By Jamie Martin
At a recent agricultural conference in Kansas City, USDA Chief Economist Seth Meyer addressed major flaws in the current climate and lifecycle models that measure biofuels' environmental impacts. These models, pivotal in shaping U.S. biofuel policies, disproportionately favor Brazilian ethanol and other foreign biofuels over American corn and soy-based fuels.
Meyer pointed out that U.S. biofuel policies and their associated lifecycle analyses have led to skewed evaluations, where Brazilian corn receives a zero carbon-emission score, implying no environmental impact.
In contrast, U.S. corn is penalized for supposed indirect land-use changes, a standard that Meyer criticized as economically unreasonable and detached from reality.
Further complicating the landscape is the scoring system for used cooking oil (UCO) imports, primarily from China. These are deemed low in carbon intensity due to their classification as waste products, despite their varied uses in China that include feed and industrial applications.
Geoff Cooper, from the Renewable Fuels Association, echoed Meyer's concerns, highlighting the unfair penalties imposed on U.S. corn ethanol under California's low-carbon fuel standard. He noted that while U.S. cropland has been shrinking, Brazil's cropland is expanding, mainly to meet China’s soy demand, yet the penalties for land-use changes are not equivalently applied.
Meyer and other experts argue for a fundamental overhaul of how these models account for indirect land-use changes, advocating for models that reflect current realities and ensure equitable treatment across all agricultural sectors. This reform is critical as it impacts not just the competitiveness of U.S. agriculture but its sustainability and carbon footprint.
Photo Credit: photo-credit-vista-mipan
Categories: National