ARE BIOFUELS ANTITHETIC TO LONG-TERM SUSTAINABILITY OF SOIL AND WATER RESOURCES?

Sustainability of biofuels is a contentious but old topic that has reemerged with increased use of crops as feedstocks. There are vastly different land requirements for different feedstocks, and disagreement on the energy balance of their conversion to biofuel. To be sustainable, biofuel systems should (i) have favorable economics, (2) conserve natural resources, (3) preserve ecology, and (4) promote social justice. With the possible exception of sugarcane production in Brazil, it seems unlikely that ethanol production from crops will be economically viable without government support. Less is known on cellulosic feedstock economics because there are no commercial-scale plants. Natural resources that may be affected include soil, water, and air. In the United States, agricultural intensification has been associated with greater soil conservation, but this depended on retaining residue that may serve as cellulosic feedstocks. The "water footprint" of bioenergy from crops is much greater than for other forms of energy, although cellulosic feedstocks would have a smaller footprint. Most studies have found that first-generation biofuels reduce greenhouse gas emissions 20-60%, and second generation ones by 70-90%, if effects from land-use change are excluded. But land-use change may incur large carbon losses, and can affect ecological preservation, including biodiversity. Social justice is by far the most contentious sustainability issue. Expanding biofuel production was a major cause of food insecurity and political instability in 2008. There is a large debate on whether biofuels will always contribute to food insecurity, social justice, and environmental degradation in poor countries.