Is Cash the Only Thing Green about the Renewable Fuel Standard?

In December 2007, the United States adopted a renewable fuel standard (RFS), which mandated expanded use of biofuels, including ethanol, even though corn and soybean prices were already increasing. Rather than providing a well-reasoned approach to U.S. fuel concerns, the RFS appears to reflect Merton’s "imperious immediacy of interest" problem. That is, proponents of ethanol wanted it to succeed so badly, they were willing ignore to any unintended effects such as higher food and feedstock costs and the potential for lost rangelands and forestlands.

The initial appeal of ethanol and other biofuels seems reasonable. As a recent Time Magazine article notes, “It make intuitive sense: cars emit carbon no matter what fuel they burn, but the process of growing plants for fuel sucks some of that carbon out of the atmosphere.” So corn-based ethanol should be green, or at least greener, than oil, right? Seems like it, but that is not always the case.

The studies that led to calculations deeming ethanol greener than petroleum-based fuels were based on the added carbon sequestration that would that take place because of the crops planted for fuel. However, it seems those studies failed to consider whether the fuel crops would be replacing rangelands or forestlands that were already sequestering carbon, without concomitant carbon outputs (such as those from tractors and other farm equipment) related to crop growth.

There are some indications that cellulosic-source ethanol is a more environmentally friendly alternative to traditional fuels, but there is nothing requiring that the RFS be met with only ethanol from cellulosic sources. Despite some claims of “green” motivations, the current biofuel-promotion policies are predicated more on producing additional biofuel stores than addressing or even considering the environmental and human impacts of such policies.

A better ethanol policy would include requirements and incentives linked to new or emerging technologies that don’t create new competition for other already viable (e.g., corn) crops with established markets or lead to cleared tropical forests or savannas. Policies should instead promote only ethanol derived from growing high-diversity prairie hay grown on degraded lands, for instance, or from corn cobs. It would be more aggressive than current programs, but then, changing the status quo is never easy.