policies ramping up biofuel production are likely a “cure” worse than the supposed disease.

In addition, some biofuel policies can increase food prices and world hunger, fostering instability and strife, especially if scaled up enough to make a meaningful difference in global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.  

Princeton researchers Stephen Pacella and Robert Socolow estimate that avoiding 1 gigaton (gt) of carbon emissions per year by 2050, by replacing gasoline with biofuels, would require 250 million hectares of high-yield energy crop planations, “an area equal to about one-sixth of the world’s current cropland.”

Let’s put this in perspective. One gigaton of carbon = 3.67 gt of CO2. Achieving the EU/UN emission stabilization target of 450 parts per million would require global CO2 emissions to decline roughly 38 gt below the baseline (business as usual) projection by 2050. In other words, the 3.67 gt reduction in CO2 that Pacala and Socolow say we can get via biofuels would achieve less than 10% of the reduction required to meet the target. Not a whole lot of environmental bang for all that land area buck. Indeed, dedicating 250 million hectares to energy crop production would likely squeeze many species out of their habitats.

eule-50-compared-to-bau

Source: Stephen Eule, Scale and Scope of the Challenge to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Institute for 21st Century Energy, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, February 2009

Note also that significant research indicates that converting grassland and forest land into biofuel plantations increases net greenhouse gas emissions over many decades by releasing the carbon stored in forests and soils. Growing biofuel on 250 million hectares of land might very well emit more CO2 than the gasoline it replaces.

The larger point, though, as Dennis Avery explains, is that the world is not well-fed now, and the demand for food and feed on farmlands is expected to more than double by 2050. Requiring biofuel production on 250 million hectares would be a recipe for disaster. Putting the equivalent of one-sixth of current cropland off limits to food production represents a much bigger decline in global agricultural productivity than is anticipated from drought in high-end global warming scenarios. 

Warmists warn that climate change is a “threat multiplier” or “instability accelerant.” However, the national security risks of climate change policy likely exceed those of climate change itself. 

For further discussion, see my CEI paper, DOD Should Consider the National Security Risks of Global Warming Policies, and economist Indur Goklany’s comprehensive study, Trapped Between the Falling Sky and the Rising Seas: The Imagined Terrors of the Impacts of Climate Change.

* When I first posted this, I failed to notice that Pacala and Socolow were measuring emission reductions in tons carbon whereas Stephen Eule was measuring reductions in tons CO2.

Policy Peril Segment 7: Fuel economy standards

by Marlo Lewis on August 11, 2009 · 1 comment

in Global Warming, Mobility

Today’s excerpt from CEI’s film, Policy Peril: Why Global Warming Policies Are More Dangerous Than Global Warming Itself, is on two global warming policies Congress has adopted: fuel economy standards and biofuel mandates.

Here are my previous posts in this series:

To watch today’s film excerpt, click here. To watch the entire film, click here.

The text of today’s film clip immediately follows. It includes footnotes to additional commentary and supporting information.

Narrator: If stopping new coal is the global warming movement’s top priority, a close second is jump-starting a ‘beyond petroleum’ transport system. They propose to do this by tightening new-car fuel economy standards. Why?

A car that gets more miles to the gallon emits less CO2 per mile [1]. But the federal fuel economy program, also known as CAFE, has serious downsides.

Sam Kazman (General Counsel, Competitive Enterprise Institute): Now there are lots of problems with fuel economy mandates. One thing, they raise new car prices. [2] Secondly, they restrict consumer choice. [3] But the worst thing is an effect you never hear their advocates talking about. Namely, fuel economy mandates kill people. [4]

Narrator: Here’s why. Heavier cars provide more mass to absorb collision forces, and bigger cars provide more space between the occupant and the point of impact. [5] Make a car smaller and lighter, and it will go farther on a gallon of gas.

Kazman: But you also make it less safe. According to the National Academy of Sciences, the current CAFE standard by downsizing cars, contributes to about 2,000 fatalities per year. [6]

Narrator: Legislation Congress passed in December 2007  requires a 40% increase in fuel economy by 2020. [7] In 2007, only two out 1,153 vehicle models met the new standards. [8] So expect more downsizing in the years ahead.

Another ‘beyond petroleum’ policy is to require the sale of alternative fuels. In December 2007 Congress also mandated that motor fuel producers sell 36 billion gallons of ethanol a year by 2022, with 15 billion gallons coming from corn kernals. [9] The result, we’re diverting massive quantities of grain from food to auto fuel. This contributes to the surge in global grain prices that is pushing millions of the world’s poorest people to the brink of starvation. [10]

But at least ethanol cuts down on CO2 emissions, right? Actually, no.

Dr. Dennis Avery (Hudson Institute): As we expand the cropland, then we get into the real trouble, because we release the greenhouse gas that’s stored in the soil as carbon. And with corn, we release twice as much gas as we would have released if we burned gasoline in the first place. [11]

[1] A gallon of gasoline (which weighs about 6.3 lbs.) produces 20 lbs. of CO2 when burned. If a car gets more miles to the gallon, it will emit fewer lbs. of CO2 per mile driven. The relationship between fuel economy (mpg) and lbs. CO2/mile is so strict that EPA bases its fuel economy ratings of vehicle models on tests that measure the carbon content of the emissions, principally CO2.

Unsurprisingly, virtually all CO2-reduction options for new motor vehicles are fuel-economy-increasing options. See p. 10 of the National Automobile Dealer Association’s comment on EPA’s reconsideration of California’s request for a waiver to establish greenhouse gas emission standards for new motor vehicles. 

[2] There are basically two ways to increase fuel economy–downsizing (making cars smaller and lighter) and new technology. Typically, advanced technology costs more than conventional technology. The Energy Information Administration, for example, estimates that California’s greenhouse gas/fuel economy standards, which President Obama recently adopted, will increase the average price of a new car by $1,860 in 2016. [Obama's program will also impose heavy burdens on the nearly prostrate U.S. auto industry, as economist Keith Hennessey explains.]

[3] The CAFE program all but killed the market for large station wagons, because automakers could not produce millions of these once popular “family cars” and meet the CAFE standard for their vehicle fleets.

In addition, as a general matter, because fuel economy mandates increase vehicle cost, they inevitably price some consumers out of the market for certain vehicle models, restricting their choices.

Ironically, the federal fuel economy program boost the production and sale of gas-guzzling SUVs. Consumers who might otherwise have purchased big station wagons instead bought large SUVs. Congress regulated SUV fuel economy less stringently because (1) SUVs are built on a light-truck chassis and thus are classified as trucks rather than as passenger cars, and (2) most SUVs traditionally were used for farming and business rather than commuting. Fuel economy standards helped create the boom market for low-mpg SUVs–a classic case of the law of unintended consequences.

[4] Sam debates the issue of whether CAFE kills with an analyst from Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) here.

[5] I am always amazed when people with scientific credentials deny the safey implications of regulatory-induced vehicle downsizing. How can they claim that size and weight don’t matter? That’s denying the laws of physics. There’s a reason why boxing matches don’t pit lightweights against heavyweights, or why marathon runners don’t play professional football.

Yes, new technology can improve the crashworthiness of small cars. But, as Sam explains elsewhere, a large car with new technology will still be safer than a small car with new technology. To the extent that CAFE constrains the production and sale of larger, heavier vehicles, it limits auto safety.

[6] Sam refers to a National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council (NRC) study, Effectiveness and Impact of Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards. See pp. 25-29, especially p. 27. The NRC estimates that in 1993, a typical year, downweighting and downsizing of cars contributed to 1,300 to 2,600 auto fatalities, 13,000 to 26,000 incapacitating injuries, and 97,000 to 195,000 total injuries.  

[7] The so-called Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA). Click here to read the Congressional Research Service’s summary of the EISA provisions.

[8] Prior to investigating, I had assumed there must be at least 30-50 models on the road that met the fuel economy standards mandated by the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act. But EPA’s fuel economy ratings for model year 2008 reveals that only two out of 1,153 models, the Toyota Prius and Honda Civic Hybrid, met or exceeded the standard (35 mpg for both city and highway driving conditions).

[9] Click here to read the Congressional Research Service’s summary of the EISA provisions.

[10] I provide references here on biofuel policy and world hunger. In May 2008, the International Food Policy Research Institute estimated that biofuel demand accounted for 30% of the increase in world cereal prices during 2007-2008. For further discussion, see Dennis Avery’s October 2008 paper for the Competitive Enterprise Institute. 

[11] Dennis’s CEI paper recaps the literature on CO2 increases from biofuel policy-induced land-use changes, including Searchinger et. al. (2008) and Fargione et al. (2008). Additional reviews of these studies are available on World Climate Report and CO2Science.Org.