The ILUC Debate, Four Years Later
Four years ago, the biofuels industry was boorishly introduced to the theory of indirect land use change, or ILUC. Timothy Searchinger’s now infamous article in the February 2008 edition of Science magazine boldly suggested increased corn ethanol production in the United States would lead to massive deforestation and conversion of grassland in nations halfway around the world. These hypothetical land conversions, he proffered, would release large amounts of stored carbon, indirectly making ethanol’s carbon footprint twice as bad as gasoline’s.
We knew it was a crazy theory four years ago. But it seems even crazier today, as the understanding of ethanol’s impact on land use has significantly progressed over the past four years. The scientific community has better data, improved modeling tools, and a better appreciation of the uncertainty and complexity involved in ILUC analysis. But, above all, they have the benefit of some experience and hindsight.
Real world data show that Searchinger was dead wrong in his predictions that ethanol expansion would cause U.S. farmers to plant fewer soybean acres, or that they would “…directly plow up more forest or grassland.” In fact, soybean acreage increased to record levels in 2008, 2009 and 2010. And a recent report from USDA shows U.S. grassland has increased to its highest level since 1964 and forestland is at its highest point since 1978. Meanwhile, total U.S. cropland has dropped to its lowest level since USDA began collecting data in the 1940s. From 2002 to 2007 alone, cropland dropped by 34 million acres, or nearly 8 percent (incidentally, ethanol production tripled during that period).
Empirical data also prove wrong Searchinger’s notion that “higher prices triggered by biofuels will accelerate forest and grassland conversion” in South America. Data from Brazil’s Ministry of Science and Technology show dramatic reductions in Amazon deforestation over the past five years. In fact, 2010 saw the lowest level of deforestation since the government began collecting the data in 1988.
Academics have recently begun to examine this empirical data to scientifically test the Searchinger hypothesis. One recent study, led by Michigan State University Professor Bruce Dale, used a “bottom-up, data-driven, statistical approach,” to determine that biofuel production in the United States through 2007 “probably has not induced any indirect land use change.” Researchers at Oak Ridge National Laboratory similarly found “…minimal to zero indirect land use change was induced by use of corn for ethanol over the last decade.” The Oak Ridge findings are based on a rigorous examination of empirical data from the 2001-‘08 time period, a span in which U.S. ethanol production more than quadrupled.
While methods to empirically verify the past occurrence and magnitude of ILUC continue to improve, the economic models used to predict potential future ILUC also are being refined. For instance, recent updates and improvements to Purdue University’s GTAP model resulted in a dramatic reduction of predicted ILUC emissions. In the latest Purdue analysis, the corn ethanol ILUC factor was found to be 14 grams CO2 equivalent per megajoule (g/MJ), compared to the value of 30 g/MJ used by California regulators and the EPA. A 2011 analysis conducted for the European Commission by the International Food Policy Research Institute placed the corn ethanol ILUC factor at 10 g/MJ. Contrasting these latest estimates with Searchinger’s outrageous value of 104 g/MJ shows his worst-case analysis was simply out of touch with reality.
Unfortunately, advancements in the science of ILUC have not been mirrored by improvements in biofuels regulations that penalize ethanol for hypothetical ILUC emissions. California and EPA continue to rely on outdated and inflated estimates of ILUC, to the detriment of our industry. As highlighted by U.C. Berkeley economist David Zilberman at a recent Coordinating Research Council workshop (which RFA co-sponsored), the current regulatory treatment of ILUC is “pretentious,” “shifts attention from real problems,” and “creates uncertainty for investors.” We couldn’t agree more. And that’s why RFA continues to push for improvements in both the science and the policy of ILUC.
Author: Bob Dinneen
President and CEO of the
Renewable Fuels Association
(202) 289-3835







4 Responses
Edward
2012-01-12
1I guess saying common sense told most of us what we already knew. I was at an Ethanol conference,in Omaha, where I heard the same arguements. The speaker went on to detail the carbon footprint down to the shoelaces in the extra workers footwear while they ripped up acre after acre of Brazilian rain forest. Then they blamed it all on the United States through land use change. I don't think that anyone in the room was buying this nonsense. The way I understand it we might as well ship all the ethanol we make to Brazil. The way the federal government is being puppeted by Big Oil we will be lucky to ever see an increase in the standards beyond the 15%. It took almost 2 years after the blend was to be increased to get the bill passed. Here in Nebraska there is no fuel suppliers at the 15% blend. Here in Columbus Nebraska there is one of the biggest ethanol producers in the world and you can't even buy E-85 if you own a flex fuel vehicle. This whole thing gives me a headache.
Andrew
2012-01-18
2Searchinger’s paper stimulated a lengthy and valuable debate and although his results have been widely questioned, the question has not yet been definitively answered, and may never be. Having said that, it was published in Science, a highly respected journal, and therefore is worthy of careful consideration. On the other hand, the opinions of a representative of the Renewable Fuels Association, which happen to coincide with the interests of that association, can hardly be trusted as being objective and therefore are worthy of no consideration at all.
Frank
2012-01-18
3Andrew, So one must have his opinions published in Science before they should be considered valid and/or debated? That's nonsense. The point of this article is that we know more about lad use today than we did 4 years ago, and all signs point to the fact that Searchinger was WAY off base. If a person's affiliation with an association renders that person's opinion invalid, then would you agree that Tim Searchinger's past employment at the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), an environmental extremist organization, means his opinions are not worthy of consideration as well? Let's be fair here. Frank
Victoria
2012-01-25
4From a 2010 USDS report: "As some forecasts had suggested, corn acreage increased mostly on farms that previously specialized in soybeans. Other farms, however, offset this shift by expanding soybean production. Farm-level data reveal that the simultaneous net expansion of corn and soybean acreage resulted from a reduction in cotton acreage, a shift from uncultivated hay to cropland, and the expansion of double cropping" - hence, increased corn expansion was at the expense of other crops. In addition, USDA data (http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/FATUS/) show that from 2010 to 2011 there was a reduction in the double digit percentage level (between 11% and 18%) of U.S. corn, soybean, and rice exports. That means that these commodities, which were previously exported, must now be produced elsewhere in the world. This, precisely, is what leads to ILUC. Finally, the reduction in Amazonian deforestation is largely credited on the "soy moratorium" and other governmental land use policy implementations. Now, with the passing of the Forest Act in Brazil, the Amazon and other important ecosystems are very threatened of undergoing legal deforestation. Hence, while I agree that many of the points made by Mr. Dinneen are correct, I think they are presented out of context, and moreover, the conclusions derived from them (that increased biofuel production from corn does not result in increased of ILUC) are, in Mr. Dinneen's own words, "plain wrong".
Leave a Reply
Comments are closed