1.2 Environmental Crises and the Rise of the Bioeconomy
5
biodiversity loss (which in part owes to its currently unrecognized economic value)
and growing plastic pollution, most notably of the oceans (Scordato et al. 2017).
As some authors have long recognized, biofuels may not be the ultimate renewable
energy technology but rather a stepping-stone towards more advanced and efficient
ones in the future (Pacala and Socolow 2004). In the long run, biomass sources
may no longer be significant fuel providers, but they will undoubtedly supply chemical components for many industries. This aim is best captured in the concept of
biorefineries. It suggests industrially processing (i.e., refining) biomass to extract
and separate its various (bio)chemical compounds that can substitute what today is
made primarily from oil, such as plastics, solvents, and lubricants (Lynd et al. 1999;
Kamm and Kamm 2004; Langeveld et al. 2010). Energy does not have to be the
primary output but just one possible application, among many others. These other
applications include bulk or commodity products of high volume and comparatively
low value (e.g., industrial oils, adhesives, surfactants, solvents, and biopolymers for
biodegradable fibers and plastics) as well as low-volume high-value chemicals for
the food and pharmaceutical industries (Sandun et al. 2006; Langeveld et al. 2010;
Aiking 2011). Economically, although only a small share of petroleum is used for
non-energy purposes, its market value is approximately equal to what is used as fuel
(Langeveld et al. 2010). Biorefineries thus present an enormous potential to provide
renewable industrial feedstocks and create development opportunities. They have
also led some to prefer to speak of value webs instead of (single) chains, as the same
biomass feedstock can enter several downstream paths (Scheiterle et al. 2018).
However, it should not go unnoticed that if the broader bioeconomy follows
biofuels’ footsteps—as the forecasts expect it to do (OECD/FAO 2019)—the bulk of
this new production will derive from agriculture, with significant ecological, socioeconomic, and political implications. In the case of biofuels, despite more than
a decade of eager (and over-optimistic) projections about “next-generation” feedstocks, virtually all commercial production remains consistently based on conventional sources. Ethanol is mainly from crops rich in either starch (e.g., corn, cassava)
or sugar (e.g., sugarcane, sugar-beet). At the same time, biodiesel is produced chiefly
from vegetable oils (e.g., soybean, rapeseed, palm oil). On a global scale, about 12%
of all vegetable oil supplies are used for making biodiesel, and 18% of all sugar crops
go to ethanol manufacturing. By 2028, industries may use 14% of the global corn
and 24% of worldwide sugarcane production for biofuels (OECD/FAO 2019).
It is crucial to notice how a small set of crops has increasingly dominated production—even before any nominal bioeconomy pretensions. These crops (notably corn,
soy, sugarcane, and oil palm) have sometimes been called “flex crops” and championed for their versatility, allowing for possibly meeting the demands of various
downstream markets (Alonso-Fradejas et al. 2016; McKay et al. 2016; Oliveira and
Schneider 2016; Bastos Lima 2018). They have two complementary features that
seemingly make them unique: multipleness and flexibleness (Borras et al. 2016).
Multipleness refers to the different uses these crops can have, including a large variety
of co-products and by-products. In turn, flexibleness relates to producers’ ability to
easily switch from one utilization to another (e.g., sugarcane for sugar or ethanol
making) based on economic and policy assessments. In other words, producers can
5
biodiversity loss (which in part owes to its currently unrecognized economic value)
and growing plastic pollution, most notably of the oceans (Scordato et al. 2017).
As some authors have long recognized, biofuels may not be the ultimate renewable
energy technology but rather a stepping-stone towards more advanced and efficient
ones in the future (Pacala and Socolow 2004). In the long run, biomass sources
may no longer be significant fuel providers, but they will undoubtedly supply chemical components for many industries. This aim is best captured in the concept of
biorefineries. It suggests industrially processing (i.e., refining) biomass to extract
and separate its various (bio)chemical compounds that can substitute what today is
made primarily from oil, such as plastics, solvents, and lubricants (Lynd et al. 1999;
Kamm and Kamm 2004; Langeveld et al. 2010). Energy does not have to be the
primary output but just one possible application, among many others. These other
applications include bulk or commodity products of high volume and comparatively
low value (e.g., industrial oils, adhesives, surfactants, solvents, and biopolymers for
biodegradable fibers and plastics) as well as low-volume high-value chemicals for
the food and pharmaceutical industries (Sandun et al. 2006; Langeveld et al. 2010;
Aiking 2011). Economically, although only a small share of petroleum is used for
non-energy purposes, its market value is approximately equal to what is used as fuel
(Langeveld et al. 2010). Biorefineries thus present an enormous potential to provide
renewable industrial feedstocks and create development opportunities. They have
also led some to prefer to speak of value webs instead of (single) chains, as the same
biomass feedstock can enter several downstream paths (Scheiterle et al. 2018).
However, it should not go unnoticed that if the broader bioeconomy follows
biofuels’ footsteps—as the forecasts expect it to do (OECD/FAO 2019)—the bulk of
this new production will derive from agriculture, with significant ecological, socioeconomic, and political implications. In the case of biofuels, despite more than
a decade of eager (and over-optimistic) projections about “next-generation” feedstocks, virtually all commercial production remains consistently based on conventional sources. Ethanol is mainly from crops rich in either starch (e.g., corn, cassava)
or sugar (e.g., sugarcane, sugar-beet). At the same time, biodiesel is produced chiefly
from vegetable oils (e.g., soybean, rapeseed, palm oil). On a global scale, about 12%
of all vegetable oil supplies are used for making biodiesel, and 18% of all sugar crops
go to ethanol manufacturing. By 2028, industries may use 14% of the global corn
and 24% of worldwide sugarcane production for biofuels (OECD/FAO 2019).
It is crucial to notice how a small set of crops has increasingly dominated production—even before any nominal bioeconomy pretensions. These crops (notably corn,
soy, sugarcane, and oil palm) have sometimes been called “flex crops” and championed for their versatility, allowing for possibly meeting the demands of various
downstream markets (Alonso-Fradejas et al. 2016; McKay et al. 2016; Oliveira and
Schneider 2016; Bastos Lima 2018). They have two complementary features that
seemingly make them unique: multipleness and flexibleness (Borras et al. 2016).
Multipleness refers to the different uses these crops can have, including a large variety
of co-products and by-products. In turn, flexibleness relates to producers’ ability to
easily switch from one utilization to another (e.g., sugarcane for sugar or ethanol
making) based on economic and policy assessments. In other words, producers can