2.3 Biofuels and the Environment
31
Similar results have been obtained from biodiesel blended and pure uses. The US
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has found that the higher the percentage of
biodiesel blended into the fuel, the higher the reduction in CO, particulate matter,
and hydrocarbons emissions. As such, pure biodiesel achieves the best results. It can
reduce CO and particulate matter emissions by almost 50% when compared to fossil
diesel, in addition to an almost 70% reduction in hydrocarbon emissions (EPA 2002).
However, for air pollution impacts, it is necessary to look at the whole fuel
life cycle. For instance, in Brazil’s sugarcane cultivation, some harvesting is still
done manually after burning the crop to facilitate the process. These fires release
large amounts of CO, sulfur oxides (SOx), N 2 O, lead (Pb), ozone (O 3 ) and particulate matter in those sugarcane-producing regions, resulting in severe health impacts
and offsetting air pollution reduction benefits obtained through gasoline substitution
(Goldemberg et al. 2008; Machado et al. 2008).
2.3.3 Land Use and Biodiversity Conservation
There are three major dimensions where biofuels intersect with biodiversity conservation: (i) increased demand for industrial agriculture, strengthening it as a driver of
deforestation and land-use change; (ii) enhancement of environmental impacts from
(within) industrial agricultural systems; and (iii) introduction of potentially invasive
species as novel feedstocks.
There is a fair degree of consensus that biofuels’ demand for land will depend
mainly on feedstock choices, agricultural efficiency, and the technologies used (Dornburg et al. 2010). Currently, most biofuel production occurs either by diverting
existing crops from other uses (“crop-use change”) or through land-use change,
i.e., by deploying feedstock cultivation on lands previously under non-agricultural
or other agricultural uses. For instance, during the biofuel boom of the 2000s, the area
planted with sugarcane in Brazil quickly increased from 5.6 to 8.2 million hectares
(Mha) just between 2004 and 2008, with about half of it dedicated to ethanol production (MAPA 2013). That area has since remained more or less stable, at 8.5 Mha in
2019, but this is partly because biofuel manufacturing captures an increasingly larger
share of the crop. Only 35% of the 2019/2020 sugarcane harvest in Brazil was used
for sugar production (CONAB 2019; see Chap. 5). India, in turn, alone targeted 13.4
Mha for biofuel feedstock cultivation (see Chap. 6). On a world scale, some projections of a business-as-usual scenario estimate as much as 650 Mha—or nearly half of
the world’s arable land—might be under feedstock cultivation for making biofuels
and other bioproducts by 2050 (Murphy et al. 2011; Higson and Aylott 2012).
The risk of increasing pressure on conservation value areas, leading to further loss
of biodiversity, has therefore been one of the most debated issues around biofuels
(see Fitzherbert et al. 2008; Koh and Wilcove 2008; Fargione et al. 2008). Biofuel
production already provides a powerful additional incentive to expand agriculture,
which by itself is historically a significant driver of land clearing (Nepstad et al.
31
Similar results have been obtained from biodiesel blended and pure uses. The US
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has found that the higher the percentage of
biodiesel blended into the fuel, the higher the reduction in CO, particulate matter,
and hydrocarbons emissions. As such, pure biodiesel achieves the best results. It can
reduce CO and particulate matter emissions by almost 50% when compared to fossil
diesel, in addition to an almost 70% reduction in hydrocarbon emissions (EPA 2002).
However, for air pollution impacts, it is necessary to look at the whole fuel
life cycle. For instance, in Brazil’s sugarcane cultivation, some harvesting is still
done manually after burning the crop to facilitate the process. These fires release
large amounts of CO, sulfur oxides (SOx), N 2 O, lead (Pb), ozone (O 3 ) and particulate matter in those sugarcane-producing regions, resulting in severe health impacts
and offsetting air pollution reduction benefits obtained through gasoline substitution
(Goldemberg et al. 2008; Machado et al. 2008).
2.3.3 Land Use and Biodiversity Conservation
There are three major dimensions where biofuels intersect with biodiversity conservation: (i) increased demand for industrial agriculture, strengthening it as a driver of
deforestation and land-use change; (ii) enhancement of environmental impacts from
(within) industrial agricultural systems; and (iii) introduction of potentially invasive
species as novel feedstocks.
There is a fair degree of consensus that biofuels’ demand for land will depend
mainly on feedstock choices, agricultural efficiency, and the technologies used (Dornburg et al. 2010). Currently, most biofuel production occurs either by diverting
existing crops from other uses (“crop-use change”) or through land-use change,
i.e., by deploying feedstock cultivation on lands previously under non-agricultural
or other agricultural uses. For instance, during the biofuel boom of the 2000s, the area
planted with sugarcane in Brazil quickly increased from 5.6 to 8.2 million hectares
(Mha) just between 2004 and 2008, with about half of it dedicated to ethanol production (MAPA 2013). That area has since remained more or less stable, at 8.5 Mha in
2019, but this is partly because biofuel manufacturing captures an increasingly larger
share of the crop. Only 35% of the 2019/2020 sugarcane harvest in Brazil was used
for sugar production (CONAB 2019; see Chap. 5). India, in turn, alone targeted 13.4
Mha for biofuel feedstock cultivation (see Chap. 6). On a world scale, some projections of a business-as-usual scenario estimate as much as 650 Mha—or nearly half of
the world’s arable land—might be under feedstock cultivation for making biofuels
and other bioproducts by 2050 (Murphy et al. 2011; Higson and Aylott 2012).
The risk of increasing pressure on conservation value areas, leading to further loss
of biodiversity, has therefore been one of the most debated issues around biofuels
(see Fitzherbert et al. 2008; Koh and Wilcove 2008; Fargione et al. 2008). Biofuel
production already provides a powerful additional incentive to expand agriculture,
which by itself is historically a significant driver of land clearing (Nepstad et al.