IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/climat/v121y2013i4p801-814.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Biofuel’s carbon balance: doubts, certainties and implications

Author

Listed:
  • John DeCicco

Abstract

Liquid fuels will remain valued energy carriers well into any upcoming period when CO 2 reductions are sought. Biofuels are the presumed replacement for the petroleum-based transportation fuels that dominate liquid fuel use. Lifecycle analysis embeds a closed-loop model of biofuel-related carbon flows, making net CO 2 uptake an assumption to be refuted. However, evaluating net CO 2 uptake through dynamic industrial and agriforestry supply chains at real-world commercial scales is extremely difficult. All such estimates carry a great deal of doubt and cannot be verified empirically. A different perspective follows by anchoring analysis in the certainty that end-use CO 2 emissions from biofuels are essentially the same as those of the petroleum fuels they replace. A first-order model of the globally coupled bio- and fossil-fuel system reveals conditions for biofuel use to provide an atmospheric benefit. No benefit occurs in the energy sectors where biofuels are used, but rather must be found elsewhere in locations of carbon absorption or retention. The implication is that climate mitigation efforts should focus on such locations and include any mechanisms through which net uptake (an enhanced sink or verifiable offset) can be achieved by biological, chemical, geological or other means. Although biofuels can play a mitigation role when certain conditions are met, deemphasizing biofuel production in favor of terrestrial carbon management may offer more immediate and effective ways to counterbalance the CO 2 emitted when using carbon-based liquid fuels of any origin. Climate policies for transportation fuels should be reconsidered accordingly. Copyright The Author(s) 2013

Suggested Citation

  • John DeCicco, 2013. "Biofuel’s carbon balance: doubts, certainties and implications," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 121(4), pages 801-814, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:climat:v:121:y:2013:i:4:p:801-814
    DOI: 10.1007/s10584-013-0927-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s10584-013-0927-9
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10584-013-0927-9?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. van Vuuren, Detlef P. & van Vliet, Jasper & Stehfest, Elke, 2009. "Future bio-energy potential under various natural constraints," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(11), pages 4220-4230, November.
    2. John DeCicco, 2012. "Biofuels and carbon management," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 111(3), pages 627-640, April.
    3. DeCicco, John M., 2013. "Factoring the car-climate challenge: Insights and implications," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 382-392.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. John M. DeCicco, 2017. "Author’s response to commentary on “Carbon balance effects of U.S. biofuel production and use”," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 144(2), pages 123-129, September.
    2. Yeh, Sonia & Witcover, Julie & Lade, Gabriel E. & Sperling, Daniel, 2016. "A review of low carbon fuel policies: Principles, program status and future directions," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 220-234.
    3. Robert D. De Kleine & Timothy J. Wallington & James E. Anderson & Hyung Chul Kim, 2017. "Commentary on “carbon balance effects of US biofuel production and use,” by DeCicco et al. (2016)," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 144(2), pages 111-119, September.
    4. Correa, Diego F. & Beyer, Hawthorne L. & Fargione, Joseph E. & Hill, Jason D. & Possingham, Hugh P. & Thomas-Hall, Skye R. & Schenk, Peer M., 2019. "Towards the implementation of sustainable biofuel production systems," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 250-263.
    5. John M. DeCicco & Danielle Yuqiao Liu & Joonghyeok Heo & Rashmi Krishnan & Angelika Kurthen & Louise Wang, 2016. "Carbon balance effects of U.S. biofuel production and use," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 138(3), pages 667-680, October.
    6. Morrison, Geoff M. & Witcover, Julie & Parker, Nathan C. & Fulton, Lew, 2016. "Three routes forward for biofuels: Incremental, leapfrog, and transitional," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 64-73.
    7. Plevin, Richard J. & Delucchi, Mark A. & O’Hare, Michael, 2017. "Fuel carbon intensity standards may not mitigate climate change," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 93-97.
    8. John M. DeCicco, 2015. "The liquid carbon challenge: evolving views on transportation fuels and climate," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Energy and Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 4(1), pages 98-114, January.
    9. John M. DeCicco, 2018. "Methodological Issues Regarding Biofuels and Carbon Uptake," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-15, May.
    10. Fulton, Lew & Morrison, Geoff & Parker, Nathan & Witcover, Julie & Sperling, Dan, 2014. "Three Routes Forward For Biofuels: Incremental, Transitional, and Leapfrog," Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series qt3pp0g4fb, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. John M. DeCicco, 2015. "The liquid carbon challenge: evolving views on transportation fuels and climate," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Energy and Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 4(1), pages 98-114, January.
    2. Wei, Yu & Wang, Yizhi & Vigne, Samuel A. & Ma, Zhenyu, 2023. "Alarming contagion effects: The dangerous ripple effect of extreme price spillovers across crude oil, carbon emission allowance, and agriculture futures markets," Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    3. Xu, Junming & Jiang, Jianchun & Zhao, Jiaping, 2016. "Thermochemical conversion of triglycerides for production of drop-in liquid fuels," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 331-340.
    4. Selosse, Sandrine & Ricci, Olivia & Maïzi, Nadia, 2013. "Fukushima's impact on the European power sector: The key role of CCS technologies," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 305-312.
    5. Batidzirai, B. & Smeets, E.M.W. & Faaij, A.P.C., 2012. "Harmonising bioenergy resource potentials—Methodological lessons from review of state of the art bioenergy potential assessments," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 16(9), pages 6598-6630.
    6. Plevin, Richard J. & Delucchi, Mark A. & O’Hare, Michael, 2017. "Fuel carbon intensity standards may not mitigate climate change," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 93-97.
    7. Vedrenne, Michel & Pérez, Javier & Lumbreras, Julio & Rodríguez, María Encarnación, 2014. "Life cycle assessment as a policy-support tool: The case of taxis in the city of Madrid," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 185-197.
    8. Wil Burns & Simon Nicholson, 2017. "Bioenergy and carbon capture with storage (BECCS): the prospects and challenges of an emerging climate policy response," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 7(4), pages 527-534, December.
    9. John M. DeCicco, 2017. "Author’s response to commentary on “Carbon balance effects of U.S. biofuel production and use”," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 144(2), pages 123-129, September.
    10. Choi, Hyung Sik & Entenmann, Steffen K., 2019. "Land in the EU for perennial biomass crops from freed-up agricultural land: A sensitivity analysis considering yields, diet, market liberalization and world food prices," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 292-306.
    11. Massimo Tavoni & Shoibal Chakravarty & Robert Socolow, 2012. "Safe vs. Fair: A Formidable Trade-off in Tackling Climate Change," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 4(2), pages 1-17, February.
    12. DeCicco, John M., 2013. "Factoring the car-climate challenge: Insights and implications," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 382-392.
    13. Gambhir, Ajay & Schulz, Niels & Napp, Tamaryn & Tong, Danlu & Munuera, Luis & Faist, Mark & Riahi, Keywan, 2013. "A hybrid modelling approach to develop scenarios for China's carbon dioxide emissions to 2050," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 614-632.
    14. Ricci, Olivia & Selosse, Sandrine, 2013. "Global and regional potential for bioelectricity with carbon capture and storage," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 689-698.
    15. Erb, Karl-Heinz & Haberl, Helmut & Plutzar, Christoph, 2012. "Dependency of global primary bioenergy crop potentials in 2050 on food systems, yields, biodiversity conservation and political stability," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 260-269.
    16. Mercure, Jean-François & Salas, Pablo, 2013. "On the global economic potentials and marginal costs of non-renewable resources and the price of energy commodities," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 469-483.
    17. Searchinger, Timothy D. & Beringer, Tim & Strong, Asa, 2017. "Does the world have low-carbon bioenergy potential from the dedicated use of land?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 434-446.
    18. Yeh, Sonia & Burtraw, Dallas & Sterner, Thomas & Greene, David, 2021. "Tradable performance standards in the transportation sector," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    19. Mercure, Jean-François & Salas, Pablo, 2012. "An assessement of global energy resource economic potentials," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 322-336.
    20. Kluts, Ingeborg & Wicke, Birka & Leemans, Rik & Faaij, André, 2017. "Sustainability constraints in determining European bioenergy potential: A review of existing studies and steps forward," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 719-734.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:climat:v:121:y:2013:i:4:p:801-814. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.