Bioenergy and Sustainable Development

ANRV325-EG32-05 ARI 2 October 2007 13:6
Bioenergy and Sustainable

Development?
Access provided by Universidad Autonoma Metropolitana - Iztapalapa on 01/22/19. For personal use only.
Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2007.32:131-167. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Ambuj D. Sagar1 and Sivan Kartha2

1
Science, Technology, and Public Policy Program, John F. Kennedy School of
Government, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139;
email: asagar@seas.harvard.edu
2
Stockholm Environment Institute, Somerville, Massachusetts 02144;
email: skartha@sei-us.org
Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2007. 32:131–67 Key Words

First published online as a Review in Advance on biodiesel, bioethanol, biofuels, biomass, clean energy, cookstoves
August 23, 2007
The Annual Review of Environment and Resources Abstract

is online at http://environ.annualreviews.org
Traditional biomass remains the dominant contributor to the energy
This article’s doi: supply of a large number of developing countries, where it serves the
10.1146/annurev.energy.32.062706.132042
household energy needs of over a third of humanity in traditional
Copyright c 2007 by Annual Reviews. cookstoves or open fires. Efforts to reduce the enormous human
All rights reserved
health, socioeconomic, and environmental impacts by shifting to
1543-5938/07/1121-0131$20.00 cleaner cookstoves and cleaner biomass-derived fuels have had some
success, but much more needs to be done, possibly including the ex-
panded use of fossil-derived fuels. Concurrently, biomass is rapidly
expanding as a commercial energy source, especially for transport
fuels. Bioenergy can positively contribute to climate goals and rural
livelihoods; however, if not implemented carefully, it could exacer-
bate degradation of land, water bodies, and ecosystems; reduce food
security; and increase greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. For large-
scale commercial biofuels to contribute to sustainable development
will require agriculturally sustainable methods and markets that pro-
vide enhanced livelihood opportunities and equitable terms of trade.
The challenge lies in translating the opportunity into reality.
131
away from traditional biomass and its replace-

Contents ment with cleaner and more benign energy
sources higher up the “energy ladder” are long
1. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
overdue. The UN Millennium Project1 has
2. ENERGY FOR POOR
drawn attention to the deep connection be-
HOUSEHOLDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
tween access to clean household energy and
2.1. Biomass Use in Households
sustainable development, calling for the num-
and (Un)sustainable
ber of households using biomass as a cook-
Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
ing fuel to be halved by 2015. The shift away
2.2. Alternatives to Traditional Use
from traditional biomass will require an evo-

of Biomass in Households . . . . . . 135
lution in technologies, fuel supply infrastruc-
2.3. Prospects for Sustainable and
ture, energy and social policies, and even cul-

Clean Energy for the Poor . . . . . 137
tural practices.
3. LARGE-SCALE, COMMERCIAL
Modern bioenergy, in contrast, is a chal-
BIOENERGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
lenge insofar as it is poised to grow into a
3.1. Technological Options for
major contributor to global energy supply,
Biofuels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
but whether it will do so in a manner that
3.2. Energy and Environmental
is environmentally sound and socially bene-
Aspects of Biofuels Production
ficial is by no means guaranteed. Although
and Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
it is true that bioenergy has many potential
3.3. Biotechnology Controversies
virtues, it has equally striking hazards, and
Redux? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
the wry aphorism “today’s solutions are to-
3.4. Land Requirements and Land
morrow’s problems” must not be allowed to
Availability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
hold true for bioenergy. Indeed, one can eas-
3.5. Socioeconomic Issues . . . . . . . . . 152
ily imagine biomass production systems that
4. CONCLUSION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
are ideally suited to their environment and
that even contribute to improving the en-
vironment by revegetating barren land, sta-
bilizing and replenishing topsoil, protecting
1. INTRODUCTION watersheds, reclaiming waterlogged and sali-
Bioenergy has two faces. It is the domi- nated soils, providing habitat for local species,
nant source of energy for more than a third and sequestering carbon—all the while con-
of the world’s population (1), taking the tributing to livelihoods of rural communities.
form of dung, agricultural wastes, and wood However, an equally plausible vision is that
fuel burned in generally inefficient and pol- of biomass production systems that are fossil-
luting cookstoves. At the same time, it is fuel intensive, exhaust the soil of nutrients,
the most rapidly growing modern renew- exacerbate erosion, deplete or degrade wa-
able energy source, yielding transport fu- ter resources, reduce biodiversity by displac-
els and power at industrial scales to deliver ing habitat, increase greenhouse gas (GHG)
modern energy services. These two faces of emissions, compete with food production for
bioenergy—the traditional and the modern—
present daunting sustainable development
challenges. 1
The recommendation of the UN Millennium Project is
Traditional bioenergy is a challenge in that to “Enable the use of modern fuels for 50% of those who
it is deeply imbedded in the day-to-day lives at present use traditional biomass for cooking. In addition,
of developing country poor and provides vi- support (a) efforts to develop and adopt the use of improved
cookstoves, (b) measures to reduce the adverse health im-
tal energy services, but it does so at great hu- pacts from cooking with biomass, and (c) measures to in-
man, social, and environmental cost. The shift crease sustainable biomass production” (2).
132 Sagar · Kartha

arable land and water resources, and under- Table 1 People relying on biomass as their primary cooking fuel,
mine the livelihoods of rural communities. 2004a
The sustainable development challenge is to Total
foster the growth of a modern biomass system population Rural Urban
that fulfils the promise and avoids the pitfalls. Million % Million % Million %
This chapter reviews the major elements of Sub-Saharan 575 76 413 93 162 58
the sustainable development challenges cen- Africa
tral to traditional and modern biomass energy. India 740 69 663 87 77 25
China 480 37 428 55 52 10
Indonesia 156 72 110 95 46 45

2. ENERGY FOR POOR
Rest of Asia 489 65 455 93 92 35
HOUSEHOLDS
Latin America 83 19 75 60 33 8
Worldwide, biomass has held nearly steady as Global 2528 52 2147 83 461 23
a fraction of total primary energy demand,
edging down only slightly from 12% to 11% a
Adapted from Reference 1.
over the period from 1971 to 2004, even
while the absolute quantity consumed rose by central, role in the human and economic fab-
about 80% (3). In many parts of the devel- ric of developing countries, particularly in
oping world, biomass continues to constitute their rural and periurban areas where a sig-
a significant fraction of the primary energy nificant portion of their populations still re-
supply—nearly half in the case of Africa and side. In fact, even as developing countries have
more than 80% for many countries (such as expanded their energy sectors over the past
Nigeria, Tanzania, and Mozambique in Africa few decades, in many countries, energy sup-
and Nepal in Asia), with the number of house- ply from biomass has grown almost as fast or,
holds relying on traditional biomass projected in some cases, even faster.
in a business-as-usual world to continue to Almost 50% of the world’s population con-
increase. tinues to depend on biomass for its cook-
Although biomass has historically played a ing needs (see Table 1). Furthermore, about
key role in the provision of energy services for 40% of the global residential energy con-
humankind, the last few decades have seen a sumption comes from biomass, but the frac-
range of efforts intended at expanding and im- tion in many developing countries is much
proving energy services for the poor in devel- higher. In Africa, biomass accounts for about
oping countries. This has been part of a larger 85% of the residential energy use; in Latin
trend in these countries to expand their en- America, 40%; and in Asia, 75% (3). In many
ergy sectors more generally. While the global countries, a majority of the rural and urban
primary energy supply doubled between 1971 households use solid fuels (primarily biomass)
and 2004, the rise in the energy supply in most for their energy needs (4, 5).
developing countries has been faster. Africa, Generally poorer countries and those with
for example, almost tripled its energy supply a greater fraction of poor populations tend to
over this period, and non-Organisation for rely more on biomass for the energy needs,
Economic Co-operation and Development as Figure 1 shows. The International Energy
(OECD) Asia almost quadrupled its total Agency reference scenario indicates that the
primary energy supply (3). number of people dependent on biomass for
The overall expansion of energy sectors cooking and heating will increase to 2.55 bil-
and their modernization have had some pos- lion by 2015 (1).
itive impact on their poorer populations, but In the past few decades, there has been
in many cases, much still needs to be done. an enormous amount of work on the de-
Biomass continues to play a significant, even velopment and dissemination of household
www.annualreviews.org • Bioenergy and Sustainable Development? 133

or small-scale bioenergy technologies. Over [for examples of early discussions of this

time, there have been refinements of these topic, see (11–13)]. There is strong ev-
technologies and numerous projects to idence of correlations between such in-
demonstrate and/or disseminate these tech- door air pollution and acute lower res-
nologies. At the same time, there has emerged piratory infections and chronic obstruc-
a greater understanding of the ways in which tive pulmonary disease; there is also
these bioenergy technologies interact with the some evidence for a host of other health
human, economic, and environmental dimen- outcomes, including lung cancer, tuber-
sions of sustainable development. This sec- culosis, asthma, and cataracts (4, 14).
tion reviews some of the main developments Despite the importance of this health
in these areas. issue, it remains under studied (15, 16).
Women and children are at highest risk

because they have the highest exposure,
2.1. Biomass Use in Households and given women’s proximity to the stove
(Un)sustainable Development and their children’s proximity to them.
The traditional use of biomass in households It has been estimated that indoor air
entails its combustion in open fires or simple pollution leads to annual excess mor-
three-stone or mud stoves for cooking, space tality of 400,000–550,000 in India (17),
heating, and lighting. Although some of the ∼420,000 in China (18),2 ∼390,000 in
earlier concerns about this inefficient mode Africa (14), and about 1.6 million world-
of biomass use centered around deforestation wide (14, 19). The World Health Or-
and energy security, over time, the wider and ganization (19) estimates that indoor
significant human, social, and environmental air pollution from these fuels is the
costs of this dependence on biomass became sixth largest health risk factor in devel-
more apparent (7, 8): oping countries, responsible for about
38 million disability-adjusted lost years
The burden of fuel collection falls (DALYs) in developing countries with
mainly upon women and children, who the attendant and significant social and
can spend up to 3–4 hours gathering economic costs.
fuel resources every day (9, 10). In many Fuelwood in rural areas comes from a
cases, people may have to travel 5–10 km variety of sources and therefore often
per day gathering fuelwood and end up puts only limited pressure on forests
carrying heavy loads (1, 9). The involve- (20). It now has become apparent that
ment of children in this activity can also the use of fuelwood is not leading
have an adverse effect on their schooling to large-scale deforestation, primarily
(7). because rural households use biomass
The use of biomass for cooking and from a variety of sources rather than just
other energy services such as space heat- from forests; furthermore, most users
ing is a major contributor to indoor air also have a range of responses that allow
pollution. The smoke from the com- them to adjust to local changes in fuel-
bustion of wood and other biomass wood availability (20). However, urban
such as dung is a veritable cocktail demand for charcoal does have a dele-
of harmful pollutants, including car- terious effect on surrounding forests,
bon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, alde- leading to local deforestation (1). In
hydes, benzene, other polycyclic aro-
matic hydrocarbons, and particulate 2
In the case of China, the widespread use of coal as a house-
matter, with adverse health impacts that hold fuel is also a major contributor to the adverse health
slowly have become better understood effects.
134 Sagar · Kartha

some locales, shortages of fuelwood for do that, they may continue to use some
subsistence users are becoming more biomass) (29, 30).
pronounced particularly for the landless Thus, it is increasingly clear that alterna-
and those with little land. tive and better ways of satisfying the energy
The products of incomplete combus- needs of this large fraction of humanity are an
tion (PICs) that result from the way essential part of the sustainable development
biomass is burned in traditional stoves agenda. This has been further re-emphasized
(and even in some “improved” stoves) recently through the connections between the
have recently been shown to have signif- household-level solid biomass use and the
icant global warming implications (21, Millennium Development Goals (2, 5).
22). In fact, the global warming com-
mitment of these PICs can be high

enough to exceed the global warming 2.2. Alternatives to Traditional Use
contribution of fossil-based [kerosene of Biomass in Households
or liquefied petroleum gas (LPG)] There is a range of alternative approaches to
stoves (on a per-meal-equivalent basis) reducing the adverse impacts resulting from
(21). On a cumulative basis, the green- the use of biomass in households, which in-
house implications of biomass combus- clude (31)
tion can be substantial; it is estimated
Emission-reducing cooking options,
that the greenhouse impact (on a 20-
such as improved cookstoves (using tra-
year time-frame) of PICs from biofu-
ditional or processed biomass including
els in 1990 was almost a quarter of that
briquettes and charcoal), as well as bet-
from energy use in Asia, even if the
ter maintenance and operation of cook-
biomass was harvested sustainably (23).
ing equipment, other biomass-based
Biomass combustion also results in the
energy services (such as biogas), other
emissions of carbonaceous aerosols (24),
renewables-based energy services (such
with residential biofuels accounting for
as solar cookers and water heaters), fos-
a significant fraction of the emissions in
sil fuels (such as kerosene and LPG), and
India and Asia (25). These aerosols can
electricity
have significant regional and global cli-
Living environment options, such as
mate impacts (26–28).
improved ventilation in households or
Poorer people generally spend a greater
redesign of kitchen and cooking spaces
fraction of their income on household
to reduce exposure from cooking for
fuels than their richer counterparts (1,
other members of the households
8, 29). Furthermore, they often end up
Behavior-modification options, such as
paying a greater amount for the same
avoiding smoke.
amount of useful energy services, given
their inefficient energy-conversion ap- Ideally, approaches that intend to make
pliances and the higher transaction costs a serious contribution to the sustainable de-
of their energy purchases (because they velopment of this large fraction of humanity
often buy wood fuel or other energy should try to make headway on the whole host
sources in smaller quantities, which of issues that are highlighted in the previous
makes it more expensive) (29). The section. That is to say, desirable approaches
poorest generally get most (or all) of would be those that offer as many of the fol-
their energy services from biomass; as lowing benefits as possible (31):
people’s incomes grow, they move up Reduced levels of indoor (as well as lo-
the energy ladder toward more mod- cal and global) pollution and human
ern and cleaner fuels (but even as they exposure

Increased fuel efficiency consumption was not a priority, and the rela-
Reduced time for fuel collection and tively high costs of the stoves acted as a bar-
cooking rier to dissemination. There were also ma-
Reduced stress on the local environ- terial and reliability problems with many of
ment the earlier stoves. Such gaps between assump-
Contribute positively to the overall tions/expectations and reality, coupled with
home and working environment, espe- poorly designed dissemination programs, ini-
cially for women tially led to the limited success with improved
Historically, much of the attention in the stove programs (33, 35, 36).3
exploration for alternatives to traditional use Over time, though, there has been some
of biomass for residential energy has been learning from these early efforts. In the past
on improved cookstoves. Some of the earli- two decades, a great deal of effort has been
est programs to develop and disseminate im- devoted worldwide to improving cookstove
proved cookstoves were motivated by a per- designs, with an enormous number of or-
ceived fuelwood crisis [for example, (32–34)] ganizations in various countries involved in
anticipated from a widespread and tradition- the development and dissemination of vari-
ally inefficient use of biomass for cooking (33). ous designs (some are based on clay, metal,
Thus, increasing energy efficiency was the or concrete/masonry and also use other fu-
primary initial motive of most of the early im- els such as charcoal) intended to meet local
proved cookstove programs (33, 35, 36), in- needs. There are an estimated 220 million im-
cluding the Chinese and the Indian programs proved stoves in use worldwide (including 180
(12, 37), which are the largest in the world. It million in China that cover 95% of the rele-
was hoped that the development and dissem- vant households and 34 million in India that
ination of advanced designs that had a greatly represent about 25% of the relevant house-
increased efficiency would avoid deforestation holds) (39). Although there are some doubts
and wood fuel shortages, while also reducing on the accuracy of these estimates and about
the drudgery of women who had to spend the longevity and performance of the dissemi-
hours collecting firewood or other biomass nated stoves (38, 40–42), there is no doubt that
for their households’ cooking and other en- enormous numbers of these stoves have been
ergy needs. diffused. Furthermore, these cookstove (and
Most of the early efforts to develop and dis- related fuel) interventions have shown success
seminate improved cookstoves had only lim- in that they have led to the reduction in indoor
ited success. Many of the improved designs
did not lead to the hoped for gains in actual 3
One notable exception was the Chinese stove program
use. Although initial predictions had been that which has had remarkable success, in large part due to the
design changes could lead to a three- to sixfold design of the dissemination program. In the first phase, the
improvement in efficiency, realization set in strategy engendered competition among counties and then
focused on counties that were ready for intensive efforts
that a 25% to 50% reduction in fuel consump- (the main criteria being fuel deficiency, sound managerial
tion was a more realistic expectation, partly setup, availability of appropriate financial resources, and a
because of the traditional stoves were not as guaranteed supply of raw materials). Rather than provide
subsidies (other than for the poorest households), a range
inefficient as initially believed and because the of incentives and disincentives were provided to users and
new designs did not function as effectively village leaders, local materials suppliers, and stove manu-
in the field as in controlled/laboratory con- facturers. Other key steps included the promotion of local
rural energy manufacturing and service companies, train-
ditions (33, 35). Traditional cookstoves also ing of local workers, and independent review of county-
had a variety of other benefits to households, level program performance. At the same time, the research
such as space heating, protection from insects, and design (R&D) program explicitly took into account
the local conditions of fuel and cooking/heating needs and
and flexibility (35). In many cases, fuelwood innovative activities, such as national competitions, led to
was easy to gather and therefore reduced fuel publicity and incentive for new designs (12, 38).
136 Sagar · Kartha

air pollution (38) as well as health benefits clean-burning) energy sources such as LPG
(18). and kerosene, and can in principle be derived
Even though designs aimed at higher over- from biomass, offering climate benefits (46).
all fuel stove efficiency can result in increased Furthermore, the ethanol route offers the pos-
PIC emissions (43), there now are emerg- sibility of local production of the fuel, which in
ing designs such as gasifier cookstoves that turn can lead to generation of local economic
may in the future yield high-efficiency use of opportunities (46). The MGI has developed
biomass as well as clean combustion (through technically suitable cookstoves, demonstrated
thermo-chemical gasification to yield a clean- the commercial feasibility of using ethanol gel
combusting gas). (and direct ethanol), and has helped set up a

The other large-scale use of biomass to few ethanol production plants in Africa (46).
provide household energy services in a more Others have proposed the use of dimethyl
sustainable manner has involved the diffu- ether (DME), another clean-burning fuel,
sion of biogas digesters. Biogas, a combustible that also may be derived from biomass (even
gas composed primarily of methane and car- though current efforts focus on DME produc-
bon dioxide, derives from the anaerobic dition from coal) as another to route to ame-
gestion of biomass (generally manure, agricul- liorating the problems associated with tradi-
tural waste, or other biomass feedstock). The tional biomass use (47) while also contributing
combustion of biogas is very clean, allowing to the sustainable development goals of local
for delivery of energy services with almost no income and employment generation.
emissions of PICs (and no net emission of car- In many cases, countries have put in place
bon dioxide because the feedstock generally programs to bring clean fossil fuels to their
will be renewably harvested, although there poor. Brazil has had significant success with its
may be leakage of methane). Biogas digesters “Auxilio-Gas” program that gave subsidized
have been used in developing countries for access to LPG for users with a monthly in-
over a century as a way of providing energy, es- come below half that of minimum wage (48).
pecially in rural areas. In China, for example, The subsidy program in India designed to en-
there was an effort to promote biogas plants hance access to kerosene for the poor, in con-
in the 1930s to reduce the consumption of trast, has been problematic (49), indicating
kerosene (44). In recent years, there have been subsidy regimes must be designed carefully.
programs in a number of developing countries Globally, although the percentage of peo-
to disseminate biogas digesters. As of 2005, ple depending on solid fuels declined from
there were an estimated 21 million households 58% to 52% between 1990 and 2003, in abso-
worldwide that used biogas for their cook- lute terms, the number of people using solid
ing and lighting needs, including 17 million fuels (mainly biomass) actually went up over
in China and 3.8 million in India (45). this period (10).
The Millennium Gelfuel Initiative (MGI)4
takes another approach to providing a mod-
ern energy carrier—one that is based on 2.3. Prospects for Sustainable and
ethanol—to rural households. Ethanol gel can Clean Energy for the Poor
be cost competitive with other modern (and It is clear that provision of modern and clean
energy services is an essential part of the over-
4
all sustainable development agenda for the
The Millennium Gelfuel Initiative (MGI) was launched
as a public-private partnership between the Regional poor in developing countries, which would
Program for the Traditional Energy Sector and the include access to clean fuels for household
Development Marketplace Program of the World Bank needs. LPG has ideal characteristics in terms
and Greenheat South Africa, with the aim of develop-
ing and disseminating an ethanol-based gel for African of ease of use and clean combustion, yet op-
households. tions such as biogas, ethanol, and DME also

work quite well. In fact, Goldemberg et al. (50) possible, further up the energy ladder, but
have suggested a Global Clean Cooking Fuel the progress toward raising the level of fund-
Initiative to promote the provision of clean ing needed to make a rapid and major global
energy for the 2.5 billion people who still de- shift toward these modern fuels seems slow at
pend on biofuels for their household energy this point, despite all the sustainable develop-
needs as a way to meet the Millennium De- ment gains that might be realized from such a
velopment Goals as well as the Plan of Imple- transition.
mentation of the World Summit on Sustain- In the meanwhile, the reality remains that
able Development. Biomass certainly could traditional biomass fuel is going to maintain
play a major role through its conversion into its role as a primary energy supplier for a sig-
clean energy carriers with near zero net GHG nificant portion of humanity. In such a case,
emissions, although relying instead on LPG continued and concerted efforts will be re-
(or coal-derived DME) would not greatly in- quired to build on the progress of recent years
crease global GHG emissions (50–52). to reduce the unsustainable aspects of biomass
What are the chances of moving to such a use through the continued development of
future in the near term? The costs of provid- improved devices, programs, and policies that
ing clean energy to the world’s poor are not reduce (though do not eliminate) the adverse
low, even though moving people to cleaner impacts of biomass use. The economics of
alternatives (improved cookstoves or cleaner such activities are actually very favorable. It
fuels such as kerosene or LPG) has a very fa- has been estimated, for example, that the costs
vorable cost-benefit ratio. It is estimated that of introducing improved cookstoves to the
halving the number of people cooking with half the number of people cooking with solid
solid fuels by moving them to LPG will cost fuels worldwide would lead to negative costs
about US$13 billion per year, and the gains of $34 billion owing to fuel savings from the
would be US$31–$91 billion/year (depend- use of more efficient stoves (10). As a health in-
ing on the value attributed to time savings tervention, a move toward improved stoves or
from reduced illness, avoided deaths, shorter cleaner fuels is also very cost-effective. A pro-
fuel collection and cooking times) (10). At the gram introducing improved cookstoves to half
same time, an improvement in health will also the biomass-dependent population in South
lead to gains in economic productivity. Large- Asia would lead to a gain of one healthy year
scale deployment of liquid-fuel-based options for a mere $15 and for $20 in sub-Saharan
such as ethanol (or ethanol gel) and DME will Africa. A similar program for kerosene would
depend on the scale-up of production tech- be more expensive—$63 and $84, respectively
nologies for these fuels. (In the case of ethanol, (31).
the most promising option is biomass-derived Improved cookstove programs have also
ethanol, and in the case of DME, it would be built on the lessons from the early programs
through biomass- or coal-to-liquid produc- and experiences (38, 53), which have included
tion routes.) This adds complexity and cost to
the large-scale deployment of these options. An understanding of the need to engage
Targeted programs such as the MGI and the with users in the initial stages of the pro-
UN Development Programme’s LP Gas Ru- cess so as to help program implementers
ral Energy Challenge5 should help make some better understand the conditions of use
headway in moving selected groups, wherever (for example, the mix of biomass used
and the characteristics of the cooking
5
The LP Gas Rural Energy Challenge is a public-private process) and to make users aware of the
partnership between the World Liquid Petroleum Gas As- adverse effects of solid biomass use as
sociation and the UN that aims to create viable and sustain-
able markets for LPG delivery and consumption in selected well as the benefits of switching to im-
developing countries. proved designs
138 Sagar · Kartha

Technical training for stove manufac- policies to make sure that the landless have
turers with an emphasis on quality con- access to wood fuel (20).
trol (especially of key components) so In the end, it must be emphasized that, al-
that stoves maintain their combustion though improved cookstoves certainly ame-
characteristics liorate many of the aspects of unsustainability
Designs that are amenable to mass pro- associated with the use of biomass for house-
duction (54) hold energy needs, they must be recognized
Movement toward certification and as being only the next step in the move to-
standardization ward the transition to a clean and sustainable
energy future for the world’s poor, relying on

Well-designed monitoring systems
LPG and other energy carriers such as DME
The promotion of entrepreneurship-
or ethanol (50). Whether these energy carriers

based dissemination approaches (37, 55)
are derived from petroleum (as in the case of
There are also a range of efforts to LPG), coal (as in the case of DME), or biomass
advance information sharing about existing (as in the case of DME or ethanol), their pro-
programs, technologies, and approaches. vision to the world’s poor will require signif-
These include a number of excellent Web- icant resources (even if these offer favorable
accessible resources, including the Household cost-benefit ratios). It has been suggested that
Energy Network (http://www.hedon.info), another way to view the relationship between
BioenergyLists (http://www.bioenergylists. this segment of humanity and the climate is-
org), the International Network on Gen- sue is not to focus on the GHG emission from
der and Sustainable Energy (http://www. their use of biomass but on the GHGs not be-
energia.org), Practical Action’s Boiling ing emitted by them as a consequence of their
Point journal (http://practicalaction.org/ low-energy use in relation to the global av-
?id=boiling point), the Shell Foundation’s erages (52, 56). Such a perspective suggests
Breathing Space program (http://www. that the UN Framework Convention on Cli-
shellfoundation.org/index.php?menuID= mate Change must consider ways to provide
3&smenuID=10&bmenuID=5 and http:// resources to transition this group to a sustain-
www.pciaonline.org/assets/SF-HEH- able energy future as a way of compensating
Strategy.pdf ) and the Partnership for Clean them for their (involuntary) contribution to
Indoor Air (http://pciaonline.org), which the goals of the climate convention—not only
was launched at the World Summit for does such an idea make sense from an equity
Sustainable Development in Johannesburg in perspective, but it also is very much in line
September 2002. The latter two specifically with the notion of paying people for environ-
focus on scaling up deployment by improv- mental services (57).
ing processes for technology design, pilot
projects for product deployment, training
and capacity building, as well as evaluation 3. LARGE-SCALE, COMMERCIAL
of interventions and their impacts. The BIOENERGY
recognition of the GHG impacts of biomass The growing interest in industrial-scale com-
combustion may provide further impetus to mercial biofuels arises for four reasons. First,
the shift toward improved cookstoves because there are rising concerns about the finiteness
these could offer a reduction in indoor, as of the world’s conventional petroleum sup-
well as global, air pollution. Notably, as ply amid continuing growth in demand. Ref-
a complement to such programs that are erence forecasts project global demand for
focused on the provision and dissemination petroleum to increase by roughly 50% by
of improved cookstoves, it is also critical to 2030 to 118 million barrels per day to fuel
focus on forest and biomass management a growing global transport sector, with the

United States, Europe, and China projected nations (73, 74), where creating viable liveli-
to lead global consumption [at 28 million bar- hood alternatives for rural communities is an
rels per day (mbd), 16 mbd, and 15 mbd, re- abiding challenge.
spectively] (58). Although there is no consen-
sus about whether the peak in production of
conventional oil will occur in the next decade 3.1. Technological Options for
or several decades hence, the topic has been Biofuels
the focus of increasing attention (59), as has Technological options for using biomass en-
been the lack of slack in the global petroleum ergy on a large scale can be divided into two
production and refining system and the re- categories: biofuels and biopower. Biofuels
sultant increases in prices and price volatility. refer to fluid fuels produced from biomass,
These concerns are driving a shift to explore primarily for transport. Biopower refers to
alternative sources of energy. electricity produced from biomass, either for
Second, many nations are increasingly grid or nongrid use. This section focuses
concerned about energy security. As remain- on biofuels, because of the high present
ing petroleum reserves grow increasingly con- level of interest in rapidly expanding the use
centrated, the import dependence of import- of biomass-based fuels as an alternative to
ing regions is expected to steadily rise and petroleum-based fuels for transport.6
the non-Organization of the Petroleum Ex- Indeed, biofuels are a small but rapidly
porting Countries share of global crude oil growing contributor to the transport fuels
supply is expected to steadily decline (60). market. In 2005, global fuel ethanol pro-
Various nations have taken steps explicitly duction was approximately 36,000 million
aimed at increasing energy security by invest- liters (75), and biodiesel was approximately
ing in domestic resources or diversifying in- 4000 million liters (76, 77). This is sufficient
ternational sources (61, 62). Potential avail- to displace roughly 2% of global gasoline con-
ability of biomass resources is more evenly sumption and 0.3% of global diesel consump-
distributed geographically than is the distri- tion. These amounts are modest but grow-
bution of petroleum resources (63, 64). ing rapidly; ethanol grew at more than 10%
Third, addressing the climate problem will per year and biodiesel at more than 25% per
require a shift to nonpetroleum fuels, which year over the period 2000 to 2004 (39). In
presently account for one fifth of the world’s
fossil carbon dioxide emissions and are rising
at a rate of roughly 2.5%/yr (60). Several anal- 6
In addition to biofuels, two other alternatives to
yses conclude that bioenergy could play a ma- petroleum-based transport fuels that can potentially help
to address the above problems are electricity and hydrogen.
jor role in low-carbon energy futures (1, 65– As these are not energy sources, but rather energy carri-
67). This is especially true in scenarios aimed ers, the degree to which they would be sensible solutions
at stabilizing atmospheric concentrations of depends on the energy sources from which they would be
derived. If renewable sources or coal (coupled with car-
GHGs at very low levels, which may rely on bon capture and sequestration) were the source of energy,
deploying bioenergy with carbon capture and then electricity or hydrogen could potentially be a long-
sequestration as a negative-carbon energy op- term secure option with low life cycle carbon emissions
that contributes to rural development. Biofuels are some-
tion capable of extracting carbon dioxide from what advantaged in this three-way contest for the future
the atmosphere (68–70). transport fuel market in that they do not require any ma-
The fourth motivation for promoting jor advances in vehicle technologies, whereas both electric
vehicles and hydrogen vehicles (specifically, hydrogen fuel
bioenergy derives from its potential to support cell vehicles) are in precommercial stages and need further
development in rural areas of both industrial- technological development. Hydrogen vehicles also would
ized nations (71, 72), where governments are require a new fueling infrastructure, ultimately requiring
a dedicated hydrogen pipeline network, whereas the fuel-
under increasing pressure to eliminate subsi- ing infrastructure for biofuel vehicles (or electric vehicles)
dies to the agricultural sector, and developing could largely evolve from existing infrastructures.
140 Sagar · Kartha

the United States between 2005 and 2006, residues, and dedicated energy crops that can
for example, biodiesel production tripled, and be grown on less valuable land than annual
ethanol production increased by 25% (76, 78). food crops.
This review focuses on ethanol and Four biofuel options undergoing develop-
biodiesel, but there are also various emerg- ment that are produced via the thermochemi-
ing biofuel options including synthetic mid- cal gasification route are methanol, hydrogen,
dle distillates, DME, methanol, and hydro- Fischer-Tropsch liquids, and DME (60, 64,
gen, which may ultimately be competitive 79, 80).
economically and in terms of environmental
benefits. Methanol. Methanol is a familiar fuel. It has

been amply demonstrated to function sat-
Emerging Biofuel Options isfactorily as a high-octane fuel in gasoline

(spark-ignition) engines, although interest in
Aside from ethanol and biodiesel, thermo- wide-scale use has been somewhat muted by
chemical gasification of biomass provides an concerns about its safety and possible ad-
alternate route to produce fuels from biomass. verse health effects. It can be produced from
Thermochemical gasification entails partial biomass via a chemical process analogous to
combustion of a feedstock, which decomposes the process by which methanol is currently
into a gas consisting primarily of hydrogen produced from coal in commercial, industrial-
and carbon monoxide—the building blocks scale facilities at a volume greater than three
for synthesis of many chemicals—along with million tonnes per year. It can be reformed
carbon dioxide, water vapor, nitrogen (unless into a hydrogen-rich gas and has been demon-
gasified in oxygen rather than air), and small strated as a suitable liquid fuel for fuel cell ve-
quantities of methane and higher hydrocar- hicles with onboard reforming (81–84).
bons. This synthesis gas (or “syngas”) can then
be cleaned and used as a chemical feedstock
in a manner very similar to the use of petro- Fischer-Tropsch fuels. The Fischer-
chemical feedstocks. Recent research has fo- Tropsch process has been in use since the
cused on gasification methods that can tol- 1920s, primarily for converting natural gas
erate heterogeneous biomass feedstocks and and gasified coal into synthetic gasoline,
cleanup technologies that produce a syngas diesel, and other fuels that resemble crude
clean enough for the downstream chemical oil–derived products. Production of Fischer-
processing stages. Particular challenges have Tropsch fuels from coal is well established in
included avoiding the production of tars and South Africa and still being employed today
removing particulates and alkalis, which can (85).
foul catalysts.
Thermochemical gasification is an attrac- Hydrogen. Hydrogen has received attention
tive route to producing biofuels because it lately more so for its potential as a fuel for fuel
greatly broadens the range of potential bio- cells than as a fuel for internal combustion en-
fuel feedstocks well beyond food crops, i.e., gine vehicles. Fuel cell vehicles offer a large
the starch, sugar, or oil crops that are the ba- potential for improved vehicle efficiencies and
sis of ethanol and biodiesel today. It can make improved pollutant emissions; however, vehi-
use of the cellulosic fraction of biomass, as cle technology, hydrogen storage technology,
well as the lignin fraction (unlike cellulosic and distribution infrastructure are still in need
ethanol approaches), which typically com- of significant advancement before commer-
prises 20% to 30% woody biomass feedstocks. cialization will be feasible. The processes for
Thermochemical gasification makes potential producing hydrogen from biomass and coal
energy sources of waste streams, agricultural are similar (81, 86, 87).

Dimethyl ether. DME is used today primar- efficient and less costly enzymes for break-
ily as a propellant but is well suited as a fuel in ing down cellulose and hemicellulose into fer-
diesel (compression ignition) engines owing mentable sugars and to the optimization of
to its high cetane rating. It is also clean burn- yeast and bacteria for fermentation. The key
ing because of its high oxygen content and efficiency-increasing advances are expected
lack of carbon-carbon bonds. Like methanol, to involve (a) advanced biological and ge-
it can also be reformed into a hydrogen-rich netic engineering techniques to understand
gas and thus may be a suitable liquid fuel for the basis for, and reduce, the recalcitrance
fuel cell vehicles. Because DME is gaseous of biomass to its breakdown by enzymes and
at atmospheric pressure, it would need to be microbes (89), (b) the identification (or engi-
stored in slightly pressurized (∼5 bar) con- neering) of enzymes and microbes to increase
tainers (somewhat like LPG). There are no the efficiency of these breakdown processes
biomass-to-DME facilities operating, but two (90), and (c) improvements in the distillation
large-scale plants, conceptually analogous to process (90).8
coal-to-DME in design, will be built in China Presently, roughly 60% of ethanol pro-
for operation in 2009 (82, 83). duction is sugar based and 40% starch based
Ethanol can be produced from a variety (primarily produced from corn in the United
of biomass crops, including sugar-laden crops States) (92). Production from cellulosic feed-
(e.g., sugarcane and sugar beet), starch-laden stocks is not yet practiced at a commercial
crops (e.g., corn and cassava), or cellulosic scale, although there are dozens of test-scale
feedstocks (e.g., wood, grasses, and agricul- plants in operation; at least 15 large-scale
tural residues). Production of ethanol from cellulosic ethanol plants are planned for op-
sugar-laden crops is the simplest route; the eration by the end of 2008 to produce ap-
main steps are milling, pressing, fermentation, proximately 800 million liters of ethanol in
and distillation. Production from starch-laden total from a variety of feedstocks including
crops requires the additional steps of liquefac- bagasse, straw, wood residues, and municipal
tion and saccharification (conversion to sugar) waste (93). Like the emerging biofuels op-
of the starch. Production from cellulosic crops tions discussed above, cellulosic ethanol de-
is similar, although it is significantly more dif- rives its appeal from the fact that it broad-
ficult and costly to convert cellulose and hemi- ens the scope of potential feedstocks beyond
cellulose into their component sugars (glucose starch- and sugar-based food crops.
and xylose, respectively) than is the case for Ethanol can be marketed as either hydrous
starches. (containing approximately 5% water) or an-
The key to improving the efficiency of hydrous (free of water). Hydrous ethanol can
ethanol production depends on advanced sci- be used as a “neat” unblended fuel in ded-
ence and engineering.7 Much of the progress icated spark-ignition engines that have mi-
in recent years in cellulosic ethanol technol- nor modifications relative to gasoline engines.
ogy was related to the development of more As ethanol has a higher octane number than
gasoline, dedicated ethanol engines can oper-
7
ate at a higher compression ratio and achieve
The Brazilian success in ethanol, for example, drew
upon a substantial scientific and technological effort. At slightly higher fuel economies. Anhydrous
the Centro de Tecnologia Canavieira (Cane Technology ethanol can be blended with gasoline up to
Center), an R&D facility funded largely by the sugar- at least 24% (by volume) without any engine
cane industry, the genome of sugarcane has been decoded
and was used to select varieties that are more resistant to
drought and pests and that yield higher sugar content. The
8
Center has developed some 140 varieties of sugar, which For example, a recent news report suggests that a redesign
has helped to drive costs down by 1% a year and has al- of the distillation process by using a multicolumn system
lowed the country to avoid the pests and diseases that can together with a network for energy recovery could reduce
ravage a monoculture (88). the costs of manufacturing ethanol from corn by 11% (91).
142 Sagar · Kartha

modifications (94). In blends with gasoline, characteristics are very similar to petroleum-
ethanol acts as an octane enhancer (an an- based diesel fuel. It can readily replace or be
tiknock agent) and an oxygenate (to reduce blended with diesel fuel or heating oil in stan-
emissions of carbon monoxide and unburned dard diesel engines and boilers, requiring very
hydrocarbons). Blended with diesel, ethanol few, if any, equipment modifications. It can
requires an emulsifier or cosolvent to prevent be produced fairly inexpensively from a vari-
separation at low temperatures and, because ety of biomass feedstocks in large oil refinery-
ethanol has a lower cetane number than diesel, sized plants or at the village level using simple
requires the addition of an ignition improver technology.
that would enable compression ignition of the Biofuels are positioned to continue their
mixture (95). rapid expansion. Several countries have put
The world’s top producers of ethanol are in place policies to that provide a long-term
Brazil and the United States, each produc- impetus for biofuels. In the European Union
ing approximately 16 billion liters per year in (EU), the 2003/30/EC Directive dated May
2005 (Figure 2). In the United States, this vol- 8, 2003, stipulates that fuels sold in member
ume corresponds to less than 2% of transport states should contain 2% of biofuels in 2005,
fuel, whereas in Brazil this amounts to more stepping up to 5.75% in 2010, and EU
than one third of transport fuel. Brazil allo- leaders further resolved to increase targets to
cates roughly three million hectares to sugar- 8% in 2015, corresponding to an estimated
cane for ethanol, a bit more than half of its 17 million tons of biodiesel and 12 million
sugarcane crop. Brazil’s program was started tons of bioethanol (101). In the United States,
in the late 1970s for the purpose of reduc- the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (http://www.
ing oil imports and can be credited with ma- doi.gov/iepa/EnergyPolicyActof2005.pdf )
jor advances in sugarcane ethanol technology created a national Renewable Fuels Standard
(96–98). (RFS) that will increase national biofuel con-
In the United States, approximately 95% sumption from 15 billion liters per year (gaso-
of the ethanol is produced from corn. The line equivalent) in 2006 to 28 billion liters by
United States ethanol initiative, like the 2012, plus a requirement that after 2013 the
Brazilian one, is a subsidized program, driven RFS is to be met in part with 0.95 billion liters
by the objectives of providing support to the of cellulosic ethanol (93). In part prompted
agricultural sector and reducing demand for by this policy, investment in ethanol pro-
imported oil. The elimination of tetraethyl duction facilities has rapidly accelerated, and
lead, and then MTBE, as an octane enhancer the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
and oxygenate, respectively, has contributed reports that fuel volumes already exceed the
to boosting the market for ethanol (93). RFS requirements and that 2012 volumes are
Biodiesel is the common term for a clean- projected to exceed 40 billion liters. India also
burning diesel fuel and heating oil substitute has an ambitious ethanol policy, requiring
that can be produced from vegetable oils or 10% blending across the country by the end
animal fat. Chemically, it is a mono alkyl ester of 2007, which will be met primarily from
(C19 H36 O2 ) derived via the catalyzed transes- domestic sugarcane production.
terification of lipid sources. It is also known
as soydiesel, methyl soyate, rapeseed methyl
ester, or methyl tallowate (99, 100). The most 3.2. Energy and Environmental
common feedstocks for biodiesel are soy oil Aspects of Biofuels Production
and rapeseed oil, although it has also been and Use
produced from sunflower seed, cottonseed, ja- Although biomass is frequently labeled a
tropha, used frying oil, and, increasingly, palm “renewable” source of energy, this term is
oil. Its chemical properties and performance used loosely, as biomass production requires

nonrenewable inputs, including fossil fuels, mechanization but yield a relatively small pro-
and ties up other finite resources such as land portion of usable bioenergy feedstock per unit
and water. of plant matter produced. Some annual food
crops in industrialized countries, for example,
3.2.1. Energy. The degree to which a bio- have energy ratios of less than one. Many agri-
fuel is in fact a renewable energy source de- cultural or forestry residues can be considered
pends on the amount of nonrenewable energy essentially renewable because negligible fos-
inputs relative to the energy outputs of the sil fuel is consumed to obtain the residues in
biofuel cycle. Analysts have presented various addition to what is required to produce the
methods for making this comparison: Some primary crop (103, 104).
have used the net energy balance (the energy The net energy balance and carbon dioxide
outputs of the biofuel cycle minus the energy impacts of biofuels are issues of great interest,
inputs); some have used the energy ratio (en- given the growing scale of their use as a GHG
ergy outputs of the biofuel cycle divided by mitigation option, and have been reported ex-
the energy inputs; and some have used the in- tensively (102, 105–110; and, for a compre-
verse). Some have added the energy embodied hensive review of reviews, see Reference 111).
in the coproducts to the biofuel energy; others Here, we report results of studies for five fu-
have subtracted it from the energy inputs. [See els that have been extensively studied: corn
the Supporting Material section in Farrell ethanol, cellulosic ethanol, sugarcane ethanol,
et al. (102) for a useful discussion of energy soy biodiesel, and rape biodiesel. The energy
metrics.] ratio is defined as energy outputs in biofuel
Energy inputs vary considerably among and coproducts divided by energy inputs.
biomass options owing to the different agri- Figure 3 provides the results of reviews
cultural production systems and biofuel con- of some recent life cycle energy studies for
version processes. Life cycle inputs include, biofuels. The studies considered the life cy-
for example, fuels consumed by farm machin- cle fossil-fuel inputs and compared them to
ery in land preparation, planting, tending, ir- the energy contained in the biofuel output
rigation, harvesting, storage, and transport; as well as coproduct (including, for example,
fossil feedstocks used to produce chemical in- distillers’ dry grain and corn oil for ethanol,
puts such as herbicides, pesticides, and espe- or soybean meal and glycerine for biodiesel).
cially fertilizers (which tend to be energy in- For corn ethanol, the estimates in the liter-
tensive); and energy required for processing ature range from roughly 0.75 to 1.35 (102,
of the biomass feedstock into a biofuel. 106, 108). The lower end of the range im-
Energy characteristics are generally bet- plies a corn ethanol process for which the fos-
ter for perennial crops than for annual crops, sil energy inputs exceed the energy content
which involve greater use of farm machin- of the biofuel plus coproduct outputs. At the
ery and a higher level of chemical inputs. higher end of the range, the energy output is
For example, some perennial crops (poplar, modestly (up to 35%) greater than the en-
sorghum, and switchgrass) grown in a temper- ergy inputs. In contrast, estimates of cellu-
ate climate have energy ratios (energy from losic (102) and sugarcane ethanol (112) en-
biomass divided by energy inputs) of 12 to ergy ratios range from 4 to 11. For biodiesel,
16. In tropical climates with good rainfall, estimates range from 1.2 to 3.0 (102, 106,
these ratios could be considerably higher, ow- 108). The variation for a given fuel reflects the
ing to both higher yields and less energy- range of assumptions regarding factors such
intensive (i.e., more labor-intensive) agricul- as the mix of fossil fuels use for process en-
tural practices. Energy characteristics can be ergy inputs, the energy value of the coprod-
much poorer for annual row crops that require ucts, and the amount and nature of fertilizer
both a high level of inputs and a high level of required.
144 Sagar · Kartha

The biofuel pathways with energy ratios that lead to variation in life cycle conclusions
at the high end of the range (cellulosic, sug- for a given biofuel path.]
arcane, with energy ratios >∼6) correspond Emissions from land use: Assumptions
to pathways for which photosynthesis serves regarding the prior use of the land
unequivocally as the primary energy source. are critical because the loss of exist-
The biofuel pathways at the low end of the ing stocks of carbon (in the soil and
range (corn ethanol, certain biodiesel path- aboveground plants) can give rise to
ways, with energy ratios <2) are pathways in huge emissions. Delucchi (107) reports
which photosynthesis modestly augments fos- a high net GHG emissions figure in
sil energy, which is the primary input. Biofuels part because of his assumption that
with energy ratios this low do not obviously undisturbed native vegetation is cleared
merit the term “renewable.” for soy production. Delucchi argues

that the latter assumption is appropriate
3.2.2. GHG emissions. Biofuels are regu- once the rising soy demand for biodiesel
larly invoked as an important GHG reduction leads to a net increase in soy acreage.
option owing to the claim that they are zero- The same applies to palm oil biodiesel,
carbon energy sources because the amount of which generates GHG emissions many
carbon dioxide emitted during combustion is times greater than petroleum diesel it
no greater than was absorbed from the at- displaces if it is obtained from planta-
mosphere by photosynthesis during growth. tions that are established on cleared and
Obviously, this is a facile claim. Given the drained peatlands (116).
various fossil energy inputs required to pro- Yields: Especially for the not-yet-
duce biofuels, a thorough analysis of life cy- commercial biofuels pathways, such as
cle GHG emissions is needed to determine those using cellulosic biomass for which
a given biofuel’s net climate benefits. In ad- little effort has yet gone into opti-
dition to the GHG emissions corresponding mizing biomass crop production, yields
to upstream fossil-fuel consumption, several are uncertain. Yields affect both the
other elements of the life cycle have been upstream fossil energy requirements
found to have significant positive or neg- (higher yields might require less use of
ative GHG impacts: land-use change [e.g., farm machinery that scales with area,
from conversion from peatlands to palm but higher rates of chemical inputs)
oil plantation (116)], methane leakage [e.g., as well as the per hectare output of
emissions from biogas systems and removals biofuels.
from diverted waste streams (117)], below- Emissions of nitrous oxide9 (N2 O):
ground biomass [e.g., from high-diversity
Emissions of N2 O, which derive largely
grasslands (118)], fertilizer use [e.g., for soy-
from use of nitrogen fertilizers, can con-
beans (107)], biomass handling [e.g., from
tribute significantly to net GHG emis-
emissions arising from chipping of forest
sions yet are highly uncertain for many
residues (119)], coproduction of energy [e.g.,
crops. For example, Delucchi (107) re-
from use of lignin as an energy source in cellu-
ports a much higher figure for life cy-
losic ethanol production (120)], storage [e.g.,
cle GHG emissions from soy biodiesel
from wood chip storage (121)], and displace-
(leading to a net 50% increase in emis-
ment of coproduct energy [e.g., animal feed
sions compared to petroleum diesel),
(102)].
Several factors lead to important differ-
ences in estimates of net GHG reductions 9
Nitrous oxide is a potent GHG with a global warming
from biofuels. [Larson (111) provides a use- potential relative to carbon dioxide of 296 for a 100-year
ful discussion of the major uncertain factors time horizon (122).

driven in large part by higher assump- Chile) to a one-third improvement (e.g.,

tions about N2 O emissions from fertil- China). This is due primarily to differ-
izer use. ences in land use and cultivation prac-
Coproducts energy can be significant tices as well as fertilizer application and
and poorly specified: There are sev- production methods. The vast majority
eral ways of allocating energy associ- of life cycle analyses have been done in
ated with coproducts. Hill (108, Table 9 industrialized countries, leaving a con-
in the Supplementary Material) demon- siderable knowledge gap in energy and
strates the significant impact of different GHG impacts in the case of various
allocation methods for corn ethanol and feedstocks, such as jatropha, palm, and
soy biodiesel. Even for a given alloca- cassava.
tion method, the contribution from co- Table 2 presents some recent studies cal-
products can also be expected to change culating or reviewing net GHG impacts of
over time. Because biofuels are among various biofuels. These are fairly typical esti-
the commodities with the largest poten- mates, although, as with the energy ratio stud-
tial demand, the market for biofuel co- ies, various studies have presented results in a
products may become quickly saturated. range around these figures. The main conclu-
For example, as conventional glyc- sions are robust: Cellulosic ethanol and sugar-
erin markets become saturated, glycerin cane ethanol are more effective at displacing
might instead be used as an energy in- GHG emissions (∼90% reduction) than soy
put in the soy biodiesel production pro- or rape biodiesel (∼50% reduction), which
cess. Then, the lower-value secondary are in turn more effective at displacing GHG
markets that emerge could be associated emissions than corn ethanol, which is itself
with either a higher or lower displaced only marginally lower in GHG emissions than
energy demand, and the net impact on gasoline (<20% reduction).
the biofuel energy ratio could go either It is important to note that an alternative
way. to displacing petroleum-based fuels with
National differences: There can be non- biofuels is to displace fossil-based electricity
trivial difference in life cycle emissions with biopower. As Larson (111) has noted, a
of biofuels across countries. For exam- few studies have explicitly compared biofuel
ple, Delucchi (107) found that the GHG to biopower options on comparable basis.
benefits of cellulosic ethanol varies from Tilman et al. (118) find that using switchgrass
a roughly one-half improvement rel- to displace coal-based electricity would pro-
ative to gasoline fuel cycle emissions duce 2.8 times greater GHG reductions than
(e.g., United States, India, South Africa, converting it to ethanol and using it to displace
Table 2 Estimates of net GHG reductions and land requirements for various biofuel options
GHG reductions Yield per Hectares required
Source (for GHG relative to gasoline/ hectare to fuel one car
reductions and yields) diesel vehicle (liters fuel/ha) (ha/car)
Ethanol (corn) Farrell et al., 2006 (102) 14% 3463 1.1
Ethanol (cellulosic) Farrell et al., 2006 (102) 88% 5135 0.7
Ethanol (sugarcane) Macedo et al., 2004 (112) 91% 6307 0.6
Biodiesel (soya) Hill et al., 2006 (113) 40% 544 4.3
Biodiesel (rape) IEA, 2005 (106) 50% 1200 2.0
146 Sagar · Kartha

gasoline. [Tilman et al. (118, Table S3 in Pure biodiesel and biodiesel in blends with
online Supporting Material at http://www. diesel have better overall emissions character-
sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/314/5805/ istics than pure diesel. A recent review study
1598/DC1) also calculate the sequestered found that in heavy-duty highway vehicles,
carbon in soil and switchgrass roots. Taking pure biodiesel decreased carbon monoxide
credit for this sequestration adds considerably and particulate matter by about 45%, hydro-
to the GHG reductions of both options and carbons by about 65%, and sulfur oxides by
changes the ratio between them to 1.6.] Green 100% while increasing nitrogen oxide emis-
(123) also found that displacing coal-based sions relative to diesel by about 10%. [More
electricity would produce greater GHG recent analyses have suggested that nitrogen
reductions than converting it to ethanol and oxide emissions may be lower than previously
displacing gasoline. The displacement of reported (124).] The emissions impacts scale
coal provides greater GHG benefits than the approximately linearly with the proportion of
displacement of gasoline because (a) there is biodiesel blended into diesel (125).
no need to incur the inefficiencies associated
with converting biomass feedstock into a 3.2.4. Agro-environmental concerns.
high-quality fluid transportation fuel, and Agriculture is a land-intensive, environmen-
(b) coal has higher carbon intensity per unit tally high-impact undertaking. Whether the
of energy than gasoline. This suggests that if expansion of biomass energy will exacerbate
GHG mitigation is a major objective, then a the deleterious effects of the agriculture
more effective strategy may be to prioritize sector or mitigate those impacts is of cen-
the use of biomass to displace coal-based tral concern. Currently, the predominant
power over the use of biomass to displace biomass crops—sugarcane, maize, rape, and
transport fuels. soybeans—are grown using the intensive
methods of modern agriculture. Thus, an
3.2.3. Pollutant emission from biofuels. In understanding of the potential environmental
addition to the GHG impacts of displacing impacts of scaling up the production of such
fossil fuels with biofuels, there are significant biomass for energy feedstock requires an as-
changes in other pollutants. The main pollu- sessment of the environmental performance
tants of interest are particulate matter, carbon of current agriculture methods and of the op-
monoxide, volatile organic compounds, and portunities for improving that performance.
nitrogen oxides, and sulfur oxides. The main features of modern intensive
Ethanol in blends with gasoline reduce car- agriculture are the control of crops (through
bon monoxide (by acting as an oxygenate). genetics), of soil fertility via chemical fertil-
In a 10% blend, ethanol can reduce carbon ization and irrigation, and of pests (weeds, in-
monoxide emissions by 25% (106). Owing to sects, and pathogens) via chemical pesticides
the relatively high vapor pressure of ethanol, (126). At the same time, cropping practices
it tends to increase the emission of volatile have moved toward monocultures, intensive
organic compounds in blends with gaso- tillage, and irrigation.
line. This effect can be offset by blending Agricultural food production doubled be-
with gasoline formulated to have lower va- tween 1961 and 1996 with only a 10% in-
por pressure (106). Nitrogen oxide emis- crease in the land under cultivation [although
sions are not significantly changed by blend- irrigated cropland has gone up by about
ing ethanol with gasoline; however, upstream 70% in the past four decades (127)], and the
emissions from fertilizer usage can signifi- move toward resource-intensive agricultural
cantly raise life cycle nitrogen oxide emissions production models led to 6.9-fold and 3.5-
(106). fold increases in nitrogen and phosphorus

fertilization, respectively, during this period ganic matter through disruption of soil aggre-
(126). Total global fertilizer consumption in gates, increased microbial activity, and erosion
2002 was 142 million tons (of which nitrogen (136).10 It is estimated that about 1 million
fertilizers were about 84 million tons) (128). poisonings and 20,000 deaths occur from pes-
In fact, the use of nitrogen fertilizers and ticides each year through occupational expo-
nitrogen-fixing legumes in agriculture con- sure among agricultural works, with pesticide
tributes as much to the terrestrial nitrogen safety being a particular problem in develop-
cycle as the natural (preindustrial) rate of ad- ing countries (139). The long-term effects of
dition (129). Annually, about 2 million tons of pesticides are still not fully understood but are
pesticides are used in agriculture worldwide now believed to include elevated cancer risks
(130); in the United States, insecticide use in- and disruption of the body’s reproductive, im-
creased 10-fold between 1945 and 1989 (131). mune, endocrine, and nervous systems (140).
As a result, modern agriculture is already Agriculture accounts for an estimated 70% to
having enormous impacts on ecosystems and 80% of the global use of water (128, 141),
their properties. Agriculture is the largest although for many countries the number is
source of excess nitrogen and phosphorus to even higher. The water requirements asso-
waterways and coastal areas, leading to eu- ciated with large-scale bioenergy crops may
trophication and nitrification of many water increase the water stress in many countries
bodies (127). The loss of nitrogen (as nitrous (142).
oxide) from croplands also contributes sig- Even though it is not possible to assess
nificantly to GHG emissions (129, 132). In the overall costs in economic terms of current
addition, over 40 million hectares worldwide “unsustainable” agriculture, analyses suggest
were estimated in 1990 to be suffering from that these costs are substantial. In the case
moderate or strong salinization (133), which of the United States, annual environmental
represented about one sixth of the worldwide and health costs associated with agriculture
irrigated cropland at that time (128). It is are estimated to be $5.7–16.9 billion (143).
estimated that about 1.5 million hectares of [Pimentel (144) concludes that the environ-
arable land and $11 billion in production are mental and social costs of pesticide use alone
lost to salinization every year, representing in the United States exceed $8 billion.] A more
about 1% of the global irrigated area and an- comprehensive estimate for the United King-
nual value of production, respectively (134). dom suggested that the total annual external
Up to 40% of global croplands may also be costs and subsidies are 8.95 billion, which
experiencing some degree of soil erosion or works out to an 11% addition to the food
reduced fertility (127); agricultural misman- prices paid by consumers (145).
agement was estimated to be responsible for It is, of course, possible to modify agricul-
soil degradation on 552 million hectares in tural practices so as to reduce the ecological
1990 (133), which is nearly a third of the impacts of biomass production by increasing
global cropland. Monocultures also lead to nutrient- and water-use efficiency, maintain-
impacts on biological components of ecosys- ing and restoring soil fertility, and using
tems such as the pest complex (which may be-
come less diverse but more abundant) and soil
biota (135); at the same time, agricultural sys- 10
As the demand for ethanol increases, crop choices of
tems may have impacts on nearby or even dis- farmers will change. For example, the recent policy initia-
tives that aim to increase the use of ethanol in vehicles are
tant ecosystems (135). Cropping and tillage already leading farmers to move to corn from soybean—
practices also have an effect on soil organic it was expected that the area under corn will go up 15%
matter—conversion of native vegetation to and that under soybean will decline 11% from 2006 to
2007 (137). However, moving from the dominant maize
cropland under intensive tilling practices, for and soybean rotation in the northern corn/soybean belt to
example, contributes to reduction in soil or- continuous maize may reduce soil quality and yield (138).
148 Sagar · Kartha

improved methods of disease and pest control environmental performance (152). Similarly,
(146). Such a move toward sustainable agricul- there has been progress in integrated pest
ture should be broadly based on the agroeco- management worldwide, but it would be fair
logical principles of “balanced environments, to say that the “rate of adoption has been dis-
sustained yields, biologically-mediated soil appointingly slow” (150).
fertility and natural pest regulation through One cannot assume that the expansion of
the design of diversified agroecosystems and bioenergy would be environmentally benign.
the use of low-input technologies” (147). It As recently seen in the case of palm oil (a
would entail complementary and interrelated biodiesel feedstock), an increase in biodiesel
practices such as integrated pest management, demand was a major contributor to defor-
which allows for pest control through a judi- estation and drainage of peatlands in South-
cious application of pesticides in combination east Asia—an estimated 40% of the clearing
with other pest-management approaches such of peatlands is attributable to palm oil plan-
as more diverse cropping systems and targeted tations. The total annual emissions (through
cropping practices (148); precision farming, peat oxidation as well as fires) from South-
which is based on applying nutrients in the east Asian peatlands are estimated to be about
right amount at the right place at the right 2 billion tons of carbon dioxide, which is about
time (146); and improved cropping practices, 8% of the global carbon dioxide emissions
such as polycultures, crop rotation, reduced from fossil-fuel burning (116). New palm oil
(or no) tillage, cover crops, and fallow periods, plantations are estimated to be responsible for
which can help maintain and restore soil fertil- 87% of the deforestation in Malaysia between
ity (146, 149).11 To be successful, sustainable 1985 to 2000 (153).
agriculture must be tailored to local needs, re- Thus, the large-scale use of biofuels de-
sources, and ecologies. It will be most effec- rived from corn, soybeans, or sugarcane will
tive if it combines traditional knowledge and be convergent with sustainable development
cropping practices with modern techniques. only if there are coherent policies and incen-
In fact, sustainable agriculture is knowledge tives to move away from intensive agriculture
intensive rather than input intensive (147). and toward sustainable agriculture. The re-
Despite interest in sustainable agriculture cent introduction of the concept of multifunc-
for some decades now,12 progress has been tionality into agricultural policy discussions
woefully slow [as it has also been in sustain- should help advance the cause of sustainable
able forestry (151)]. Current incentives, in agriculture by explicitly recognizing that agri-
fact, favor increases in agricultural production culture may further several social objectives
without paying sufficient attention to preserv- simultaneously.13
ing ecosystems services (146). A review of the The cellulosic ethanol route offers the po-
OECD’s experience in the 1990s shows mixed tential to use a greater variety of feedstocks
results in protecting the environment, partly (including woody and herbaceous biomass)
because of conflicting policies (152); further- and a larger portion of the crop. Recent work
more, it is not easy to measure agriculture’s with prairie grasses in particular suggest that
these might be an attractive source of biomass
in temperate areas; these could be grown on
11
There is some controversy, however, about the amount degraded lands, need little or no fertilizer,
of soil carbon sequestered by no-till practices, especially
when the whole soil profile is considered (136).
12 13
According to (150), the term “sustainable agriculture” Multifunctionality recognizes that agriculture has multi-
first appeared in the literature in 1978 but was formally ple commodity and noncommodity outputs (such as such as
introduced into policy in 1985 through the Food Security environmental and rural amenities, food security and con-
Act, with a Low-Input Sustainable Agriculture program tribution to rural viability) and that some of the noncom-
aimed to help farmers use resources more efficiently, pro- modity outputs exhibit the characteristics of externalities
tect the environment, and preserve rural communities. or public goods (154).

need no pesticides, and may actually offer a genetic engineering of woody biomass crops
net GHG reduction through the sequestra- has been expressed (in that lignin modifica-
tion of carbon below the ground (118). Ul- tion may have unanticipated ecological appli-
timately, realizing the sustainability gains of cations such as impacts on soil structure and
bioenergy will depend on the commercializa- fertility) (159). Uncertainties in the environ-
tion of cellulosic ethanol or thermochemical mental risks of the widespread introduction of
gasification technologies that could convert genetically modified organisms warrant im-
biomass grown in an ecologically sustainable proved understanding and cautious regula-
manner to useful energy (118, 155). tory approaches (160). But the “gap between
However, even though certain feedstocks advocates and critics” remains on this issue
and fuel cycles may provide the option of (161), partly because it feeds into a wider de-
lower environmental impact through low- bate about biotechnology and a range of pub-
input farming, intensive agriculture may still lic concerns spanning economic development,
end up being employed (108). Whether or ethics, equity, and power (162) that are an in-
not long-term options for the sustainable pro- tegral part of sustainable development. Thus,
duction of biofuels are taken up will de- it is very likely that there will continue to
pend on the policy and market context in be widely differing viewpoints on the role of
which biofuels are emerging. Explicit, con- biotechnology in sustainable biofuels [see, for
certed policy efforts would be needed to guide example, (156, 163)] with the potential for
emerging biofuels markets toward sustainable controversy.
solutions.
3.3. Biotechnology Controversies 3.4. Land Requirements and Land

Redux? Availability
Another issue that is likely to take on As pointed out by Larson (111), it is useful to
some prominence is the role of biotech- compare biofuel options on a per hectare basis
nology. Biotechnology is being considered (as opposed to per unit of fuel basis) because
to advance the production of biofuels from land is the basic primary resource for biofuel
biomass through the development of plants production. Table 2 and Figure 4 present
(with increased yield and reduced biomass the land intensity of various biofuel cycles
recalcitrance) and biological organisms to fa- in terms of the amount of land that would
cilitate the conversion processes (89, 156). be required to displace the GHG emissions
Already soybeans that are genetically mod- from one light-duty passenger vehicle.15 It is
ified for glyphosate resistance are widely a useful metric of the land intensity of bio-
planted (with significant environmental gains fuel production because it combines the three
from reduced tillage and reduced herbicide critical component factors: (a) biomass yield
use) (108). This is likely to set up a tension in terms of quantity of feedstock generated
between concerns about the possible (and still per hectare, (b) the biofuel conversion effi-
not fully understood) consequences of the use ciency in terms of quantity of biofuel gener-
of genetically engineered crops (157) and the ated per unit of biomass feedstock, and (c) the
concerns over climate change and energy se- life cycle GHG reductions achieved relative
curity.14 For example, some concerns about to a conventional vehicle using gasoline or
14 15
In some sense, this would be an extension of the ongo- The vehicle characteristics assumed for this calcula-
ing debate on genetically engineered food crops that often tion are those corresponding to a typical North American
reflects a tension between environmental protection and gasoline-fueled passenger vehicle: an annual mileage of
meeting the needs of developing countries [see, for exam- 24,000 km and a fuel economy of approximately 10 km/liter
ple, (158)]. or 23 miles per gallon.
150 Sagar · Kartha

diesel.16 As can be seen from Table 2, the rele- Third, yields of biomass crops can possibly be
vant parameters vary considerably across bio- increased beyond the assumptions contained
fuels. The biofuel yield per hectare varies from in the studies cited in Table 2. Fourth, in-
the low end for soy biodiesel, which requires creases in efficiencies of conversion from feed-
more than four hectares to fuel one vehicle, stock to biofuel may be obtained beyond the
to the high end for sugarcane ethanol, which assumptions in the cited studies.
requires somewhat more than half a hectare to The land intensity of biofuels production
fuel one vehicle.17 This biofuel yield is com- (corn ethanol and soy biodiesel in particular)
bined with the effectiveness with which a fuel is reflected in the scale of the current biofu-
displaces life cycle GHG emissions, which els program in the United States. After Hill
ranges from a low of ∼14% for corn ethanol (108), one can calculate that the 14.3% of
to a high of ∼90% for sugarcane and cellu- the U.S. corn harvest that was converted to
losic ethanol. [For cellulosic ethanol, this fig- ethanol in 2005 was able to displace about
ure could exceed 100% if the feedstock were 0.25% of GHG emissions arising from U.S.
native grassland perennials capable of seques- gasoline consumption. Devoting the entire
tering carbon in soils and generating a net U.S. corn harvest to ethanol and soy harvest to
carbon-negative biofuel cycle (118).] soy biodiesel would allow the United States to
The result is that displacing one passen- displace roughly 1.7% of the emissions aris-
ger vehicle’s worth of GHG emissions would ing from its gasoline consumption and about
require between 0.7 hectares (if fuelled with 2.4% of the GHG emissions arising from its
sugarcane ethanol) to more than 10 hectares diesel consumption.
(if fuelled with soy biodiesel). For compari- Given the land intensity of biofuel path-
son, Figure 4 shows the current global crop- ways, it is useful to look at some of the esti-
land of 0.24 hectares per person (or 1.5 bil- mates that have been made of the supply of
lion hectares total). Although it is a technical biomass feedstocks for energy that might be
and agronomic matter to calculate how land- technically available in the future. As it hap-
intensive biofuel production is, it is a matter of pens, there is a staggering range of estimates
policy and societal choice to choose whether in the literature, some of which are summa-
this is an appropriate use of land resources, rized in Table 3.
and if so, how much land to thus use. There are also various analysts who ques-
There are various measures that can be tion whether there will be sufficient land
taken to reduce the land intensity of biofuel resources for biomass energy at all, after
requirements. First, considerable increases in satisfying both food demand and the require-
fuel economy can be made on the basis of ments for land for natural ecosystem function-
vehicle technologies such as hybrid engines, ing (166–168). The uncertainty in the above
light-weight materials, and smaller vehicles. estimates and the major difference in opinions
Second, annual vehicle mileage can be re- relate to the following issues:
duced through greater access to public tran-
sit along with transit-oriented urban design. There are some fundamental demo-
graphic and socioeconomic uncertain-
ties relating to the future demand for
16
food, including uncertainty in future
This comparison does not, however, account for any dif-
ferences in the quality of land used. Cellulosic crops, for ex- population and especially in future di-
ample, can in principle be produced on lower-quality land etary preferences. A shift to more an-
than annual food crops. imal products that often accompanies
17
For cellulosic ethanol derived from biomass feedstocks rising affluence will significantly in-
consisting of forestry or agricultural residues or other mu-
nicipal waste streams, there would be no incremental de- crease total land requirements for live-
mand for land. stock feed (169, 170).

Table 3 Estimates of bioenergy potential

Bioenergy
Reference Potential (EJ/yr) Feedstocks Year
Berndes et al. (164) 206 Residues and energy crops 2050
De Vries et al. (165) 80–300 End use biofuels 2050
Moomaw et al. (65) 441 2050
Hall et al. (103) 31 + 266 Residues + energy crops None specified
Hoogwijk et al. (63) 240–850 + 35–265 From excess cropland + 2100
from savannah/grasslands
Sims et al. (104) 2–25 Energy crops 2025

There are uncertainties about the fu- commodities. The normal market response
ture potential for yield increases both to such a situation is a rise in prices. Even
for food and energy crops. On the if biofuels were derived from nonfood crops
one hand, there are prospects for (e.g., cellulosic feedstocks or inedible oils),
biotechnology-driven improvements in they could still place an additional demand
crop characteristics and, on the other on agricultural resources, specifically land and
hand, the possibility of yield declines water, and lead to a rise in food prices.
due to the long-term impacts of inten- Human beings can only consume a cer-
sive agriculture. tain maximum amount of food, which puts
Related to the above, there are uncer- an upper bound on the demand for agricul-
tainties about the availability of excess, tural products. But the demand for energy
abandoned agricultural lands, which services is essentially unlimited. As captured
many biomass projections find to be the in Figure 4, an individual’s demand for food
main source of land for energy crops. translates into a demand for land that is lim-
There are also uncertainties about the ited to a fraction of a hectare of cropland,
availability and suitability of marginal whereas an individual’s demand for trans-
and degraded lands, which are unlikely portation can translate into a demand for sev-
to be completely free of other claims. eral hectares. The emergence of a biofuel
market thus introduces a fundamentally new
dynamic to agricultural markets. All else be-
3.5. Socioeconomic Issues
ing equal, this dynamic will lead to a rise in
Although there have been suggestions that food prices.
growing bioenergy markets could contribute With the recent boom in biofuel produc-
to socioeconomic development in developing tion, such a rise in food prices is indeed be-
countries (72–74, 171), capturing these ben- ing seen. The increasing demand for corn
efits will not happen by default (172, 173). for ethanol production in the United States
There are two major ways in which bioenergy has escalated the price of corn in Mexico
intersects with socioeconomic welfare. (more than doubling and even almost tripling
The first relates to the potential for bioen- in some parts between 2006 and 2007) and
ergy markets to influence food markets and has led to a tortilla crisis in that country.
affect food security. Today’s major biofuels This is an issue beyond just culinary or cul-
are based on food crops (corn, cane, soy, tural overtones because poor Mexicans get
rape, palm oil), which leads to direct competi- more than 40% of their protein from tortillas
tion between biofuel processing facilities and (174). At the same time, chicken feed costs in
food processing facilities for the same food the United States increased 40% between the
152 Sagar · Kartha

summer of 2006 and early 2007 because of It cannot be assumed that this is the default
rising corn prices (137). Rises have also been scenario.
noted in other major biofuel feedstock mar- The second way in which bioenergy in-
kets, including sugar, rapeseed oil, palm oil, tersects with socioeconomic welfare relates to
and soybean (175). The prospect that this is its potential contribution to sustainable liveli-
more than a transient effect is supported by hoods. To make a substantive contribution to
a recent projections comparing the price of sustainable development, bioenergy markets
certain staples in an aggressive biofuels sce- would need to benefit small farmers in de-
narios (in which 20% of transportation fu- veloping countries. The Food and Agricul-
els are displaced by biofuels by 2020, includ- ture Organization estimates that there were
ing cellulosic ethanol starting in 2015) to a 815 million chronically undernourished peo-
reference scenario (176). The prices of sugar ple in developing countries in 2000–2002,
beets, wheat, maize, sugarcane, oilseeds, and with attendant enormous human, social, and
cassava were 10%, 16%, 23%, 43%, and 54% economic costs (179). About three quarters
higher, respectively, than their baseline 2020 of these are extremely poor rural inhabi-
prices. In a scenario where cellulosic ethanol tants, mainly practically landless small farm-
does not become commercial, and food crop ers living in difficult regions, underemployed
yields stay constant at today’s levels, the prices agricultural laborers, and other artisans and
rises for these crops are on the order of twice traders who rely on these groups for a living
as great. A recent study of the U.S. agri- (180). The situation of these groups has be-
cultural sector came to similar conclusions come worse in many instances as the prices
(177). of agricultural commodities have shown not
A rise in food prices is a double-edged only a decline over the long term but also
sword. It can benefit countries and households short-term volatility (181); the decline in food
that are net producers of food, including the prices often does not help this group since
rural poor whose livelihoods are closely tied they are not purchasers of food (180). With
to the agricultural economy. But, at the same the continuing decline in prices of their prod-
time, it can hurt those who are net consumers, ucts (and often increases in input prices), even
including the urban poor—the caloric con- increased output may still lead to reduced sur-
sumption among the poor is estimated to de- pluses, leading to what has been termed as
cline by 0.5% for every 1% rise in the price distress-inducing growth (182) and a need for
of major food staples (178). nonagricultural income for making ends meet
Biofuels do not need to adversely affect (183). Small farmers already have low cap-
food security. In principle, biofuels could rely ital stock in primary agriculture (184), and
on lower-quality land and not compete for by not being able to stay above the eco-
prime cropland. To the degree that it increases nomic renewal threshold, they are unable to
rural incomes, it can in principle enable in- renew farm tools and inputs needed, leading
vestment in productivity enhancements. And to declining agricultural stock in real terms
biofuels can help provide energy services that (180). Thus, it is imperative that any effort to
enhance food security, such as transportation use bioenergy markets to promote sustainable
of food commodities from farms to markets. development must find ways to include this
However, these measures cannot be assumed group.
to be inevitable outcomes of the expansion The trend toward large-scale, vertically
of bioenergy markets. Concerted steps would integrated corporations that have greater
be needed to ensure that the policy context control over agricultural commodity chains
and market environment in which bioenergy makes it difficult for small-scale producers to
was expanding are structured so as to pre- benefit from the market for agricultural prod-
vent food security from being compromised. ucts (181, 185), and bioenergy markets may

well follow the same trend.18 It is possible that the biochemical conversion technologies for
certification systems to promote sustainabil- cellulosic ethanol, many developing countries
ity (186) may help ensure that benefits accrue may not yet have the technological capacity
to small-scale producers, although some have to build or operate these plants indigenously,
pointed out the onerous burden certification making it difficult to move up the value chain
can impose on small farmers (181, 187). in the biofuels market [paralleling the tradi-
Agricultural subsidies in developed coun- tional agricultural world, where the lack of
tries can greatly distort the global agricul- agroprocessing capabilities severely hobbles
ture markets and depress commodity prices the returns farmers receive from their pro-
(181)—producer support in OECD countries duce (195)]. Tariff escalation, i.e., the impo-
was estimated to be 280 billion dollars in 2005 sition of higher tariffs for goods that have
(188). Some have argued that the U.S. corn undergone greater processing, by developed
ethanol program is following the same path, countries also hinders developing countries in
driven by political economy and corporate in- their attempts to establish processing indus-
terests rather than sound science (189, 190). tries for exports at origin (181, 184, 185).20
There is increasing agreement that, in or- Still, at least some developing countries might
der for trade in agricultural commodities to be able to develop a biofuels industry, which
help poor countries, OECD countries will could then serve as a foundation for broader
be required to end the modes of support for industrial development (88).
their agriculture sectors that harm developing Yet, the integration of small farmers into
countries. It will also require more effective a bioenergy strategy does in principle offer
management of risks caused by negative com- a worthwhile opportunity to advance the
modity price shocks, better market access for sustainable development agenda. It must
developing countries, and enhanced South- begin by focusing on the multifunctional
South cooperation in the field of trade and nature of small farms, which are already
investment (184, 191–194). These measures often quite efficient and productive (even if
apply to bioenergy markets just as they apply yields are low by the metric of single crops),
to conventional agricultural markets. can contribute to economic development
Analogous to many agricultural commodi- where it is most needed, and can help sustain
ties,19 most of the value addition in biofuels rural communities (196). They may also
will come from the processing of the biomass become model implementers of sustainable
feedstock to the final biofuel (with the price agriculture—recent work has shown that
of the biofuels unlikely to decline much ow- 12.6 million small farmers across 57 poor
ing to limits in production coupled with in- countries cropping 37 million hectares (rep-
creasing demand and some linkage to the resenting 3% of the cropland in developing
price of petroleum-based fuels). In this case, countries) have successfully adopted a variety
the prices of biomass may remain relatively of resource-conserving technologies and
low. Given the increasing sophistication of practices that led to a 79% average increase in
yield while improving critical environmental
18
In Kenya, for example, even as its horticultural ex- services (including carbon sequestration
ports have grown, the share of smallholders has been re- of 0.35 t C ha−1 year−1 ) (197). But such
duced. Smallholders produced 70% of vegetables and fruits increases in yield while conserving resources
shipped from Kenya before the horticultural export boom.
But by the end of the 1990s, 40% of the produce was grown and maintaining environmental services
on farms owned or leased directly by importers in the devel-
oped countries and 42% on large commercial farms, while 20
The share of developing countries in global exports of
smallholders produced just 18% (179). processed agricultural products decreased from 27% for
19
Growers generally get only a small fraction of the price the period from 1981 to 1990 to 25% in the period from
of finished agricultural products, ranging from as low as 1991 to 2000, and the share of less-developed countries fell
4% for raw cotton to 28% for cocoa (181). from a 0.7% to 0.3% during the same 20 years (181).
154 Sagar · Kartha

depend not just on technological approaches tentially attractive renewable energy sources,
but also social processes that value commu- biomass energy has a definite contribution to
nity involvement and empowerment (147); make to sustainable development. The ability
social and human capital can help agricultural of this energy source to further the sustain-
productivity and natural capital grow (197, able development agenda, though, depends on
198). The development of cooperatives how it is produced, converted, and used. This,
and other efforts by producers to organize in turn, requires a broad view that encom-
commercially can counteract the market passes the many dimensions of environmental
dominance of transnational corporations in sustainability—carbon balances (comprehen-
agricultural markets and improve their market sively defined), air pollution, water and soil
access and returns (179, 181). resources, and biodiversity—and also recog-
Lastly, it should be mentioned that a move nizes the human and socioeconomic dimen-
toward biofuels can help reduce the depen- sions of sustainability: health, gender equity,
dence on fossil fuels, but biofuels must be seen food and energy security, and livelihoods.
as part of a larger portfolio of approaches to- Exploiting bioenergy while taking this
ward this end. The technical fix of biofuels comprehensive, sustainability-centered view
is a supply-side solution and must not dis- at modest scales is easy. But the real challenge
place efforts to enhance efficiency (through comes in scaling up implementation so that it
fuel-efficiency standards for automobiles, for makes a significant contribution toward satis-
example) and reduce vehicle travel (through fying a significant portion of the unmet need
changes in settlement patterns and consumer for clean energy services. It is at these larger
behavior as well as modal shifts), which must scales that the various challenges and conflicts
be regarded as cornerstones of a sustainable discussed in this chapter become more prob-
transportation policy. lematic. We emphasize some specific conclu-
Clearly, biomass energy is now of a large sions in this regard.
enough scale to consume a significant amount In the case of household bioenergy, the
of arable land and affect markets for agricul- magnitude of the problem remains absolutely
tural products. In addition, it is being enlisted enormous. Although an ideal world might
to play a major role in combating climate be one in which there are adequate, clean,
change and meet countries’ energy security and affordable energy services that are based
needs. And it is a rapidly expanding agro- on sustainably harvested biomass (or other
industrial venture that affects the lives of in- renewables) for poor households, the envi-
creasing numbers of rural laborers. But, as this ronmentally sustainable nature of the energy
chapter has hopefully shown, biomass energy source is not necessarily the most impor-
can no longer be treated as an idealized re- tant factor. The most urgent concerns arise
newable energy solution that will by default from the welfare and health impacts of the
contribute positively to sustainable develop- labor-intensive and highly polluting nature of
ment. The potential to do so still exists, but traditional biomass use. Thus, certain clean-
the experience demonstrates that this cannot burning fossil fuels such as LPG must also
be taken for granted. be considered as part of the overall effort to
expand clean energy supplies rather than fo-
cus only on biomass-derived supplies. Regard-
4. CONCLUSION less of the approach (improved cookstoves,
There is little doubt that biomass is going biomass-derived or fossil-based clean fuels),
to remain an important part of the noncom- providing cleaner energy to poor households
mercial energy arena for some years to come will certainly require concerted efforts and
and to evolve into a major contributor to the greater resources. One way to generate more
commercial energy arena. As with other po- resources is by acknowledging this group’s

relatively minor contributions to the climate effective with regard to enhancing en-
problem and exploring policies to compen- ergy security, which for most countries
sate them for providing atmospheric space to refers to reducing dependence on im-
other GHG emitters. ported petroleum.
On the commercial biofuels front, there
has been a recent explosion in interest in in- The potential for conflict between food
dustrialized and developing countries. The re- and biofuels has long been raised be-
sulting policy developments have been driven cause biofuel production is an intrin-
by climate concerns, energy security con- sically land-intensive undertaking. The
cerns, as well as opportunities to benefit agri- recent empirical observations of rising

cultural enterprises and contribute to rural food prices owing to the ongoing bio-
development. As commercial biomass energy fuels boom have heightened consider-

expands at this rapid rate, a number of issues ably these concerns for the future. They
arise that were not particularly relevant at a have also brought into sharper focus
smaller scale but must be considered in detail the polarization on this issue. Some
for the future. analysts have concluded that there is
enough land to meet food needs as well
The energy and GHG implications
as provide a large amounts of bioen-
of biofuels cannot be properly as-
ergy feedstocks and that these bioen-
sessed without a whole-system view
ergy markets can contribute to farmer’s
of their production, conversion, and
livelihood opportunities and food se-
use, which greatly influence these en-
curity. Others maintain that large-scale
ergy and GHG balances. Corn-based
bioenergy will necessarily shift land, la-
ethanol offers only marginal benefits
bor, and capital resources away from
on both fronts, calling into question its
food production in a manner that un-
role as a suitable clean energy source.
dermines food security and degrades the
Soy and rapeseed biodiesel offer mod-
environment. The resolution of this de-
est gains, but sugarcane and cellulosic
bate hinges in part on technical argu-
ethanol are better. In fact, some biofu-
ments relating to food and fuel pro-
els that look reasonable at first blush can
duction systems (such as land resource
have unequivocally negative climate im-
estimates, yield projections, conversion
pacts, as demonstrated by the ongoing
efficiency assumptions). More impor-
production of biodiesel from palm oil on
tantly, though, it will depend on the
cleared forest lands in Southeast Asia.
shape and nature of the food and fuel
As a GHG mitigation option, biofu- markets, how they interact, and the pol-
els should be seen in the context of icy regimes under which they operate.
the wider range of mitigation oppor- Insofar as the biofuel markets are un-
tunities. In particular, as long as there derpinned by relatively wealthy con-
are opportunities to significantly re- sumers of transportation fuels, a purely
duce emissions from coal-based power, market-driven allocation of global or
this may well be a more effective use even national land resources could have
of biomass resources than displacing adverse consequences for the environ-
petroleum-based transport fuels. And ment and for food availability and ac-
reducing transportation-related GHG cess for poor consumers. Thus, the ex-
emissions from increased fuel economy tent to which commercial biofuels can
or reduced use of vehicles should not help further the sustainable develop-
be neglected in favor of fuel substitu- ment agenda ultimately depends on the
tion. These latter measures are just as policies we put in place as safeguards to
156 Sagar · Kartha

ensure that biomass feedstocks are pro- the views of all stakeholders are given consid-
duced in an environmentally sustainable eration. It also requires a willingness to learn
manner and that bioenergy markets en- from our experiences and to move forward in a
hance rather than undercut food secu- deliberate and thoughtful manner. Most of all,
rity and livelihoods for the poor. it means putting the needs of the poor and dis-
advantaged front and center and making sure
Thus, in both cases discussed here, the fea- that they are sharing in the broad gains that
sibility of employing bioenergy as an instru- may result from the continued or expanded
ment of sustainable development depends not use of biomass.
just on the technical potential of the options, To sum up, there is no doubt that biomass
but also as much (if not more) on policies to does offer the opportunity to further the
ensure that potential is exploited in a fashion broad sustainable development agenda. The
that gives due consideration to all dimensions challenge lies in translating that opportunity
of the sustainable development agenda. His- into reality. Whether we can rise adequately
tory has shown that this can only be done if to this challenge remains to be seen.
SUMMARY POINTS
1. Traditional bioenergy is the dominant contributor to household energy supplies for
much of the world’s population but comes at high cost in terms of health and welfare.
Expanding access to clean energy services is a critical development issue, yet progress
has been slow.
2. Modern bioenergy has rapidly expanded over the past decade and is poised to become
a major contributor to global commercial energy supplies. This is largely in response
to policy mandates driven by concerns about energy (oil) security and climate change.
3. Bioenergy has the potential to contribute to sustainable development both at the
household and commercial levels in the future. It can serve as a renewable source
of energy that provides environmental and agronomic benefits while enhancing food
security and supporting rural livelihoods.
4. The fulfillment of this potential cannot be presumed. Equally plausible futures fea-
ture bioenergy as a land-intensive undertaking that is environmentally burdensome,
adversely affects food security, and undermines rural livelihoods. Recent experience
with the rapid expansion of biofuels markets has elevated anxieties about such futures.
5. The difference between these futures hinges primarily on the policy and market
environments in which bioenergy emerges. If sustainable development is an objective
of a bioenergy economy, then it will need to be deliberately pursued via proactive
policies.
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The authors are not aware of any biases that might be perceived as affecting the objectivity of
this review.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors are grateful to an anonymous reviewer for useful comments that helped improve
the paper.

LITERATURE CITED
1. Int. Energy Agency (IEA). 2006. World Energy Outlook 2006. Paris: OECD/IEA
2. Modi V, McDade S, Lallement D, Saghir J. 2005. Energy Services for the Millennium Devel-
opment Goals. New York: Energy Sect. Manag. Assist. Program./UN Dev. Program./UN
Millenn. Proj./World Bank
3. Int. Energy Agency (IEA). 2006. Energy Balances of Non-OECD Countries, 2003–04. Paris:
OECD/IEA
4. Smith KR, Mehta S, Maeusezahl-Feuz M. 2004. Indoor smoke from household solid
fuels. In Comparative Quantification of Health Risks: Global and Regional Burden of Disease
due to Selected Major Risk Factors, ed. M Ezzati, AD Rodgers, AD Lopez, CJL Murray,
pp. 1435–93. Geneva: World Health Organ.
5. Rehfuess E, Mehta S, Pruss-Ustun A. 2006. Assessing household solid fuel use: multiple
implications for the Millennium Development Goals. Environ. Health Perspect. 114:373–
78
6. World Bank. 2007. World Development Indicators Database. Washington, DC: World Bank
7. Reddy AKN, Annecke W, Blok K, Bloom D, Boardman B, et al. 2000. Energy and
social issues. In World Energy Assessment: Energy and the Challenge of Sustainability, ed. J
Goldemberg, pp. 39–60. New York: UNDP/CSD/WEC
8. Reddy AKN, Williams RH, Johansson TB. 1997. Energy After Rio: Prospects and Challenges.
New York: UNDP
10. World Health Organ. (WHO). 2006. Fuel for Life: Household Energy and Health. Geneva:
WHO
11. Dekoning HW, Smith KR, Last JM. 1985. Biomass fuel combustion and health. Bull.
World Health Organ. 63:11–26
12. Smith KR. 1993. Fuel combustion, air-pollution exposure, and health: the situation in
developing countries. Annu. Rev. Energy Environ. 18:529–66
13. Smith KR. 1987. Biofuels, Air Pollution, and Health. New York: Plenum
14. Ezzati M, Lopez AD, Rodgers A, Vander Hoorn S, Murray CJL. 2002. Selected major
risk factors and global and regional burden of disease. Lancet 360:1347–60
15. Bruce N, Perez-Padilla R, Albalak R. 2000. Indoor air pollution in developing countries:
a major environmental and public health challenge. Bull. World Health Organ. 78:1078–92
16. Ezzati M, Kammen DM. 2002. The health impacts of exposure to indoor air pollution
from solid fuels in developing countries: knowledge, gaps, and data needs. Environ. Health
Perspect. 110:1057–68
17. Smith KR. 2000. National burden of disease in India from indoor air pollution. Proc. Natl.
Acad. Sci. USA 97:13286–93
18. Zhang J, Smith KR. 2005. Indoor air pollution from household fuel combustion in China: A
review. Presented at 10th Int. Conf. Indoor Air Qual. Climate, Beijing, China
19. World Health Organ. (WHO). 2002. World Health Report 2002. Geneva: WHO
20. Arnold M, Köhlin G, Persson R, Shepherd G. 2003. Fuelwood revisited: What has changed
in the last decade? CIFOR Occas. Pap. 39, Cent. Int. For. Res., Jakarta
21. Smith KR, Uma R, Kishore VVN, Zhang J, Joshi V, Khalil MAK. 2000. Greenhouse
implications of household stoves: an analysis for India. Annu. Rev. Energy Environ. 25:741–
63
22. Bailis R, Ezzati M, Kammen DM. 2003. Greenhouse gas implications of household energy
technology in Kenya. Environ. Sci. Technol. 37:2051–59
158 Sagar · Kartha

23. Streets DG, Waldhoff ST. 1999. Greenhouse-gas emissions from biofuel combustion in
Asia. Energy 24:841–55
24. Lelieveld J, Crutzen PJ, Ramanathan V, Andreae MO, Brenninkmeijer CAM, et al. 2001.
The Indian Ocean Experiment: widespread air pollution from South and Southeast Asia.
Science 291:1031–36
25. Venkataraman C, Habib G, Eiguren-Fernandez A, Miguel AH, Friedlander SK. 2005.
Residential biofuels in south Asia: carbonaceous aerosol emissions and climate impacts.
Science 307:1454–56
26. Ramanathan V, Chung C, Kim D, Bettge T, Buja L, et al. 2005. Atmospheric brown
clouds: impacts on South Asian climate and hydrological cycle. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
102:5326–33
27. Ramanathan V, Crutzen PJ, Lelieveld J, Mitra AP, Althausen D, et al. 2001. Indian
Ocean Experiment: an integrated analysis of the climate forcing and effects of the great
Indo-Asian haze. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 106:28371–98
28. Auffhammer M, Ramanathan V, Vincent JR. 2006. Integrated model shows that atmo-
spheric brown clouds and greenhouse gases have reduced rice harvests in India. Proc. Natl.
Acad. Sci. USA 103:19668–72
29. Barnes DF, Krutilla K, Hyde WF. 2005. The Urban Household Energy Transition: Social and
Environmental Impacts in the Developing World. Washington, DC: Resour. Future (RFF)
30. Masera OR, Saatkamp BD, Kammen DM. 2000. From linear fuel switching to multiple
cooking strategies: a critique and alternative to the energy ladder model. World Dev.
28:2083–103
31. Bruce N, Rehfuess E, Mehta S, Hutton G, Smith K. 2006. Indoor air pollution. In Dis-
ease Control Priorities in Developing Countries, ed. DT Jamison, JG Breman, AR Measham,
G Alleyne, M Claeson, et al., pp. 793–815. New York: World Bank/Oxford Univ.
Press
32. Eckholm E. 1975. The other energy crisis: firewood. Worldwatch pap. 1, Worldwatch Inst.,
Washington, DC
33. Manibog FR. 1984. Improved cooking stoves in developing countries: problems and
opportunities. Annu. Rev. Energy 9:199–227
34. Leach G, Gowen M. 1987. Household energy handbook. World Bank Tech. Pap. 67, World
Bank, Washington, DC
35. Barnes DF, Openshaw K, Smith KR, Van Der Plas R. 1993. The design and diffusion of
improved cooking stoves. World Bank Res. Obs. 8:119–41
36. Barnes DF, Openshaw K, Smith KR, Van Der Plas R. 1994. What makes people cook with
improved biomass stoves? A comparative international review of cookstove programs.
World Bank Tech. Pap. 242, World Bank, Washington, DC
37. Hanbar RD, Karve P. 2002. National Programme on Improved Chulha (NPIC) of the
Government of India: an overview. Energy Sustain. Dev. VI:49–55
38. Sinton JE, Smith KR, Peabody JW, Yaping L. 2004. An assessment of programs to pro-
mote improved household stoves in China. Energy Sustain. Dev. VIII:33–52
39. Renew. Energy Policy Netw. 21st Century. 2005. Renewables 2005 Global Status Report.
Washington, DC: Worldwatch Inst.
40. Kishore VVN, Ramana PV. 2002. Improved cookstoves in rural India: How improved
are they? A critique of the perceived benefits from the National Programme on Improved
Chulhas (NPIC). Energy 27:47–63
41. Aggarwal RK, Chandel SS. 2004. Review of improved cookstoves programme in western
Himalayan state of India. Biomass Bioenergy 27:131–44

42. Ezzati M, Kammen DM. 2001. Indoor air pollution from biomass combustion and acute
respiratory infections in Kenya: an exposure-response study. Lancet 358:619–24
43. Zhang J, Smith KR, Ma Y, Ye S, Jiang F, et al. 2000. Greenhouse gases and other airborne
pollutants from household stoves in China: a database for emission factors. Atmos. Environ.
34:4537–49
44. Qiu DX, Gu SH, Liange BF, Wang GH. 1990. Diffusion and innovation in the Chinese
biogas program. World Dev. 18:555–63
45. Renew. Energy Policy Netw. 21st Century (REN21). 2006. Renewables Global Status Report
2006 Update. Paris/Washington, DC: REN21 Secr./Worldwatch Inst.
46. Utria BE. 2004. Ethanol and gelfuel: clean renewable cooking fuels for poverty alleviation
in Africa. Energy Sustain. Dev. VIII:107–14
47. Larson ED, Yang H. 2004. Dimethyl ether (DME) from coal as a household cooking fuel
in China. Energy Sustain. Dev. VIII:115–26
48. Lucon O, Coelho ST, Goldemberg J. 2004. LPG in Brazil: lessons and challenges. Energy
Sustain. Dev. VIII:82–90
49. Rehman IH, Malhotra P, Pal RC, Singh PB. 2005. Availability of kerosene to rural
households: a case study from India. Energy Policy 33:2165–74
50. Goldemberg J, Johansson TB, Reddy AKN, Williams RH. 2004. A global clean cooking
fuel initiative. Energy Sustain. Dev. VIII:5–12
51. Smith KR. 2002. In praise of petroleum? Science 298:1847
52. Sagar AD. 2005. Alleviating energy poverty for the world’s poor. Energy Policy 33:1367–72
53. Smith KR, Gu SH, Huang K, Qiu DX. 1993. 100-Million improved cookstoves in China:
How was it done? World Dev. 21:941–61
54. O’Neal D. 2005. Designing stoves for mass production. Boil. Point 50:8–11
55. Shastri CM, Sangeetha G, Ravindranath NH. 2002. Dissemination of efficient ASTRA
stove: case study of a successful entrepreneur in Sirsi, India. Energy Sustain. Dev. VI:63–67
56. Sagar AD. 1999. A “polluters get paid” principle? Environment 41:4–5
57. Organ. Econ. Co-op. Dev. (OECD). 2001. Improving the Environmental Performance of
Agriculture: Policy Options and Market Approaches. Paris: OECD
58. Energy Inf. Adm. (EIA). 2006. International Energy Outlook 2006. Washington, DC: US
Dep. Energy
59. Natl. Res. Counc. 2006. Trends in Oil Supply and Demand, Potential for Peaking of Con-
ventional Oil Production, and Possible Mitigation Options: A Summary Report of the Workshop.
Washington, DC: Natl. Acad.
61. White House. 2007. President Bush discusses energy initiatives in Missouri. Off. Press Secr.
Mar. 20. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/03/20070320-7.html
62. MacInnis L. 2007. Sudan top target for Chinese investment in Africa. Reuters. Mar. 28
63. Hoogwijk M, Faaij A, Eickhout B, de Vries B, Turkenburg W. 2005. Potential of biomass
energy out to 2100, for four IPCC SRES land-use scenarios. Biomass Bioenergy 29:225–
57
64. Girard P, Fallot A. 2006. Review of existing and emerging technologies for the production
of biofuels in developing countries. Energy Sustain. Dev. X:92–108
65. Moomaw WR, Moreira JR, Blok K, Greene DL, Gregory K, et al. 2001. Technological
and economic potential of greenhouse gas emissions reduction. In Climate Change 2001:
Mitigation; Contribution of Working Group III to the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC, ed.
B Metz, O Davidson, R Swart, J Pan, pp. 171–299. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ.
Press
160 Sagar · Kartha

66. van Vuuren DP, den Elzen MGJ, Lucas PL, Eickhout B, Strengers BJ, et al. 2006. Stabi-
lizing greenhouse gas concentrations at low levels: an assessment of reduction strategies
and costs. Clim. Change 81:119–59
67. Clarke L, Edmonds J, Jacoby H, Pitcher H, Reilly J, Richels R. 2006. CCSP syn-
thesis and assessment product 2.1, part A: Scenarios of greenhouse gas emissions and atmo-
spheric concentrations—Final Rep., US Climate Change Science Program. http://www.
climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap2-1/
68. Azar C, Lindgren K, Larson E, Mollersten K. 2006. Carbon capture and storage from
fossil fuels and biomass—costs and potential role in stabilizing the atmosphere. Clim.
Change 74:47–79
69. Riahi K, Grübler A. 2007. Scenarios of long-term socio-economic and environmen-
tal development under climate stabilization. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change. 74:887–
935
70. Larson ED, Williams RH, Jin H. 2006. Fuels and electricity from biomass with CO2 cap-
ture and storage. Presented at 8th Int. Conf. Greenh. Gas Control Technol., Trondheim,
Nor.
71. Hanauer A. 2005. Generating Energy, Generating Jobs. Cleveland, OH: Policy Matters
72. Inst. Agric. Trade Policy (IATP). 2006. IATP and the Bioeconomy. Minneapolis, MN: IATP
73. Goldemberg J, Johansson TB. 1995. Energy as an Instrument for Socio-Economic Develop-
ment. New York: UN Dev. Program.
74. Kammen DM, Bailis R, Herzog AV. 2002. Clean Energy for Development and Economic
Growth: Biomass and Other Renewable Energy Options to Meet Energy and Development Needs
in Poor Nations. New York: UN Dev. Program.
75. Wright L, Boundy B, Perlack B, Davis S, Saulsbury B. 2006. Biomass Energy Data Book.
Ed. 1: ORNL/TM-2006/571, Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge Natl. Lab.
76. Natl. Biodiesel Board (NBB). 2007. Estimated US Biodiesel Sales. Jefferson City, MO: NBB
77. Eur. Biodiesel Board (EBD). 2007. 2005 Production by Country. Brussels: EBD
78. Renew. Fuel Assoc. (RFA). 2007. Industry statistics. http://www.ethanolrfa.org/
resource/facts/
79. Kavalov B, Peteves SD. 2005. Status and Perspectives of Biomass to Liquid Fuels in the European
Union. Luxembourg: Off. Off. Publ. Eur. Comm.
80. Hamelinck CN, Faaij APC. 2006. Outlook for advanced biofuels. Energy Policy 34:3268–
83
81. Williams RH, Larson ED, Katofsky RE, Chen J. 1995. Methanol and hydrogen from
biomass for transportation. Energy Sustain. Dev. I:18–34
82. Ekbom T, Lindblom M, Berglin N, Ahlvik P. 2003. Technical and commercial feasibility
study of black liquor gasification with Methanol/DME production as motor fuels for
automotive uses, ALTENER (EU Energy Framew. Program.), Rep. Contract 4.1030/Z/01-
087/2001, Eur. Comm. Dir.-Gen. Transp. Energy, Brussels
83. Larson ED, Tingjin R. 2003. Synthetic fuel production by indirect coal liquefaction.
Energy Sustain. Dev. VII:79–102
84. Breakthr. Technol. Inst. (BTI). 2004. Fuel Cell Vehicle World Survey 2003. Washington,
DC: BTI
85. Boerrigter H, Zwart RWR. 2004. High efficient coproduction of Fischer-Tropsch (FT)
transportation fuels and substitute natural gas (SNG) from biomass. Rep. ECN-C–04–001,
Energy Res. Cent. Neth., Petten
86. Milne TA, Elam CC, Evans RJ. 2002. Hydrogen from biomass: state of the art and
research challenges. Rep. IEA/H2/TR-02/001, Int. Energy Agency, Paris

87. Hemmes K, de Groot A, den Uil H. 2003. Bio-H2: application potential of biomass related
hydrogen production technologies to the Dutch energy infrastructure of 2020–50. Energy
Res. Cent. Neth. Rep. ECN-C–03-028, Energy Res. Cent. Neth., Petten
88. Mathews J. 2006. A biofuels manifesto: Why biofuels industry creation should be ‘priority
number one’ for the World Bank and for developing countries. http://www.gsm.mq.edu.au/
facultyhome/john.mathews/a%20Biofuels%20manifesto 2 sep 06.pdf
89. Himmel ME, Ding SY, Johnson DK, Adney WS, Nimlos MR, et al. 2007. Biomass
recalcitrance: engineering plants and enzymes for biofuels production. Science 315:804–7
90. Stephanopoulos G. 2007. Challenges in engineering microbes for biofuels production.
Science 315:801–4
91. ScienceDaily. 2007. Engineers devise new process to improve energy efficiency
of ethanol production. Jan. 27. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/01/

070126185045.htm
92. Berg C. 2004. World Fuel Ethanol Analysis and Outlook. Ratzeburg, Ger.: Licht
93. Solomon BD, Barnes JR, Halvorsen KE. 2007. Grain and cellulosic ethanol: history,
economics, and energy policy. Biomass Bioenergy 31(6):416–25
94. Agarwal AK. 2007. Biofuels (alcohols and biodiesel) applications as fuels for internal
combustion engines. Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 33:233–71
95. Hansen AC, Zhang Q, Lyne PWL. 2005. Ethanol-diesel fuel blends; a review. Bioresour.
Technol. 96:277–85
96. Goldemberg J. 2007. Ethanol for a sustainable energy future. Science 315:808–10
97. FoodFirst Inf. Action Netw. (FIAN). 2002. Economic, social and ecological impacts
on Brazil of accelerated liberalisation of the European sugar market. Rep. to GTZ
(Deutsche Gesellschaft Tech. Zusammenarbeit GmbH), Heidelberg, Ger. http://petroleum.
berkeley.edu/patzek/BiofuelQA/Brazil/Ekonomische.pdf
98. Martines-Filho J, Burnquist HL, Vian CEF. 2006. Bioenergy and the rise of sugarcane-
based ethanol in Brazil. Choices 21(2):91–96
99. Gerpen JV. 2005. Biodiesel processing and production. Fuel Process. Technol. 86:1097–107
100. Meher LC, Sagar DV, Naik SN. 2006. Technical aspects of biodiesel production by
transesterification: a review. Renew. Sust. Energy Rev. 10:248–68
101. Bockey D. 2006. Potentials for raw materials for the production of biodiesel—an analysis.
Rep. UFOP (Union zur Förderung von Oel-Proteinpflanzen), Berlin
102. Farrell AE, Plevin RJ, Turner BT, Jones AD, O’Hare M, Kammen DM. 2006. Ethanol
can contribute to energy and environmental goals. Science 311:506–8
103. Hall DO, Rosillo-Calle F, Williams RH, Woods J. 1993. Biomass for energy: supply
prospects. In Renewable Energy: Sources for Fuels and Electricity, ed. T Johansson, H Kelly,
AKN Reddy, RH Williams, pp. 593–651. Washington, DC: Island
104. Sims RH, Hastings A, Schlamadinger B, Taylor G, Smith P. 2006. Energy crops: current
status and future prospects. Glob. Change Biol. 12:2054–76
105. Quirin M, Gärtner O, Pehnt M, Reinhardt G. 2004. CO2 mitigation through biofuels
in the transport sector: status and perspectives. Main Rep., Inst. Energy Environ. Res.
(IFEU), Heidelberg, Ger.
106. Int. Energy Agency (IEA). 2005. Biofuels for Transport: An Inernational Perspective. Paris:
OECD/IEA
107. Delucchi MA. 2006. Lifecycle analysis of biofuels. Rep. UCD-ITS-RR-06-08, Inst. Transp.
Stud., Univ. Calif, Davis
108. Hill J. 2007. Environmental costs and benefits of transportation biofuel production from
food- and lignocellulose-based energy crops: a review. Agron. Sust. Dev. 27:1–12
162 Sagar · Kartha

109. von Blottnitz H, Curran MA. 2007. A review of assessments conducted on bio-ethanol
as a transportation fuel from a net energy, greenhouse gas, and environmental life cycle
perspective. J. Clean. Prod. 15:607–19
110. Wu M, Wang M, Huo H. 2006. Fuel-cycle assessment of selected bioethanol production
pathways in the United States. Rep. ANL/ESD/06-7, Argonne Natl. Lab., Argonne, IL
111. Larson ED. 2006. A review of life-cycle analysis studies on liquid biofuel systems for the
transport sector. Energy Sustain. Dev. X:109–26
112. Macedo IdC, Leal MRLV, da Silva JEAR. 2004. Assessment of Greenhouse Gas Emissions in
the Production and Use of Fuel Ethanol in Brazil. Brazil: Gov. State São Paulo
113. Hill J, Nelson E, Tilman D, Polasky S, Tiffany D. 2006. Environmental, economic, and
energetic costs and benefits of biodiesel and ethanol biofuels. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
103:11206–10
114. Delucchi MA. 2003. A lifecycle emissions model (LEM): lifecycle emissions from trans-
portation fuels, motor vehicles, transportation modes, electricity use, heating and cook-
ing fuels, and materials (with Appendix A: energy use and emissions from the lifecycle
of diesel-like fuels derived from biomass). Inst. Transp. Stud. Rep. UCD-ITS-RR-03-17,
Univ. Calif., Davis, CA
115. de Oliveira MED, Vaughan BE, Rykiel EJ. 2005. Ethanol as fuel: carbon dioxide balances
and ecological footprint. BioScience 55:593–602
116. Hooijer A, Silvius M, Woosten H, Page S. 2006. PEAT-CO2 : assessment of CO2 emissions
from drained peatlands in SE Asia. Delft Hydraul. Rep. Q3943, Delft Hydraulics, Delft
117. Borjesson P, Berglund M. 2007. Environmental systems analysis of biogas systems. Part II:
The environmental impact of replacing various reference systems. Biomass Bioenergy
31(5):326–44
118. Tilman D, Hill J, Lehman C. 2006. Carbon-negative biofuels from low-input high-
diversity grassland biomass. Science 314:1598–600
119. Van Belle J-F. 2006. A model to estimate fossil CO2 emissions during the harvesting of
forest residues for energy—with an application on the case of chipping. Biomass Bioenergy
30:1067–75
120. Lynd L, Greene N, Dale B, Laser M, Lashof D, et al. 2006. Energy returns on ethanol
production. Science 312:1746–47
121. Wihersaari M. 2005. Evaluation of greenhouse gas emission risks from storage of wood
residue. Biomass Bioenergy 28:444–53
122. Ramaswamy V, Haigh OBJ, Hauglustaine D, Haywood J, Myhre G, et al. 2001. Radiative
forcing of climate change. In Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis; Contribution of
Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC, ed. J Houghton, Y Ding, D
Griggs, M Nouger, P van der Linden, et al., pp. 351–416. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
Univ. Press
123. Greene N, Celik FE, Dale B, Jackson M, Jayawardhana K, et al. 2004. Growing Energy:
How Biofuels Can Help End America’s Oil Dependence. Washington, DC: Natl. Resour. Def.
Counc.
124. McCormick RL, Williams A, Ireland J, Brimhall M, Hayes RR. 2006. Effect of biodiesel
bends on vehicle emissions. Milest. Rep. NREL/MP-540-40554, Natl. Renew. Energy
Lab., US Dep. Energy, Golden, CO
125. US Environ. Prot. Agency (EPA). 2002. A comprehensive analysis of biodiesel impacts
on exhaust emissions. Draft Tech. Rep. EPA420-P-02-001, Washington, DC
126. Tilman D. 1999. Global environmental impacts of agricultural expansion: the need for
sustainable and efficient practices. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 96:5995–6000

127. Foley JA, DeFries R, Asner GP, Barford C, Bonan G, et al. 2005. Global consequences
of land use. Science 309:570–74
128. Food Agric. Organ. (FAO). 2006. FAO Statistical Yearbook 2005–2006. Rome: FAO
129. Vitousek PM, Aber JD, Howarth RW, Likens GE, Matson PA, et al. 1997. Human
alteration of the global nitrogen cycle: sources and consequences. Ecol. Appl. 7:737–
50
130. Food Agric. Organ. (FAO). 2003. Compendium of Agricultural-Environmental Indicators
1989–91 to 2000. Rome: FAO
131. Pimentel D, Greiner A, Bashore T. 1998. Economic and environmental costs of pesticide
use. In Environmental Toxicology: Current Developments, ed. J Rose, pp. 121–50. Amster-
dam: Gordon & Breach
132. Robertson GP, Paul EA, Harwood RR. 2000. Greenhouse gases in intensive agricul-
ture: contributions of individual gases to the radiative forcing of the atmosphere. Science
289:1922–25
133. Oldeman LR, Hakkeling RTA, Sombroek WG. 1991. World Map of the Status of
Human-Induced Soil Degradation: An Explanatory Note. Wageningen: Int. Soil Ref. Inf.
Cent.
134. Wood S, Sebastian K, Scherr SJ. 2000. Pilot Analysis of Global Ecosystems: Agroecosystems.
Washington, DC: Int. Food Policy Res. Inst./World Resour. Inst.
135. Matson PA, Parton WJ, Power AG, Swift MJ. 1997. Agricultural intensification and
ecosystem properties. Science 277:504–9
136. Cerri CEP, Sparovek G, Bernoux M, Easterling WE, Melillo JM, Cerri CC. 2007. Trop-
ical agriculture and global warming: impacts and mitigation options. Sci. Agric. 64:83–
99
137. Martin A. 2007. Farmers head to fields to plant corn, lots of it. New York Times, Mar.
31:A1
138. Karlen DL, Hurley EG, Andrews SS, Cambardella CA, Meek DW, et al. 2006. Crop
rotation effects on soil quality at three northern corn/soybean belt locations. Agron. J.
98:484–95
139. World Health Organ. (WHO). 1990. Public Health Impact of Pesticides Used in Agriculture.
Geneva: WHO
140. Horrigan L, Lawrence RS, Walker P. 2002. How sustainable agriculture can address the
environmental and human health harms of industrial agriculture. Environ. Health Perspect.
110:445–56
141. Rosegrant MW, Cai X, Cline SA. 2002. World Water and Food to 2025: Dealing with Scarcity.
Washington, DC: Int. Food. Policy Res. Inst.
142. Berndes G. 2002. Bioenergy and water—the implications of large-scale bioenergy pro-
duction for water use and supply. Glob. Environ. Change 12:253–71
143. Tegtmeier EM, Duffy MD. 2004. External costs of agricultural production in the United
States. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 2:1–20
144. Pimentel D, Acquay H, Biltonen M, Rice P, Silva M, et al. 1992. Environmental and
economic costs of pesticide use. BioScience 42:750–60
145. Pretty JN, Ball AS, Lang T, Morison JIL. 2005. Farm costs and food miles: an assessment
of the full cost of the UK weekly food basket. Food Policy 30:1–19
146. Tilman D, Cassman KG, Matson PA, Naylor R, Polasky S. 2002. Agricultural sustain-
ability and intensive production practices. Nature 418:671–77
147. Altieri MA, Nichols CI. 2005. Agroecology and the Search for a Truly Sustainable Agriculture.
Mexico: UNEP Environ. Train. Netw. Lat. Am. & Caribb.
164 Sagar · Kartha

148. Sagar AD. 1991. Pest control strategies: concerns, issues, and options. Environ. Impact
Assess. Rev. 11:257–79
149. Tilman D. 1998. The greening of the green revolution. Nature 396:211–12
150. Kogan M. 1998. Integrated pest management: historical perspectives and contemporary
developments. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 43:243–70
151. Pearce D, Putz FE, Vanclay JK. 2003. Sustainable forestry in the tropics: panacea or folly?
For. Ecol. Manag. 172:229–47
152. Organ. Econ. Co-op. Dev. (OECD). 2004. Agriculture and the Environment: Lessons Learned
From a Decade of OECD Work. Paris: OECD
153. Rosenthal E. 2007. Once a dream fuel, palm oil may be an eco-nightmare. New York
Times, Jan. 31:C1
154. Organ. Econ. Co-op. Dev. (OECD). 2001. Multifunctionality: Towards an Analytical Frame-
work. Paris: OECD
155. Gruenewald H, Brandt BKV, Schneider BU, Bens O, Kendzia G, Huttl RF. 2007. Agro-
forestry systems for the production of woody biomass for energy transformation purposes.
Ecol. Eng. 29:319–28
156. Lynd LR, Wyman CE, Gerngross TU. 1999. Biocommodity engineering. Biotechnol.
Prog. 15:777–93
157. Andow DA, Zwahlen C. 2006. Assessing environmental risks of transgenic plants. Ecol.
Lett. 9:196–214
158. Wambugu F. 1999. Why Africa needs agricultural biotech. Nature 400:15–16
159. James RR, DiFazio SP, Brunner AM, Strauss SH. 1998. Environmental effects of genet-
ically engineered woody biomass crops. Biomass Bioenergy 14:403–14
160. Snow AA, Andow DA, Gepts P, Hallerman EM, Power A, et al. 2005. Genetically engi-
neered organisms and the environment: current status and recommendations. Ecol. Appl.
15:377–404
161. Herdt RW. 2006. Biotechnology in agriculture. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 31:265–
95
162. Sagar A, Daemmrich A, Ashiya M. 2000. The tragedy of the commoners: biotechnology
and its publics. Nat. Biotechnol. 18:2–4
163. Johnson RB. 2006. Sustainable agriculture: competing visions and policy avenues. Int. J.
Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 13:469–80
164. Berndes G, Hoogwijk M, Van Den Broek R. 2003. The contribution of biomass in the
future global energy supply: a review of 17 studies. Biomass Bioenergy 25:1–28
165. de Vries BJM, van Vuuren DP, Hoogwijk MM. 2007. Renewable energy sources: their
global potential for the first-half of the 21st century at a global level: an integrated
approach. Energy Policy 35:2590–610
166. Brown LR. 2006. Plan B 2.0: Rescuing a Planet Under Stress and a Civilization in Trouble.
Washington, DC: Worldwatch Inst.
167. Pimentel D. 2002. Limits of biomass utilization. In Encyclopedia of Physical Science and
Technology, ed. R Meyers, pp. 159–71. San Diego, CA: Academic. 3rd ed.
168. Smil V. 1983. Biomass Energies: Resources, Links, Constraint. New York: Plenum
169. Delgado C, Rosegrant M, Steinfeld H, Ehui S, Courbois C. 1999. Livestock to 2020: the
next food revolution. Int. Food Policy Res. Inst. 2020 Brief 61, Washington, DC
170. Steinfeld H, Gerber P, Wassenaar T, Castel V, Rosales M, Haan CD. 2006. Livestock’s
Long Shadow: Enviromental Issues and Options. Rome: Food Agric. Organ.
171. Faaij APC, Domac J. 2006. Emerging international bio-energy markets and opportunities
for socio-economic development. Energy Sustain. Dev. X:7–19

172. Kartha S, Larson ED. 1999. A Bioenergy Primer: Roles for Biomass Energy Systems in Pro-
moting Sustainable Development. New York: UN Dev. Program.
173. Kartha S, Leach G, Rajan SC. 2005. Advancing bioenergy for sustainable development:
guidelines for policy makers and investors. Vol. I–III. Energy Sect. Manag. Assist. Program
Rep. 300/05, World Bank, Washington, DC
174. Roig-Franzia M. 2007. A culinary and cultural staple in crisis. Washington Post, Jan. 27:A1
175. UN Energy. 2007. Sustainable Bioenergy: A Framework for Decision Makers. New York: UN
Energy
176. Msangi S, Rosegrant TSM, Valmonte-Santos R. 2007. Global scenarios for biofuels: impacts
and implications for food security and water use. Presented at 10th Annu. Conf. Glob. Econ.
Anal., spec. sess. CGE Modeling of Climate, Land Use, and Water: Challenges and
Applications, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette, IN

177. Johansson DJA, Azar C. 2007. A scenario based analysis of land competition between
food and bioenergy production in the US. Clim. Change 82:267–91
178. Runge CF, Senauer B. 2007. How biofuels could starve the poor. Foreign Aff. 86:41–
54
179. Food Agric. Organ. (FAO). 2004. The State of Food Insecurity in the World, 2004. Rome:
FAO
180. Mazoyer M. 2001. Protecting Small Farmers and the Rural Poor in the Context of Globalization.
Rome: FAO
181. Food Agric. Organ. (FAO). 2004. The State of Agricultural Commodity Markets. Rome:
FAO
182. Vakulabharanam V. 2005. Growth and distress in a South Indian peasant economy during
the era of economic liberalisation. J. Dev. Stud. 41:971–97
183. Bryceson DF. 2002. The scramble in Africa: reorienting rural livelihoods. World Dev.
30:725–39
184. Food Agric. Organ. (FAO). 2005. The State of Food and Agriculture 2005. Rome: FAO
185. Hallam D, Liu P, Lavers G, Pilkauskas P, Rapsomanikis G, Claro J. 2004. The market for
nontraditional agricultural exports. FAO Commod. Trade Tech. Pap. 3 Rome: FAO
186. Lewandowski I, Faaij APC. 2006. Steps towards the development of a certification system
for sustainable bio-energy trade. Biomass Bioenergy 30:83–104
187. Vogl CR, Kilcher L, Schmidt H. 2005. Are standards and regulations of organic farming
moving away from small farmers’ knowledge? J. Sustain. Agric. 26:5–26
188. Organ. Econ. Co-op. Dev. (OECD). 2006. Agricultural Policies in OECD Countries: At a
Glance. Paris: OECD
189. Reitze AW. 2006. Should the Clean Air Act be used to turn petroleum addicts into
alcoholics? Environ. Law Rep. 36:10745–70
190. Bovard J. 1995. Archer Daniels Midland: a case study in corporate welfare. Cato Policy
Anal. 241, Cato Inst., Washington, DC
191. UN Conf. Trade Dev. (UNCTAD). 2004. The Least Developed Countries Report 2004:
Linking International Trade With Poverty Reduction. New York/Geneva: UNCTAD
192. UN Dev. Program. (UNDP). 2003. Making Global Trade Work for People. New York:
UNDP
193. World Bank. 2003. Global Economic Prospects 2004: Realizing the Development Promise of the
Doha Agenda. Washington, DC: World Bank
194. World Trade Organ. (WTO). 2004. World Trade Report 2004: Exploring the Linkage Between
the Domestic Policy Environment and International Trade. Geneva: WTO
195. Food Agric. Organ. (FAO). 1997. The State of Food and Agriculture 1997. Rome: FAO
166 Sagar · Kartha

196. Rosset PM. 1999. The multiple functions and benefits of small farm agriculture. Policy Brief
4, FoodFirst/ Inst. Food Dev. Policy, Oakland, CA
197. Pretty JN, Noble AD, Bossio D, Dixon J, Hine RE, et al. 2006. Resource-conserving
agriculture increases yields in developing countries. Environ. Sci. Technol. 40:1114–19
198. Pretty J. 2003. Social capital and the collective management of resources. Science
302:1912–14

HI-RES-EG32-05-Sagar.qxd 9/15/07 17:42 Page C-1
Sri Lanka Tanzania Nigeria

100
Guatemala
Percent of residential energy from biomas
Nepal Zambia
90
India
80 Paraguay Indonesia
Bangladesh
70 Thailand China
Chile
60 Philippines
50 South Africa
Jamaica
40
Brazil
30
Costa Rica Ethiopia
20
Albania Egypt
10 Venezuela
Uzbekistan
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Percent of population living below PPP$2/day
Figure 1
Poverty and reliance on biomass for residential energy needs. The energy data are from 2004; the
poverty data are from 2000–2004 (from latest year available, if multiple years are available) (3, 6).
Abbreviation: PPP, purchasing-power parity.
www.annualreviews.org ● Bioenergy and Sustainable Development? C-1

Top ethanol producers (2005) Top biodiesel producers (2005)

Million liters/year Million liters/year
0 5000 10,000 15,000 20,000 0 500 1000 1500 2000
United States Germany
Brazil France
China Italy
India United States
France Czech Republic

Russia Poland
South Africa Austria

Spain Slovakia
United Kingdom Spain
Saudi Arabia Denmark
Figure 2
Top producers of biofuels (2005) (75–77).
C-2 Sagar ● Kartha

12
*** Corn ethanol
IEA, 2005 (106)
Farrell et al., 2006 (102)
Hill et al., 2006 (113)
*** Soy biodiesel
Energy out (biofuel and coproducts) / energy in
9
Hill et al., 2006 (113)
Delucchi, 2003 (114)

*** Rape biodiesel
IEA, 2005 (106)

*** Sugarcane ethanol
6 Macedo et al., 2004 (112)

de Oliveira, 2006 (115)
*** Cellulosic ethanol
Farrell et al., 2006 (102)
Wu et al., 2006 (110)
Corn Soy Rape Sugarcane Cellulosic

0
ethanol biodiesel biodiesel ethanol ethanol
Figure 3
Energy ratios of biofuel cycles (102, 106, 110, 112–115).
www.annualreviews.org ● Bioenergy and Sustainable Development? C-3

Land requirements per vehicle

required to offset GHG emissions
Hectares
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Ethanol (Corn) 7.8
Ethanol (Cellulosic) 0.8

Ethanol (Sugarcane) 0.7

Biodiesel (Soya) 10.7
Biodiesel (Rape) 3.9
Global cropland per capita 0.2
Figure 4
Estimated hectares per car required to displace vehicle GHG emissions (data from sources in Table 2).
C-4 Sagar ● Kartha

AR325-FM ARI 21 September 2007 16:39
Annual Review of
Environment
and Resources
Contents Volume 32, 2007

I. Earth’s Life Support Systems

Feedbacks of Terrestrial Ecosystems to Climate Change
Christopher B. Field, David B. Lobell, Halton A. Peters, and Nona R. Chiariello p p p p p p1
Carbon and Climate System Coupling on Timescales from the
Precambrian to the Anthropocene
Scott C. Doney and David S. Schimel p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 31
The Nature and Value of Ecosystem Services: An Overview
Highlighting Hydrologic Services
Kate A. Brauman, Gretchen C. Daily, T. Ka’eo Duarte, and Harold A. Mooney p p p p p 67
Soils: A Contemporary Perspective
Cheryl Palm, Pedro Sanchez, Sonya Ahamed, and Alex Awiti p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 99
II. Human Use of Environment and Resources

Bioenergy and Sustainable Development?
Ambuj D. Sagar and Sivan Kartha p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p131
Models of Decision Making and Residential Energy Use
Charlie Wilson and Hadi Dowlatabadi p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p169
Renewable Energy Futures: Targets, Scenarios, and Pathways
Eric Martinot, Carmen Dienst, Liu Weiliang, and Chai Qimin p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p205
Shared Waters: Conflict and Cooperation
Aaron T. Wolf p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p241
The Role of Livestock Production in Carbon and Nitrogen Cycles
Henning Steinfeld and Tom Wassenaar p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p271
Global Environmental Standards for Industry
David P. Angel, Trina Hamilton, and Matthew T. Huber p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p295
Industry, Environmental Policy, and Environmental Outcomes
Daniel Press p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p317
vii
AR325-FM ARI 21 September 2007 16:39
Population and Environment

Alex de Sherbinin, David Carr, Susan Cassels, and Leiwen Jiang p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p345
III. Management, Guidance, and Governance of Resources and Environment

Carbon Trading: A Review of the Kyoto Mechanisms
Cameron Hepburn p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p375
Adaptation to Environmental Change: Contributions
of a Resilience Framework
Donald R. Nelson, W. Neil Adger, and Katrina Brown p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p395

IV. Integrative Themes

Women, Water, and Development
Isha Ray p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p421
Indexes
Cumulative Index of Contributing Authors, Volumes 23–32 p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p451

Cumulative Index of Chapter Titles, Volumes 23–32 p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p455
Errata
An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Environment and Resources articles

may be found at http://environ.annualreviews.org
viii Contents

Bioenergy and Sustainable Development

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Bioenergy and Sustainable Development

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

ANRV325-EG32-05 ARI 2 October 2007 13:6

Bioenergy and Sustainable

Ambuj D. Sagar1 and Sivan Kartha2

Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2007. 32:131–67 Key Words

The Annual Review of Environment and Resources Abstract

away from traditional biomass and its replace-

from traditional biomass will require an evo-

ture, energy and social policies, and even cul-

132 Sagar · Kartha

Indonesia 156 72 110 95 46 45

www.annualreviews.org • Bioenergy and Sustainable Development? 133

or small-scale bioenergy technologies. Over [for examples of early discussions of this

Women and children are at highest risk

134 Sagar · Kartha

mitment of these PICs can be high

www.annualreviews.org • Bioenergy and Sustainable Development? 135

136 Sagar · Kartha

combusting gas). (and direct ethanol), and has helped set up a

www.annualreviews.org • Bioenergy and Sustainable Development? 137

138 Sagar · Kartha

energy future for the world’s poor, relying on

or ethanol (50). Whether these energy carriers

www.annualreviews.org • Bioenergy and Sustainable Development? 139

140 Sagar · Kartha

beneﬁts. Methanol. Methanol is a familiar fuel. It has

Emerging Biofuel Options isfactorily as a high-octane fuel in gasoline

www.annualreviews.org • Bioenergy and Sustainable Development? 141

142 Sagar · Kartha

www.annualreviews.org • Bioenergy and Sustainable Development? 143

144 Sagar · Kartha

merit the term “renewable.” for soy production. Delucchi argues

www.annualreviews.org • Bioenergy and Sustainable Development? 145

driven in large part by higher assump- Chile) to a one-third improvement (e.g.,

146 Sagar · Kartha

www.annualreviews.org • Bioenergy and Sustainable Development? 147

148 Sagar · Kartha

www.annualreviews.org • Bioenergy and Sustainable Development? 149

3.3. Biotechnology Controversies 3.4. Land Requirements and Land

150 Sagar · Kartha

www.annualreviews.org • Bioenergy and Sustainable Development? 151

Table 3 Estimates of bioenergy potential

Sims et al. (104) 2–25 Energy crops 2025

152 Sagar · Kartha

www.annualreviews.org • Bioenergy and Sustainable Development? 153

154 Sagar · Kartha

www.annualreviews.org • Bioenergy and Sustainable Development? 155

cerns, as well as opportunities to beneﬁt agri- recent empirical observations of rising

development. As commercial biomass energy fuels boom have heightened consider-

156 Sagar · Kartha

www.annualreviews.org • Bioenergy and Sustainable Development? 157

158 Sagar · Kartha

www.annualreviews.org • Bioenergy and Sustainable Development? 159

160 Sagar · Kartha

www.annualreviews.org • Bioenergy and Sustainable Development? 161

of ethanol production. Jan. 27. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/01/

162 Sagar · Kartha

www.annualreviews.org • Bioenergy and Sustainable Development? 163

164 Sagar · Kartha

www.annualreviews.org • Bioenergy and Sustainable Development? 165

Applications, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette, IN

166 Sagar · Kartha

www.annualreviews.org • Bioenergy and Sustainable Development? 167

Sri Lanka Tanzania Nigeria

www.annualreviews.org ● Bioenergy and Sustainable Development? C-1