Biofuels

BIOFUELSA CONTRIBUTION TOAN INFORMED DISCUSSION

CONTENTS

1 WHAT ARE BIOFUELS? 22 A MATTER OF FOOD, FEED AND FUEL 43 ETHANOL REDUCES GREENHOUSE GAS FOOTPRINT 124 ETHANOL AND THE RAIN FOREST 185 RENEWABLE ENERGIES NEED POLICY SUPPORT 226 NOVOZYMES’ POSITION 26

LITERATURE 28REFERENCES 30

Biofuels is a bewildering technology to most people. What’s up and what’s down can be hard to find out. This booklet tries to contribute with fact-based information to hopefully obtain a more informed discussion

A CONTRIBUTION TO AN INFORMED DISCUSSION

For more than 40 years, biofuels have been an important source of alternative energy but it was not until 5-7 years ago policies in the U.S. and other places brought about the steep increase in biofuel production. Once hailed as the one technology capable of decarbonizing the transportation sector, later accused for being unsustainable, biofuels is today a bewildering technology to most people.

While it is healthy to question new technologies, and especially those technologies that are politically driven, it is important to base discussions on a scientific and nuanced approach. This paper does not pretend to be a thorough review, nor does it pretend to present the one and only truth; rather it provides insights into the complexity of biofuels based on the best available scientific literature. While the paper expresses Novozymes’ view, we also hope it can contribute to an informed discussion.

One element to keep in mind when looking into biofuels is the fact that multiple interests are at play for all the stakeholders present in the debate. These range from farmers who are interested in an increased market for their products and increased prices, the ethanol industry in an increased ethanol demand, the food industry in low commodity prices, the oil industry interested in protecting their dominance on the energy market, the politicians interested in the next election, and so forth. All of which are legitimate interests but not always explicit in the debate.

BETA RENEWABLES – THE WORLD’S FIRST COMMERCIAL SCALE PLANT

Italian company Beta Renewables is one of the pioneers within advanced biofuels. Beta Renewables owns the world’s first operational commercial scale plant located in Crescentino, Italy. The plant has a production capacity of 75 million liters of ethanol per year based on feedstock such as straw and energy crops.

WHAT ARE BIOFUELS?

Biofuels are liquid fuels produced from biomass such as sugar cane, grains, agricultural residues, algae and household waste. They are typically used to replace gasoline and diesel in transportation.

One of the advantages of biofuels is that they are the only existing liquid alternative to fossil fuels. As such they can be used in today’s vehicles without modification when mixed with gasoline or diesel, or in flex fuel vehicles in high concentrations. Biomass can also be used to produce electricity.

Biofuels is a general term used for different types of fuel, produced from many different feedstock using a variety of production processes. These can be divided into two categories: ethanol replacing gasoline and biodiesel replacing diesel. These fuels can again be divided into conventional and advanced. As Novozymes’ involvement in biofuel is primarily in bioethanol, biodiesel will be out of the scope of this paper. Hence, all references to biofuel in the document are limited to bioethanol unless otherwise mentioned.

THE TECHNOLOGY IS READY

While conventional ethanol has been produced for years, advanced bioethanol is currently being deployed in China, Europe, Brazil and the U.S. The major barrier preventing large–scale deployment is financing and political uncertainty. Bringing advanced biofuels to market takes a partnership, where the private sector provides the innovation and the capital to develop it - and the public sector provides consistent policy support to grow it and capital support in the initial phase.

HOW BIOFUELS ARE PRODUCED

3

Often the debate is about food orfuel - not taking into account that plants can in fact help not only help us produce both, but also produce more than we do today

4

CHAPTER

1A MATTER OF FOOD, FEED AND FUEL

At first sight, the question of biofuels and food availability might seem rather simple: either we use agriculture to provide food or we use agriculture to provide for energy. In reality, however, the issue is far more complicated and offers many more opportunities than the apparent simple and intuitive nature of the problem.

Firstly, an often heard argument is that growing crops for biofuels production pushes food prices up. But variations in food prices are the result of several factors, the main ones being oil price, financial speculation, and stocks of food commodities. Detailed studies carried out by the World Bank and FAO show that the effect of current biofuels production on food price fluctuations is relatively small1. Secondly, it is important to distinguish between developed and developing countries as the issues at stake are very different depending on the demographic constellation. The impact of agricultural policies has been criticized by NGOs for decades for undermining farmers in developing countries, because of the low prices for agricultural commodities. It is widely agreed that investing in agriculture in developing countries is the best way to secure stable food prices, enabling farmers in developing countries to run an economically viable business, increase food security, and reduce poverty.

It is also relevant to consider how we use the available land. In the modern world, land is used for multiple purposes including food and feed, energy, tobacco, coffee, tulips, meat and cotton, and in places like Europe, land is set aside to keep crop and meat prices artificially high. To get an adequate view on the questions of ethanol and food availability all these various aspects need to be looked at.

CO-PRODUCTS PLAY A MAJOR ROLE IN THE BIOFUELS INDUSTRY

The amount of distillers’ grains obtained from growing 1 hectare of corn for ethanol replaces the equivalent of roughly 0.5 hectares of other crops grown for feed

BIOFUEL CO-PRODUCTS AS LIVESTOCK FEED

The simple question of whether we should use crops for food or fuel typically fails to take into account biofuel co-products. Yet, grain ethanol is co-produced with animal feed products often referred to as distillers’ grains, protein rich products substituting both cereals and soybean meal in livestock, pigs and poultry diets.

Corn contains starch, hemicellulose, cellulose, lignin, seed oil, protein and nutrients. The starch and cellulose can be used for ethanol, while the lignin can be burned for electricity and heat to use in the production process. The protein is used to make animal feed. For every 1 Kg of corn processed 1/3 Kg of animal feed is extracted2.

The amount of distillers’ grains obtained from growing 1 hectare of corn for ethanol replaces the equivalent of roughly 0.5 hectares of other crops grown for feed3. Hence, the net land use for bioethanol production is roughly half of the gross land use. When it is claimed that 40% of U.S. corn goes to ethanol, the truth is that the net area of agricultural land devoted to U.S. ethanol production corresponds to roughly 20% of theU.S. corn area.

Today, biofuel co-products are used broadly as feed ingredients in the diets of livestock, pigs and poultry. These co-products often substitute higher priced feeds in animal rations. For example, in recent

years, distillers’ grains have sold at a significant discount to maize and soybean meal, which are the ingredients it primarily substitutes in animal diets4.

The FAO has redacted one of the most thorough reports on biofuel co-products as livestock feed. They conclude that: “while the increased use of agricultural commodities for biofuels is generally expected to contribute to slightly higher input costs for certain livestock and poultry feeds, the impacts are expected

to be modest and can be mitigated in part by increased substitution of co-products for traditional feedstuffs. Increased agricultural productivity has allowed the global supply of crops available for

non-biofuel uses to continue to grow over the long term”5.

In 2010/11 distillers’ grains replaced soybean meal as the No. 2 feedstock for livestock in the U.S., second to corn only. However, current use of distillers’ grains is only 50% of the potential6.

5

Source: USDA Economic Research Survey

FACTORS IMPACTING FOOD PRICES

When the discussion of biofuels and food availability took off in 2007, little was known about the subject and it was not until after the increased prices of food commodities had come down again that it was possible to analyze the full situation. Conclusions from The World Bank and FAO pointed to the fact that a wealth of factors influenced food prices and their volatility7. These included weather, oil-price, and financial speculation. Biofuels only played a minor role.The same conclusions were drawn by the IFPRI8.

The World Bank issued a report in 2010 reviewing studies on price impacts of biofuels10. It concludes that studies indicating that biofuels had a significant impact on food prices fail to include the agriculture and food sector’s interaction with other sectors of the economy. This also goes for previous papers from the World Bank itself including a 2008 leaked paper by Donald Mitchell that was widely discussed when it was first published. This paper was and is still misquoted for blaming biofuels for 75% of the 2007-2008 food price increases. However, it was merely able to identify the reasons of high prices for 25%, and the rest was a big basket that included biofuels as one of several factors11.

Likewise, the Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute (FAPRI) emphasizes the impact of oil costs and how they affect nearly every aspect of the agriculture

and food industry, from the cost of grains to themarketing of finished products13.

Finally, it is necessary to note that grain prices only have little impact on consumer prices. The food system in the developed world consists of many intricate layers to

transform products from the farm into what consumers actually purchase in a grocery store or at a restaurant. In the US these layers makes up 85% of the total food cost whereas the raw commodity value of food products only makes up 15% of the finished product14.

BIOFUEL USED FOR CLEAN COOKINGMost people think in terms of cars when they think of biofuels. But in developing countries biofuel serves another purpose as well: fuel for clean cooking. Throughout Africa, more than 80% of urban families use charcoal to cook their food. Breathing in this toxic smoke causes lung disease and kills nearly two million people a year, most of them women and children18. According to the World Health Organization indoor air pollution from solid fuel use, including charcoal, causes almost 2 million deaths annually.

NdZilo, a Mozambican venture backed by Soros Economic Development Fund and the Bank of America is determined to replace charcoal with ethanol in local households in the capital Maputo. It is intended that by 2014, NdZilo will supply 20% of local households in Mozambique’s capital Maputo with ethanol. This will protect 4ha of indigenous forest per year. For each ethanol cook stove sold by NdZilo, CO is reduced by 6 tons per year19.2

Scan this code for moreinformation

INVESTING IN AGRICULTURE

Agricultural policies play a huge role in both food availability and food prices. According to Oxfam, Western countries’ dumping of cheap subsidized food in developing countries has put farmers in developing countries out of business making them dependent on food imports15. This is obviously a huge problem as 86% of people in developing countries depend on agriculture as the main source of income16. In the past couple of years, higher prices on the other hand have stimulated more grain production in developing countries as they enable farmers to run an economically viable business again. While high food prices are bad for net consumers of food, they are a clear benefit for the net producers.

Leading voices in the area such as the FAO and the World Bank agree that investing in agriculture in developing countries is the best way to secure stable food prices, enabling farmers in developingcountries to run an economically viable business, increase food security, and reduce poverty. Because 75 percent of the poor in developing countries live in rural areas, strengthening the agricultural sector can not only improve access to nutritious food, it also reduces rural poverty more than investment in any other sector17.

In the context of developing countries, it is again interesting to look at the relation between food and biofuels, which are inextricably interrelated. Economic growth requires access to energy. But a decade of soaring oil prices has created huge problems for developing countries’ efforts to industrialize and improve the lives of billions. Even

though overseas aid has increased, poor nations are effectively “running to stand still” in development terms, because they are paying heavily for energy imports.

According to the International Energy Agency, Sub-Saharan states need to move to renewable energy sources as $15bn in aid is outstripped by $18bn in oil imports20. Biofuels provide developing countries the opportunity to produce their own energy and create economic growth instead of spending money on imported fossil fuel. Lack of energy not only hampers growth, it also leads to exclusive growth as the poor who don’t get access to affordable energy are left out of the growth opportunity.

SMART USE OF LAND RESOURCES

Looking at the global potential to provide for both food and energy, it is necessary to take into consideration yield increase potentials, available land not in production today, as well as smart use of resources including co- products and the commercialization of biofuels from agricultural residues and household waste.

According to the FAO, the world has around 1.4bn ha. of spare prime land with potential for rain-fed crops. Only around 5% of this is expected to be in food production by 205021. Land expansions should of course be done in a sustainable way. Still, it is often claimed that there simply is not enough land for biofuel production. Today land used to produce bioethanol accounts for a max. of 2% of arable land22. According to the IEA, sustainable biofuels will make up to 27% of total transport fuel demand by 205023. This will require around 4% of the current global arable land. This estimate of course depends on political targets, realized yield increases, and the commercialization of advanced biofuel24.

Even though there is enough land we should of course carefully consider how we use it with a population growing towards nine billion people. 70% of the world’s agricultural land is used for livestock25. People of course do eat livestock, but is it in no way an efficient use of land. To produce 1 kg of chicken, pork and beef, it takes 2.5 kg, 6.5 kg and 7 kg of animal

feed respectively26.

With the help of biotechnology, crop yields have increased significantly. As an example corn crop yields have increased over 30% since biotechnology was introduced in 1996. Further increases are expected in the future. It is also clear that the great increase in agricultural production has been driven by yield increases and not by expansion of the agricultural area, which according to the USDA has been roughly 0.15%p. a. in the last 38 years27.

Another important measure to take into consideration

is yield gaps. While millions of acres of arable land lie fallow, the harvest in Africa, Asia and Eastern Europe are only between 1/5 and 1/2 of those in the U.S. and Western Europe28.

Another aspect is the question of whether biofuels could help crop yield increases in developing countries, where crop yields are far lower than in developed countries with the same natural conditions such as climate and soil. This is referred to as the yield gap. Researchers from two U.S. universities looked at this in a biofuel perspective. They found that if the global yield gap could be closed up to median global crop

Hg/Ha. CEREAL YIELD

100000China

90000 USA

Asia80000

East. Europe

70000 West.

Europe Africa

60000

50000

40000

30000

20000

10000

01960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

yield (50th percentile), it would correspond to over110 bn liters of ethanol per year (29 bgy) without touching food production and without bringing new land into production. To bring this into perspective, the mandated use of biofuel in the U.S. in 2013 is 16,6 bgy corresponding to about 62 bn liters. Closing yield gaps to the 90th percentile could give 450 bn liters of ethanol per year (119 bgy) and 33 billion liters of biodiesel. Meanwhile, closing the yield gaps would require removal of a large number of institutional and infrastructural barriers29.

In the journal Nature Climate Change, researcher and environmentalist Joseph Fargione (The Nature Conservancy) discussed these barriers and said that Johnston et al. (2011) had ‘raised an interesting question: can biofuel production be the key — catalyzing the necessary capital and policies — to unlock yield potential in countries with the greatest need?30. Potentially, large-scale biofuels production could bring infrastructure, know-how, and required institutional improvements to developing countries and thereby raise agricultural yields in general to the benefit of both energy and food production. Research in such positive potential spill-over effects should be encouraged.

The question of smart use of land inevitably leads into

the question of how the agricultural sector works. Like any other sector the agricultural sector increases and decreases production to adjust to market demand. The more food, feed and fuel we demand, the more farmers will produce to improve their business. The less we demand, the less will be produced. Of course, the fact that the agricultural sector is strongly subsidized plays a role, but no matter what the policies, farmers will always seek to maximize their business driven by contracts and commodity prices.

MUCH CAN BE DONE BY INCREASING YIELDS, ESPECIALLY IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES.

PER CAPITA FOOD LOSSAND WASTE AT CONSUMPTION AND PRE-CONSUMPTION STAGES IN Kg/YR

95

115 185

180 32182

70163

2417155

7113

CONSUMER 198

PRODUCTION TO RETAILING

FOOD WASTE

A different area to look at is food waste, which provides an interesting moral perspective on how we use the available food. According to the FAO, 1/3 of global food production is wasted globally, which amounts to about 1.3 bn tons per year31. According to a report by the European Parliament, Europe currently wastes up to 50% of its food; a massive figure that is expected to rise even further by 40% by 202032.

On a per capita basis, much more food is wasted in the industrialized world than in developing countries. The FAO estimates that the per capita food waste by consumers

in Europe and North America is 95-115 kg per year, while the figure for Sub-SaharanAfrica and Southeast Asia is only 6-11 kg per year33.

This clearly illustrates the need to reduce food loss, which alone has a considerable potential to increase efficiency in the whole food chain. It also puts the use of grains for fuel into perspective: The U.S. uses roughly 85 m tons of corn for ethanol (1/3 subtracted for animal feed34). This is less than 4% of world food waste in cereal equivalents!

Science today agree that the GHGemissions frombioethanol aresignificant lover than for gasoline. 11

ETHANOL REDUCES GREENHOUSE GAS FOOTPRINTOne of the main reasons for promoting biofuels politically is to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions compared to fossil fuels.

To reduce GHG emissions, biofuels must have a lower carbon footprint than that of the fossil fuel being replaced and this must be documented in order to count towards political targets. Examples are the U.S. Federal Renewable Fuel Standard, the Low Carbon Fuel Standard in California and the Renewable Energy Directive in the EU.

GHG emissions from biofuels have previously been much debated but it is today generally agreed among scientists that the GHG emissions from bioethanol are lower than the GHG emissions from the production and combustion of gasoline. As the industry continuously improves its efficiency, it is important to note that data becomes outdated rapidly, and that the GHG profile of ethanol is different from that of biodiesel. The figures in this paper refer to bioethanol only.

Another point to make is the necessity to include direct and possible indirect land use changes in the calculations for land using biofuels. For biofuels from agricultural residues it is important to include potential impacts from the loss on soil organic carbon.

When looking at means to lower GHG emissions from transportation, bioethanol is the most cost-effective technology. According to McKinsey, the cost of reducing CO2 emissions using conventional bioethanol is around 4 euro per ton of CO2 equivalence while it is 60 euro per ton of CO2 equivalence for electric cars35.

CHAPTER

2

By-products from ethanol production typically improve the carbon footprint for bioethanol by around 20%.

MEASURING GHG EMISSIONS

The carbon footprint of a product expresses the sum of the GHG emissions, which have occurred during the production and use of the product.

There was previously a heavy debate about the GHG reduction benefits of bioethanol, but since the systematic comparison by Farrell et al. in 2006, it has been generally agreed that the direct GHG emissions from bioethanol (not counting potential direct or indirect land use change effects) are significantly lower than the GHG emissions from gasoline36.

The comparative study by Farrell was however built on rather old data (2000-2003), which, in an industry where the great majority of the production capacity was built after 2003 (U.S.) and is more efficient, is likely to overestimate the carbon footprint of bioethanol. This view was confirmed by Liska et al. in 2009, who documented that U.S. corn ethanol production has improved significantly and that the GHG emission reductions are between 48% and 59% for these newer plants (not counting potential land use effects)37. The major reason for the improvement is the fact that biorefineries switched from coal to natural gas as their energy source. Since 2009 further improvements have been made to lower GHG emissions.

This means that the biofuels industry is increasingly lowering GHG emissions as farmers and biofuel producers optimize production. Another element in this is increased yield: While farmers produced 95 bushels per acre in 1980, they now grow 160 bushels per acre. Also, less energy is used in the production process as 90% of all ethanol today is produced in a dry-mill process instead of an energy consuming wet-mill process. Finally, the gallons of ethanol yielded per bushel of corn, has increased by about 50%38.

IMPORTANCE OF CO-PRODUCTS

When assessing the environmental footprint of biofuel it is important to include Distillers Grains credits when it comes to land use, water use and when it comes to CO2 savings. As previously described Distillers Grains are a co-product of ethanol production substituting both cereals and soybean meal in livestock diets. This saves land that would otherwise have been used to grow animal feed. It is common standard to include GHG emission credits for the use of Distillers Grains when measuring CO2. The result is that the carbon footprint for bioethanol is typically improved by around 20%.

Distillers Grains are produced by drying the fermentation mash after distillation of the ethanol. Distillers Grains constitute 1/3 of output from a bioethanol plant in terms of volume and 1/4 in terms of revenue.

2

4

WHAT IS ILUC?

Behind the ILUC theory is that the displacement of other land-using activities, caused by biofuels expansion, contributes to additional GHG emissions elsewhere, which should be factored in the lifecycle analysis of biofuels.

POSSIBLE INDIRECT LAND USE CHANGES

‘Indirect Land Use Change’ (ILUC) of biofuels occurs when an increased demand for biofuels results in more land being put in production. The reason that the land use change is considered indirect is that the crops used for the application that causes the change in crop demand is not sourced from the new land coming into production. However, they may still be the cause of new land coming into production.

The discussion about ILUC became a hot topic when Tim Searchinger published a paper claiming that ILUC adds 104 g of CO2 equivalents per MJ to corn ethanol’s carbon footprint – a number slightly higher than the total carbon footprint of gasoline. On this basis, Searchinger argued that it would take 167 years before the direct fuel substitution between ethanol and gasoline had ‘paid back’ the ILUC emissions caused upon the start of the ethanol production. In other words, corn ethanol would not cause any climate benefit for 167 years39. This clearly caused some disarray since one of the advantages of ethanol should be immediate GHG savings.

The Searchinger study has since been criticized for a number of shortcomings and most subsequent studies have estimated ILUC factors for corn ethanol that are farlower than 104 g CO2e/MJ. As science has progressed, estimates of emissions arising from ILUC have decreased drastically, from 104g CO2 e/MJ in 2008 by Searchinger (2008)40 to 15g CO e/MJ in 2010 by Tyner et al. (2010)41. Further to this, theInternational Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) has estimated ILUC factors related to the EU Renewable Energy Directive resulted in 12g CO2 e/MJ in 2011.

These newer studies clearly show that that ethanol significantly reduces CO2

emissions compared to fossil fuels, even when ILUC is accounted for. The IFPRI estimates savings from conventional bioethanol of between 48 and 65%, while they are less favorable for biodiesel43.

Options to produce biofuels without ILUC risk or to mitigate ILUC include biofuels from residues and household waste, biofuels produced additionally from yield increase, and biofuels produced on degraded or marginal land44.

When discussing ILUC, it is important to keep in mind that this is a new research area and many challenges still exist both data-wise and methodologically. One outstanding problem is “time accounting” or how to relate (indirect) land use change emissions to continuous biofuels production and fossil fuel replacement. In U.S. legislation, land use emissions are distributed over a period of 30 years while it is 20 in the EU. Both of which are equally arbitrary.

Policy wise, ILUC is accounted for in the U.S. Federal Renewable Fuel

Standard, and in California in the Low Carbon Fuel Standard. In Europe, the EU Commission

13

104

2722

1815

AS SCIENCE HAS MATURED ILUC FACTORS HAVE COME DOWN SIGNIFICANTLY

120

100

80

60

40

into account. As already mentioned, the time accounting issue is also problematic because it basically results in arbitrary results. There are also a large number of assumptions going into the economic models used for ILUC estimations, which are not based on real data but simply calibrated to ensure model closure. Finally, the economic models are often ‘black boxes’ with low transparency and results cannot be verified.

GHG EMISSIONS OF ADVANCED BIOFUELS

Advanced biofuels in the form of ethanol from agricultural residues, energy crops, or municipal solid waste have the potential to reduce GHG emissions further. As the industry is only commercializing at the moment, the results are still not based on full- scale and optimized commercial processing. Therefore, all figures are indicative only.

20

0Searchinger et al.

(2008) Hertel et al. (2010)

Tyner et al. (2010) Group 1

Tyner et al. (2010) Group 2

Tyner et al. (2010) Group

There is general agreement in literature about a GHG emission reduction from advanced biofuels of 80-130% where the high-end estimate comes from the US Environmental Protection Agency46. This number is estimated for biochemical conversion of corn stover in a 2022 scenario. Results from the JEC consortium (Joint Research Centre of the European Commission, EUCAR, and CONCAWE) indicate

has made a proposal on how to tackle ILUC according to which bioethanol is able to provide required emissions reductions under the Renewable Energy Directive45.

It is important to note that although the theory behind ILUC may make immediate sense, there is a wealth of practical difficulties related to estimating ILUC factors. This is shown in the many different and conflicting results derived with different models. Moreover, models often have a hard time dealing with idle or fallow land,i.e. land that could come into production with a low carbon cost. This is simply

due to bad land use databases. Furthermore, models are usually static, which means that dynamic development like the decrease in US and European cropland is not taken

gCO

2 e/M

J

that advanced biofuels are expected to decrease emissions in the range of 80-90%47.These figures do not take the soil organic carbon effect into account.

The main reason for the higher GHG emission reduction from advanced biofuels is that feedstock in the form of residual biomass is ‘freely’ available as

a by-product. The most important aspects in the GHG emission profile for advanced biofuels are thereby: 1) potential change in soil organic carbon (SOC) which for residue removal means a temporary potential SOC reduction which increases emissions48 and for perennial energy crops means a potential SOC increase with decreased emissions49, and 2) potential export of electricity (or biogas) from the bio-refinery.

14

15

THE SOIL CARBON EFFECT AND HOW IT IMPACTS GHG SAVINGS FROM ADVANCED BIOFUELS

When measuring GHG emissions from biofuels produced from agricultural residues it is important to take the soil carbon effect into account. Agricultural residues contain carbon which is bound in soil when leaving it in the field thereby decreasing CO2 in the atmosphere. In the soil, carbon is also beneficial to the water balance, soil stability, and nutrient availability. When removing the residues, some of the carbon is released into the atmosphere. Reduction in soil carbon driven by removal of agricultural residues is a temporary phenomenon that stops when a new soil balance has been reached, mainly within 20-30 years50.

To preserve soil fertility it is important to leave some of the residues on the field. Science generally agrees that 30-50% of residues can be removed sustainably and used for biofuels or other purposes depending on the geographical circumstances including soil type, crops, temperature, and moisture conditions. As an example, sandy soil has poor ability to bind carbon while brown fat soil has high ability to do so. This means that more residues can be removed from sandy soil.

Means to counteract negative effects of crop residue removal include the use of cover crops, manure, no-till and other agricultural practices. A systematic approach

to combined use of different soil carbon management techniques has only just begun.

Agriculture provides an opportunity to mitigate climate change by 1) introducing good agricultural practices such as cover crops, manure, and no-till, 2) changing the use of land such as use of degraded land and substitution of annual crops with perennial crops and3) providing biomass for substitution of fossil fuel51.

16

No-one wants to see the rainforest go away, and when used in the right way biofuels can help fight deforestration

CHAPTER

3ETHANOL AND THE RAIN FORESTWhile deforestation is a serious problem with multiple drivers, there’s no reason for biofuels to drive deforestation. On the contrary, biofuels done right can contribute to the fight against deforestation, for example by replacing charcoal in developing countries.

When the debate about biofuels was at its height in 2008, Time Magazine published an article claiming that biofuels where to blame for destroying the Amazon52. Since then this claim has been part of the general understanding of biofuels. The hypothesis behind the claim was that U.S. farmers were switching from producing soybean to producing corn, causing increased production of soybean in Brazil, again causing destruction of the Amazon. The argumentation is solely based on Tim Searchinger whose first conclusions on the indirect land use change theory was later significantly modified by other scientists like Tyner and Laborde as described in the previous section53.

In order to evaluate whether biofuels are the main cause of deforestation in the Amazon, and particularly whether the U.S. biofuel mandate is destroying the Amazon it is relevant to look into the increase and decrease of field corn and soybean production in the U.S. It is also relevant to look into the actual changes of the Amazon. Finally, it is also relevant to evaluate whether sugarcane ethanol is expanding into the Amazon.

INCREASED PRODUCTION OF FIELD CORN IN THE U.S. HASNOT DECREASED U.S. SOYBEAN PRODUCTION.

Field corn: acres planted Soybean: acres planted100

80

80

60

60

40

40 82

2020

002005 2008 20112005 2008 2011

Field corn: production in bushels Soybean: production in bushels

15,000 4,000

12,000 3,200

9,000 2,400

6,000 12,092 12,358 1,600 3,068 3,094

3,000 800

0 02008 2008 2011 2005 2008 2011

Based on USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service54

92

86

76 75

72

11,112 2,967

POTENTIAL IMPACT OF CORN ETHANOL ON AMAZON DESTRUCTION

First of all, the Time Magazine article previously mentioned claimed that expansion of corn ethanol in the U.S. is to blame for destroying the Amazon. While it may make intuitive sense to many, the authors forgot to check the actual data.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture provides excellent statistical data on agricultural production. And it is clear that both acres and actual production have increased for both field corn and soybean.

This shows that increased demand for field corn in the U.S. has not decreased U.S. soybean production in the U.S. and indirectly pushed Brazilian farmers to destroy rainforest to produce additional soybean assuming that demand is constant.

Let’s also look at the actual changes in the Amazon. A scientific paper by Rudorff et al. (2011) spreads some interesting light on this issue55. The paper looks at the soybean expansion in the Brazilian Amazon following the ‘Soy Moratorium’. This is a pledge agreed to by major soybean companies not to trade soybean produced in deforested areas after 24 July 2006 in the Brazilian Amazon. The Soy Moratorium is a multi-stakeholder initiative which supporters include www.monggaby.com and Greenpeace which was active in establishing it. Since 2009, satellite remote sensing has been used to track soybean expansion in the Amazon after the cut-off date. It is these empiric data (among other) that the paper by Rudorff et al. (2011) relies on.

Before moving to the results of the analysis, it is important to note that soybean expansion is not an initial cause of deforestation in the Amazon. This normally starts with selective logging of tree species with high economic value. Afterwards, the land might be cleared and used for agricultural purposes. Rudorff et al. (2011) found that 6.3 thousand ha. of soybeans had been planted on previously deforested land after the moratorium came into effect. This is 0.25% of the total deforestation. On this basis, the authors conclude that, currently, soybean has almost no influence on deforestation. Furthermore, they state that deforestation rates have declined in the Brazilian Amazon. Based on the study by Rudorff et al. (2011), it seems fair to conclude that U.S. corn ethanol has not had any significant effect on soybean expansion in the Brazilian Amazon.

Mill

ion

Mill

ion

Mill

ion

Mill

ion

AGRO-ECOLOGICAL ZONING IN BRAZIL

The increased attention on sugarcane ethanol and palm oil diesel policies spurred the Brazilian government to look into the introduction of agro ecological zoning for sugarcane and palm in the years between 2007-2009. Agricultural zoning was not a new phenomenon in Brazil as it had already been practiced since 2002 but with a primary focus on agro-economic criteria. The new agroecological zoning for sugarcane did however raise the stakes to include new ecological criteria together with nationwide requirements for all financing institutions, to evaluate loans essential for large farming endeavors, based on their compatibility with new agro ecological zoning requirements56. Additionally, if evidence of illegal activity is found, the government reserves the right to refuse the granting or renewal of permits to local processing facilities which farmers depend upon to buy their goods. This functions as an effective enforcement mechanism57.

Some of the most significant results of the zoning framework for sugarcane which have entered into law, are that sugarcane cultivation is forbidden in areas with more than 12% declivity, incentivizing mechanical harvesting for both efficiency and humanitarian reasons (due to labor conditions of cane field workers). Sugarcane cultivation is also forbidden in the entire Amazon region (totaling 59% of the country) including previously deforested areas, areas with any kind of natural vegetation, to prohibit new deforestation in the Pantanal wetland and its hydrographic basin and in all high conservation-value areas58.

Looking a bit broader, data from UNICA, the Brazilian Sugarcane Association, shows that about 90% of sugarcane for ethanol production in Brazil is harvested in South-Central Brazil, over 2,500 km (1,550 miles) from the Amazon. The remaining 10% is grown in Northeastern Brazil, about the same distance from the Amazon’s easternmost fringe. This is roughly the distance between New York City and Dallas, or between Paris and Moscow. Actual sugarcane production in the Amazon is less than 0.2% of total Brazilian production and process at four mills built more than 20 years ago, when the Government set up incentives to supply the local market. Without subsidies these mills would not have been economically viable since the Amazon is not well suited for sugarcane production59.

Imperfections in the market fail to factor in the cost of environmental damage from fossilfuel. The failure to internalize these externalities in the selling price can be viewed as an indirect subsidy and therefore denies renewable energies the opportunity to mature without support.”

19

RENEWABLE ENERGIES NEED POLICY SUPPORT TO COMPETE WITH FOSSIL FUELBiofuels are often criticized because they are subject to policy support. Let it be said immediately: renewable energies need policy support in order to compete with fossil fuel which still receive subsidies and benefits from an established infrastructure.

According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), fossil fuel consumption subsidies amounted to USD 523 bn in 2011, up almost 30% on 2010 and six times more than the subsidies to renewables60.

The IEA took a thorough look at subsidies for renewables as part of the World Energy Outlook, 2012. They write: “To foster the deployment of

renewable energy, governments use subsidies to lower the cost of renewables or raise their revenues, helping them compete with fossil fuel technologies. The

justification is that imperfections in the market fail to factor in externalities (such as environmental costs attributable to other fuels) or deny nascent technologies the

opportunity to mature without support. The ultimate goal is to help renewable energy technologies to achieve sufficient cost reductions to enable them to compete

on their own merits with conventional technologies. At that point any support should, accordingly cease to be awarded to additional capacity.”61

In line with this, subsidies should never be a permanent fix to undermine the market but should be phased out when technologies mature. Subsidies are also not the only tool that can be taken into account. Phasing out subsidies to fossil fuel and internalizing negative externalities are other measures, but efficient implementation of such tools remain to be seen.

CHAPTER

4

Subsidies can come in various forms including tax credits for production and investment, price premiums and preferential buy-back rates or feed-in tariffs. Other forms of policy support are mandates, quotas and portfolio standards supporting the

uptake of renewables – possibly but not necessarily - at higher costs to the economy 40

or the consumer. While these mechanisms are supportive of renewables or whateversector they are applied to, they should be distinguished from direct subsidies as there 35

is not necessarily a direct cost involved.30

One example of a key legislative tool is the Federal biofuels policy called the

Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) which mandates the use of biofuels in transportation 25

in the U.S. gradually increasing year by year until 2022, where 36 billion gallons of biofuels should be blended into transportation fuel62. The RFS opens up the market for bioethanol, and for a number of years it was supplemented by a direct subsidy

15paid to refiners and gasoline importers (VEETC) until the ethanol industry was able toproduce ethanol at a cheaper cost than that of gasoline.

10

The Renewable Fuel Standard has a built-in flexibility as it allows refiners to meet as much as 20% of their obligation with credits generated in previous years or alternatively carry over deficits to coming years. The built-in flexibility means that less ethanol will be produced during times with high corn prices and more ethanol will be produced in times with low corn prices leveling out demand for corn during droughts and such situations63.

Other policy support mechanisms in the U.S. include the cellulosic ethanol tax credit and loan guaranties for advanced biofuels projects.

Consistent policies are vital in order to maintain investors’ confidence and in the end ensure sustained deployment of renewables. Short term policy and repeated expirations of e.g. tax credits are poisonous.

5

02009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Conventional Biofuels Non-Cellulosic AdvancedCellulosic Advanced Biomass-based Biodiesel

The US RFS is a flexible policy mandating the use of biofuels intransportation gradually until 2022.

2

22

CHAPTER

5NOVOZYMES’ POSITIONNovozymes supports the use of sustainable biofuels delivering clear environmental benefits.

With a growing population, increased pressure on natural resources and looming climate change, we need to get more out of the resources we have in order to provide food, fuel and feed. Currently biofuels are the only available and cost-effective option to cut CO2 in the transport sector.

Novozymes would like to invite all stakeholders to a constructive discussion on how we can harvest the benefits of biofuels and biotechnology to secure our future supply of food, feed and fuel, increase energy security, and cut CO2 emissions.

WHY THE BIOFUEL DEBATE MATTERS TO NOVOZYMES

Biofuels are widely discussed and many important stakeholders have an opinion about the technology some positive, some negative. Novozymes takes these concerns seriously and works technically, academically and politically within this area.

Novozymes is the world’s leading supplier of enzymes for the production of conventional and advanced ethanol. Novozymes develops enzyme technology that increases sustainability by decreasing costs and increasing yields. In conventional ethanol we optimize the conversion of grains like corn, barley, wheat and rye with higher ethanol yields, lower usage of grains, faster throughput, lower energy usage and lower processing costs.Enabled by Novozymes’ innovations, the first advanced biofuels plants started commercial production in 2013. We will continue to develop more efficient enzymes to further reduce the total cost of producing advanced biofuels.

A SCIENTIFIC AND HOLISTIC APPROACH NEEDED

The overall framework for sustainability assessment of biofuels should be performance-based and build on a life-cycle approach including all relevant aspects of biofuels production and co-products. There is a need for a careful scientific and holistic evaluation of all relevant aspects of biofuel production and use along with other alternative and renewable fuels needed for our future global energy supply.

SUSTAINABILITY STANDARDS AND CERTIFICATION SCHEMES

Novozymes actively supports international initiatives to develop certification schemes for sustainable biofuels. These should be transparent, based on best available science and aim at continuous improvements on footprint. Novozymes is active in a number of networks and initiatives such as Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels (RSB) and ISO.

To secure a level playing field fossil fuel should also be subject to sustainability criteriain order to promote the fossil fuels with the smallest environmental and social impacts.

Furthermore, sustainability criteria should pave the way for increased sustainability of the entire agricultural sector. We must produce more with less to ensure the supply of food, feed, fiber, and fuel to our growing population. Certification schemes and sustainability standards however cannot stand alone. They are not the most efficient instrument to control land and biodiversity. There is a need for strategic planning of resource use at the local and regional level.

LITERATURE

• http://www.fao.org/investment/whyinvestinagricultureandru/en/

• http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/01/overseas-aid-africa-oil-imports-costs

• AMIS: http://statistics.amis-outlook.org/data/index.html

• Cherubini et al. (2011): CO2 emissions from biomass combustion for bioenergy: atmospheric decay and contribution to global warming, GCB Bioenergy 3, 413–426

• EPA (2010, Figure 2.6-12): Renewable Fuel Standard Program (RFS2) Regulatory Impact Analysis, US Environmental protection Agency

• EPA: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/fuels/renewablefuels/

• Ephraim Leiptag (2008): Corn prices near record high, but what about food costs?

• EU JRC (2006) Well to Wheel report

• European Commission (2010): Preparatory study on food waste across EU 27

• FAO/Alexandratos and Bruinsma (2012): World agriculture towards 2030/50: The 2012 revision

• FAO (2011): Global food losses and food waste

• FAO: ‘Soaring food prices: facts, perspectives, impacts and actions required’, April 2008.

• FAO (2012) The State of Food and Agriculture 2012 http://www.fao.org/docrep/017/i3028e/i3028e. pdf

• FAO (2008): Working paper for High-level conference in Rome June 08 & IEA/OECD (2008): Energy Technology Perspective

• FAOSTAT, FAO: http://www.fao.ord/newsroom/en/news/2008/1000868/index.html

• FAPRI (2012): U.S. Baseline Briefing Book – Projections for agricultural and biofuel markets, FAPRI-MUReport #01-12, University of Missouri

• Fargione (2011): Boosting biofuel yields, Nature Climate Change Vol 1, Dec 2011

• Farrell et al. (2006), Ethanol can contribute to energy and environmental goals, Science 27, Vol 311, 506-508 http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/311/5760/506

• Follett R. et al (2011), Carbon Sequestration and GHG Fluxes in Agriculture: Challenges and Opportunities (CAST, Council for Agriculture Science and Technology), Up-date of Task Force Report 142.

• Forrest Jehlik, Argonne National Laboratory: Five Ethanol Myths, Busted at Wired.com: http://www.wired.com/autopia/2011/06/five-ethanol-myths-busted-2/

• Harinder P.S. Makker, FAO (2012): Biofuel co-products as livestock feed

• Headey and Fan (2010): Reflections on the Global Food Crisis, IFPRI

• Hoffman L.A and Baker A (2011), Estimating the Substitution of Distillers’ Grains for Corn and Soybean Meal in the U.S. Feed Complex. A report from Economic Research Service

• Hoffman and Baker (2010): Market issues and prospects for U.S. distillers’ grains: supply, use, and price relationships. USDA, Economic Research Service

• IEA, World Energy Outlook 2011

• IEA: World Energy Outlook 2012

• IEA (2011) Technology Roadmap, Biofuels for Transport.

• IPCC (2007), 4th Assessment Report (AR4)

• Johnston et al. (2011): Closing the gap: global potential for increasing biofuel production throughagricultural intensification, Environ. Res. Lett. 6

• KMO (2011): Use of DDGS as animal feed in US, A supplement to memo on DDGS (2010-03476)/ KMO

• Laborde (2011): Assessing the Land Use Change Consequences of European Biofuel Policies, Final Report, October 2011, IFPRI

• Leopold, Aaron and Aguilar, Soledad (2009) “Brazil.” in E. Morgera, K. Kulovesi and A.

• Gobena (2009) Case Studies on Bioenergy Policy and Law: Options for

• Sustainability. FAO Legislative Study 102, FAO Rome. Available at:

• http://www.fao.org/docrep/012/i1285e/i1285e00.htm

• Leopold, A. (2010) TEEBcase: Agroecological Zoning, Brazil, available at: TEEBweb.org

• Lippke et al. (2011): Life cycle impacts of forest management and wood utilization, Carbon Management 2(3), 303–333, McKechnie et al. (2011): Forest Bioenergy or Forest Carbon? Assessing Trade-Offs in GHG Mitigation with Wood-Based Fuels, Environ. Sci. Technol. 45, 789–795

• Liska et al. (2009), Improvement in Life Cycle Energy Efficiency and GHG Emissions of Corn-ethanol,Journal of Industrial Ecology

• Goodwin et al (2012): Is Yield Endogenous to Price? An Empirical Evaluation of Inter- and Intra- Seasonal Corn Yield Response

• McKinsey: Pathways to a Low-Carbon Economy. A study of the GHG mitigation potential of known technologies

• Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, eleventh edition, 2003

• Mitchell, Donald (2008): A Note on Rising Food Prices

• Oxfam, 2004: Stop the dumping

• Rudorff et al. (2011): The Soy Moratorium in the Amazon Biome Monitored by Remote Sensing Images

• Scown et al. (2012): Lifecycle GHG implications of US national scenarios for cellulosic ethanol

production, Environ. Res. Lett. 7, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/7/1/014011, http://iopscience.iop. org/1748-9326/7/1/014011

• Searchinger (2010): Biofuels and the need for additional carbon, Environ. Ress. Lett. 5 and EEA (2011): Opinion of the EEA Scientific Committee on GHG Accounting in Relation to Bioenergy, European Environment Agency

• Searchinger T et al. (2008) Use of U.S. Croplands for Biofuels Increases greenhouse gasses Through Emissions from Land Use Change, Science 319:1238-1240.

• Smith et al. (2012): Crop residue removal effects on soil carbon: Measured and inter-model comparisons, Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 161:27-38, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. agee.2012.07.024

• Timilsina and Shrestha (2010): Biofuels - Markets, Targets and Impacts, The World Bank, Development Research Group, Environment and Energy Team

• Tyner et al. (2012): Potential Impacts of a Partial Waiver of the Ethanol Blending Rules

• Tyner et al. (2010): Land Use Changes and Consequent CO2 Emissions due to US Corn Ethanol Production: A Comprehensive Analysis.

• http://www.growthenergy.org/2009/reports/2009%20JIE%20Improvements%20in%20corn%20 ethanol-Liska%20et%20al.pdf

• USDA (2008), Global Agricultural Supply and Demand: Factors contributing to the recent increase in Food Commodity Prices

• Wisner R. (2011), Estimated U.S. Dried Distillers Grains with Solubles, Production and Use, Iowa State University

• World Bank: ’World development report 2008: Agriculture for development’, 2007

• Zanchi et al. (2011): Is woody bioenergy carbon neutral? A comparative assessment of emissions from consumption of woody bioenergy and fossil fuel, GCB Bioenergy, doi: 10.1111/j.1757- 1707.2011.01149.x

REFERENCES

1. Timilsina and Shrestha (2010): Biofuels - Markets, Targets and Impacts, The World Bank, Development Research Group, Environment and Energy Team and FAO: ‘Soaring food prices: facts, perspectives, impacts and actions required’, April 2008.

2. Hoffman and Baker (2011): Estimating the Substitution of Distillers’ Grains for Corn and Soybean Meal in the U.S. Feed Complex. USDA, Economic Research Service.

3. Calculations based on Hoffman L.A and Baker A (2011), Estimating the Substitution of Distillers’ Grains for Corn and Soybean Meal in the U.S. Feed Complex. A report from Economic Research Service

4. Hoffman and Baker (2010): Market issues and prospects for U.S. distillers’ grains: supply, use, and price relationships. USDA, Economic Research Service, Washington, D.C., USA.

5. Harinder P.S. Makker, FAO (2012): Biofuel co-products as livestock feed

6. Wisner R. (2011), Estimated U.S. Dried Distillers Grains with Solubles, Production and Use, Iowa State University

7. Timilsina and Shrestha (2010): Biofuels - Markets, Targets and Impacts, The World Bank, Development Research Group, Environment and Energy Team and FAO: ‘Soaring food prices: facts, perspectives, impacts and actions required’, April 2008.

8. Headey and Fan (2010): Reflections on the Global Food Crisis, IFPRI

9. FAO: ‘Soaring food prices: facts, perspectives, impacts and actions required’, April 2008.

10. Timilsina and Shrestha (2010): Biofuels - Markets, Targets and Impacts, The World Bank, Development Research Group, Environment and Energy Team

11. Donald Mitchell (2008): A Note on Rising Food Prices

12. Canning, Patrick, USDA (2011): A Revised and Expanded Food Dollar series

13. FAPRI (2012): U.S. Baseline Briefing Book – Projections for agricultural and biofuel markets, FAPRI-MU Report #01-12, University of Missouri

14. FAPRI (2012): U.S. Baseline Briefing Book – Projections for agricultural and biofuel markets, FAPRI-MU Report #01-12, University of Missouri

15. Oxfam, 2004: Stop the dumping

16. World bank: ’World development report 2008: Agriculture for development’, 2007

17. http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/130449/icode/

18. http://www.sustainableenergyforall.org/objectives

19. Conservative estimate by NdZilo

20. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/01/overseas-aid-africa-oil-imports-costs

21. FAO/Alexandratos and Bruinsma (2012): World agriculture towards 2030/50: The 2012 revision

22. IEA: (2011) Technology Roadmap, Biofuels for Transport: http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/biofuels_roadmap.pdf

23. IEA (2011) Technology Roadmap, Biofuels for Transport.

24. FAO (2008): Working paper for High-level conference in Rome June 08 & IEA/OECD (2008): Energy Technology Perspective (check if newer info is available)

25. EU JRC (2006) Well to Wheel report (check if newer info is available)

26. Ephraim Leiptag (2008): Corn prices near record high, but what about food costs?

27. USDA (2008), Global Agricultural Supply and Demand: Factors contributing to the recent increase in Food Commodity Prices

28. FAOSTAT, FAO: http://www.fao.ord/newsroom/en/news/2008/1000868/index.html

29. Johnston et al. (2011): Closing the gap: global potential for increasing biofuel production throughagricultural intensification, Environ. Res. Lett. 6

30. Fargione, 2011

31. FAO (2011): Global food losses and food waste

32. European Parliament (2012)

33. FAO (2011): Global food losses and food waste

34. Based on Tyner et al. (2012): Potential Impacts of a Partial Waiver of the Ethanol Blending Rules

35. McKinsey: Pathways to a Low-Carbon Economy. A study of the GHG mitigation potential of known technologies. Basing its estimates on an average oil price of $60 USD/barrel in 2030, it is a global evaluation of opportunities to combat climate change that can be achieved with an economic cost of under $60 per ton of CO2. ILUC not included

36. Farrell et al. (2006), Ethanol can contribute to energy and environmental goals, Science 27, Vol 311, 506-508 http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/311/5760/506

37. Liska et al. (2009), Improvement in Life Cycle Energy Efficiency and Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Corn-ethanol, Journal of Industrial Ecology http://www.growthenergy.org/2009/reports/2009%20 JIE%20Improvements%20in%20corn%20ethanol-Liska%20et%20al.pdf

38. Forrest Jehlik, Argonne National Laboratory: Five Ethanol Myths, Busted at Wired.com:http://www.wired.com/autopia/2011/06/five-ethanol-myths-busted-2/

39. Searchinger T et al. (2008) Use of U.S. Croplands for Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gases Through Emissions from Land Use Change, Science 319:1238-1240.

40. Searchinger T et al. (2008) Use of U.S. Croplands for Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gases Through Emissions from Land Use Change, Science 319:1238-1240.

41. Tyner et al. (2010): Land Use Changes and Consequent CO2 Emissions due to US Corn Ethanol Production: A Comprehensive Analysis.

42. Laborde (2011): Assessing the Land Use Change Consequences of European Biofuel Policies, Final Report, October 2011, IFPRI

43. Laborde (2011): Assessing the Land Use Change Consequences of European Biofuel Policies, Final Report, October 2011, IFPRI.

44. Goodwin et al (2012): Is Yield Endogenous to Price? An Empirical Evaluation of Inter- and Intra- Seasonal Corn Yield Response

45. Laborde (2011) for the EU Commission estimates GHG savings from ethanol to be between 48 and 65% including ILUC.

46. EPA (2010, Figure 2.6-12): Renewable Fuel Standard Program (RFS2) Regulatory Impact Analysis, US Environmental protection Agency

47. Derived from Edwards et al. (2011): Well-to-wheels Analysis of Future Automotive Fuels and Powertrains in the European Context, WTT APPENDIX 2, Description and detailed energy and GHG balance of individual pathways, Version 3c, July 2011, European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Energy and Transport, ISBN 978-9279-21395-3

48. Smith et al. (2012): Crop residue removal effects on soil carbon: Measured and inter-model comparisons, Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 161:27-38, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. agee.2012.07.024

49. Scown et al. (2012): Lifecycle greenhouse gas implications of US national scenarios for cellulosic ethanol production, Environ. Res. Lett. 7, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/7/1/014011, http://iopscience. iop.org/1748-9326/7/1/014011

50. Based on IPCC tier 1 guidelines. IPCC(2007), 4th Assessment Report (AR4)

51. Follett R. et al (2011), Carbon Sequestration and Greenhouse Gas Fluxes in Agriculture: Challenges and Opportunities (CAST, Council for Agriculture Science and Technology), Up-date of Task Force Report 142.

52. Time Magazine, March 27, 2008: The Clean Energy Scam

53. Searchinger T et al. (2008) Use of U.S. Croplands for Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gases Through Emissions fr CO2Emissions due to US Corn Ethanol Production: A Comprehensive Analysis and Laborde (2011): Assessing the Land Use Change Consequences of European Biofuel Policies, Final Report, October 2011, IFPRI

54. http://www.nass.usda.gov/

55. Rudorff et al. (2011): The Soy Moratorium in the Amazon Biome Monitored by Remote Sensing Images

56. Leopold, Aaron and Aguilar, Soledad (2009) “Brazil.” in E. Morgera, K. Kulovesi and A. Gobena (2009) Case Studies on Bioenergy Policy and Law: Options forSustainability. FAO Legislative Study 102, FAO Rome. Available at: http://www.fao.org/docrep/012/i1285e/i1285e00.htm

57. Leopold, A. (2010) TEEBcase: Agroecological Zoning, Brazil, available at: TEEBweb.org

58. Leopold, A. (2010) TEEBcase: Agroecological Zoning, Brazil, available at: TEEBweb.org

59. http://www.tropen.uni-bonn.de/new_website/englische_seiten/Home/Myths.pdf

60. IEA, World Energy Outlook 2012, p. 23

61. IEA: World Energy Outlook 2012, p. 233

62. EPA: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/fuels/renewablefuels/

63. EPA: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/fuels/renewablefuels/

27

novozymes.com

facebook.com/Novozymes

twitter.com/Novozymes

Novozymes is the world leader in bioinnovation. Together with customers across a broad array of industries we create tomorrow’s industrial biosolutions, improving our customers’ business and the use of our planet’s resources.Read more at www.novozymes.com.

Novozymes A/S Krogshoejvej 362880 Bagsvaerd

Denmark Tel. +45 4446 0000

Biofuels

Documents

Transcript of Biofuels