Corn-Based Ethanol May Be Worse For the Climate Than Gasoline, a New Study Finds - Inside Climate News

Corn-Based Ethanol May Be Worse For the Climate Than Gasoline, a New Study Finds - Inside Climate News
Skip to content
Donate
Science
Politics
Justice & Health
Fossil Fuels
Clean Energy
ICN Local
Projects
Impact
Newsletters
ICN Sunday Morning
Topics
A.I. & Data Centers
Activism
Arctic
Biodiversity & Conservation
Business & Finance
Climate Law & Liability
Climate Treaties
Denial & Misinformation
Environment & Health
Extreme Weather
Food & Agriculture
Fracking
Nuclear
Pipelines
Plastics
Public Lands
Regulation
Super-Pollutants
Water/Drought
Wildfires
Information
About
Job Openings
Reporting Network
Whistleblowers
Memberships
Ways to Give
Fellows & Fellowships
Publications
E-Books
Documents
Ethanol made from corn grown across millions of acres of American farmland has become the country’s premier renewable fuel, touted as a low-carbon alternative to traditional gasoline and a key component of the country’s efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
But
a new study
, published this week, finds that corn-based ethanol may actually be worse for the climate than fossil-based gasoline, and has other environmental downsides.
“We thought and hoped it would be a climate solution and reduce and replace our reliance on gasoline,” said Tyler Lark, a researcher with the Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, and lead author of the study. “It turns out to be no better for the climate than the gasoline it aims to replace and comes with all kinds of other impacts.”
The study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, looks specifically at the effect of the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), which was first passed by Congress in 2005 and updated in 2007 (RFS2). The standard requires that blenders add billions of gallons of renewable fuel to the country’s transportation fuel supply every year, creating the world’s biggest biofuels program.
At the time, lawmakers and proponents hailed the standard as a major victory for the climate and part of an overall effort to reduce dependence on foreign oil.
But in the 15 years since, its promises have yet to be fulfilled, critics say, and a mounting pile of studies shows corn ethanol has
not dampened demand
for fossil fuels, as expected, but has instead forced the conversion of grasslands and forests into croplands, both domestically and internationally, releasing carbon in the process.
In the new study, Lark and his colleagues found that after the RFS took effect, farmers expanded corn production on nearly 7 million acres each year, causing the conversion of lands to cropland “such that the carbon intensity of corn ethanol produced under the RFS is no less than gasoline and likely at least 24% higher.” The policy, the study said, also resulted in increased fertilizer use, water pollution and habitat loss.
In a
previous study
, from 2019, Lark and his colleagues found that cropland expansion in the United States, mostly for corn and soybeans, has led to increased greenhouse gas emissions, but did not connect that expansion to the RFS.
After the current standard took effect in 2007, the Environmental Protection Agency, which is in charge of running the program, determined that ethanol from corn met the requirement that any renewable fuel under the program had to demonstrate a 20 percent reduction in greenhouse gasses compared to gasoline.
But the following year, researchers published a study in the journal
Science
projecting that corn ethanol would double greenhouse gas emissions over 30 years because demand for corn would push farmers to plow up more carbon-rich forest and grassland. That study
triggered an ongoing debate
about ethanol’s carbon benefits.
In the following years, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and researchers at prominent agriculture-focused universities, produced studies showing that corn-based ethanol reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 40 to 45 percent.
In response to the new paper, the Renewable Fuels Association (RFA)
pointed to those studies
and said: “The claims in this report simply don’t align with reality and the facts on the ground, and the paper reads more like a fantasy novel than a genuine piece of academic literature.”
Tim Searchinger, a researcher at Princeton University who authored the
Science
study in 2008 projecting the doubling of greenhouse gas emissions over 30 years, said the research the RFA uses to support the climate virtues of ethanol fail to adequately account for land-use change, or it underestimates the carbon emission from converting forests and grasslands to cropland.
“Their numbers are invented out of whole cloth,” Searchinger said.
The RFA points out that cropland for corn has not expanded since the onset of the standard, but the study’s authors say they instead proved the “counterfactual.”
“What’s important is what would have happened without the RFS, without this ethanol boom,” Lark said. “Without this policy, there would have been a big decrease in corn.”
The intent of the RFS and RFS2 was for other forms of renewable fuels, especially cellulosic ethanol from plant and wood fiber, to increasingly become part of the fuel mix. But that has yet to happen. Instead, corn has become the backbone of the program.
The Biden administration is set to revamp the “renewable volume obligations”—the percentage of renewable fuels required in the fuel mix under the law—in the coming months. The Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works is scheduled to
hold a hearing
on the RFS Wednesday.
This story is funded by readers like you.
Our nonprofit newsroom provides award-winning climate coverage free of charge and advertising. We rely on donations from readers like you to keep going. Please donate now to support our work.
Donate Now
Aaron Smith, one of the co-authors of the study and a professor of agricultural economics at the University of California, Davis, said they chose to analyze the impacts of the RFS now, in part because of the upcoming reviews and potential changes to the program.
“It was written in the legislation that we should be looking at the environmental impact of the RFS,” Smith said. “And what stood out to us was the carbon impact.”
John Reilly, a co-director emeritus at the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change and a longtime Department of Agriculture researcher, called the study “impressive work” that will likely trigger yet more debate between environmental groups and the biofuels industry.
“The real supposed benefit of the RFS2 was to spur production of second-generation biofuels from cellulosic material, which was supposed to be much more environmentally beneficial,” Reilly noted. “The regulation is an impressive failure in that regard. If further research verifies the results of this study with respect to corn ethanol, then the RFS2 will have failed spectacularly on two fronts.”
About This Story
Perhaps you noticed: This story, like all the news we publish, is free to read. That’s because Inside Climate News is a 501c3 nonprofit organization. We do not charge a subscription fee, lock our news behind a paywall, or clutter our website with ads. We make our news on climate and the environment freely available to you and anyone who wants it.
That’s not all. We also share our news for free with scores of other media organizations around the country. Many of them can’t afford to do environmental journalism of their own. We’ve built bureaus from coast to coast to report local stories, collaborate with local newsrooms and co-publish articles so that this vital work is shared as widely as possible.
Two of us launched ICN in 2007. Six years later we earned a Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting, and now we run the oldest and largest dedicated climate newsroom in the nation. We tell the story in all its complexity. We hold polluters accountable. We expose environmental injustice. We debunk misinformation. We scrutinize solutions and inspire action.
Donations from readers like you fund every aspect of what we do. If you don’t already, will you support our ongoing work, our reporting on the biggest crisis facing our planet, and help us reach even more readers in more places?
Please take a moment to make a tax-deductible donation. Every one of them makes a difference.
Thank you,
David Sassoon
Founder and Publisher
Vernon Loeb
Executive Editor
Share This Article
Republish
Georgina Gustin
Reporter, Washington, D.C.
Georgina Gustin covers agriculture for Inside Climate News, and has reported on the intersections of farming, food systems and the environment for much of her journalism career. Her work has won numerous awards, including the John B. Oakes Award for Distinguished Environmental Journalism, and she was twice named the Glenn Cunningham Agricultural Journalist of the Year, once with ICN colleagues. She has worked as a reporter for The Day in New London, Conn., the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and CQ Roll Call, and her stories have appeared in The New York Times, Washington Post and National Geographic’s The Plate, among others. She is a graduate of the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism and the University of Colorado at Boulder.
@georginagustin.bsky.social
@georgina_gustin
[email protected]
Related
Increased Flooding and Droughts Linked to Climate Change Have Sent Crop Insurance Payouts Skyrocketing
By Georgina Gustin
EPA to Probe Whether North Carolina’s Permitting of Biogas From Swine Feeding Operations Violates Civil Rights of Nearby Neighborhoods
By Aman Azhar
Most Agribusinesses and Banks Involved With ‘Forest Risk’ Commodities Are Falling Down on Deforestation, Global Canopy Reports
By Georgina Gustin
Most Popular
As a Plastic Waste Plant Violates Pollution Rules, Its Owner Makes the Case for a Second Location
By James Bruggers
Low-Producing Oil Wells in Texas Cause Headaches for Landowners
Story by Martha Pskowski, photos by Paul Ratje
Independent Testing Where Tesla’s Lithium Refinery Discharges Wastewater Found Toxic Metals
By Arcelia Martin
Science
Fossil-Fuel Funded GOP Leaders Claim a Renowned Scientific Institution Has ‘Potential Conflicts of Interest’
Republican allies of the oil and gas industry question the objectivity of an independent report from the nation’s top science advisers on the harms of human-caused climate change.
By Liza Gross
Great White Sharks Are Overheating
Dam Useless: Barriers Prevent a Migratory Fish from Reproducing
Keep Environmental Journalism Alive
ICN provides award-winning climate coverage free of charge and advertising. We rely on donations from readers like you to keep going.
Donate Now
Inside Climate News uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you accept this policy.