Aug 13, 2024
By Emily Skor
CEO of Growth Energy
For years, Growth Energy has highlighted the expertise of the nation’s top GHG lifecycle scientists to counter misinformation about American biofuels. Sound science is the bedrock of our legal strategy, which aims to protect the Renewable Fuel Standard against misguided challenges lodged year after year by certain critics of renewable fuels. Now, experts in the fields of biomass and agricultural economics are taking on the challenge directly by filing their own amicus brief challenging claims offered by plaintiffs in Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) v. EPA et al. (Case No. 23-1177), in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
In CBD’s case, plaintiffs argue that the climate benefits of biofuels are undermined by the negative impacts of cutting into previously undisturbed land—an argument we know is based on debunked research.
In response, researchers from the University of Illinois Chicago, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, University of Idaho, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, South Dakota State University, University of California-Davis and other institutions are setting the record straight and putting the best science before the D.C. Circuit.
Specifically, they point out, “When the RFS was first adopted in 2007, some analysts predicted its targets for producing ethanol in the United States would generate major land-use changes and that emissions associated with the conversion of ‘natural land’ to ‘cropland’ would result in higher GHG emissions than gasoline.” They continued, “Experts in the field of biomass and agricultural economics have demonstrated that much of the outlier research was based on flawed assumptions and methods related to land use.”
For example, they note, the “satellite imagery at the resolution used in those early studies failed to accurately distinguish between land that has never been tilled and cropland that was temporarily fallow ... outlier researchers have also erroneously treated ‘cropland pasture’ as ‘natural’ land not previously tilled.”
Now, they explain, real-world data is available showing, “In research examining farmland over a 36-year period, only 1.8 percent of the 1,000 land parcels outlier researchers described as 'converted' appeared to fall into the category of untilled grassland, while 98.2 percent was in agriculture and toggled between crop and non-crop uses.” They added, “For the small percentage of previously untilled lands described as ‘converted,’ there is no causal evidence linking the RFS or biofuels to any such change in use.”
In short, they write, “Analyses based on more complete, updated data found that the average carbon intensity of biofuels is significantly less than conventional gasoline. Over time, as technologies and practices advance, and with various incentives the federal government has put into place, that benefit is expected to continue growing at an accelerated pace.”
Certainly, they aren’t the first experts to correct the record on biofuels. In 2022, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) even sent a letter to Growth Energy sharing concerns “about the methods and assumptions used” by Tyler Lark, who has authored numerous discredited studies contradicting mainstream science on biofuels.
The new amicus brief takes peer review to the next level, with top academic experts explaining directly to the courts why—when it comes to ethanol’s environmental benefits—there is no longer any genuine debate. Hopefully, those backing misleading challenges to the RFS will take note and join us as we continue to expand access to low-carbon biofuels at the gas pump.
Read the original story here.