Biofuels - Efficiency, Ethics Gomiero JAEE 2010

J Agric Environ Ethics (2010) 23:403434
DOI 10.1007/s10806-009-9218-x
ARTICLES
Biofuels: Efficiency, Ethics, and Limits to Human

Appropriation of Ecosystem Services
Tiziano Gomiero Maurizio G. Paoletti
David Pimentel
Accepted: 18 October 2009 / Published online: 19 November 2009

Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009
Abstract Biofuels have lately been indicated as a promising source of cheap and
sustainable energy. In this paper we argue that some important ethical and environmental issues have also to be addressed: (1) the conflict between biofuels production and global food security, particularly in developing countries, and (2) the
limits of the Human Appropriation of ecosystem services and Net Primary Productivity. We warn that large scale conversion of crops, grasslands, natural and
semi-natural ecosystem, (such as the conversion of grasslands to cellulosic ethanol
production, or plantation of sugar cane and palm oil), may have detrimental social
and ecological consequences. Social effects may concern: (1) food security, especially in developing countries, leading to an increase of the price of staple food, (2)
transnational corporations and big landowners establishing larger and larger landholdings in conflict with indigenous areas and the subsistence of small farmers.
Ecological effects may concern: (1) competition with grazing wild and domesticated
animals (e.g., millions of grazing livestock in USA prairies), (2) an excessive
appropriation of Net Primary Production from ecosystems, (3) threatening biodiversity preservation and soil fertility. We claim that is it well known how ecological
and social issues are strictly interwoven and that large scale biofuels production, by
putting high pressure on both fronts, may trigger dangerous feedbacks, also
T. Gomiero (&)
Laboratory of Agroecology and Ethnobiology, Department of Biology, Padua University,
via U. Bassi, 58/b, 35121 Padova, Italy
e-mail: tiziano.gomiero@libero.it
M. G. Paoletti
Laboratory of Agroecology and Ethnobiology, Department of Biology, Padua University,
via U. Bassi, 58/b, 35121 Padova, Italy
e-mail: paoletti@bio.unipd.it
D. Pimentel
College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA
e-mail: dp18@cornell.edu
123
404
T. Gomiero et al.
considering the critical fact that 9 billion people are expected to inhabit the planet
by 2050. There is a need to conduct serious and deep analysis on the environmental
and social impact of large scale biofuels production before important energy policies are launched at global level. Biofuels will not represent an energetic panacea
and their role in the overall energy consumption will remain marginal in our present
highly energivorous society, while their effect on food security and environment
preservation may have detrimental results. We should also have the courage to face
two key issues: (1) we cannot keep increasing resources consumption at present
pace, and have to change our life style accordingly, and (2) we have to deal with
population growth; we cannot expect to have 910 billions people inhabiting the
earth by 2050, without this representing a major impact on its support system.
Keywords Agricultural ethics Biodiversity Biofuels Crop residues
Food security Social responsibility Soil ecology
Introduction: The Implication of Biofuels on a Global Scale

Humans began to use biomass as an energy source more than 160,000 years ago, to
provide heat and light and later allowed the physical properties of materials to be
manipulated for the production of ceramics and metals (Brown et al. 2009).
Traditional bioenergy (biofuels excluded) today accounts roughly for 1013% of
total world energy supplies (Hazell and Pachauri 2006; REN21 2007). However, in
official energy statistics, this important energy source is often neglected for it is too
difficult to be estimated correctly (e.g., as stated by British PetrolBP 2008).
When taking traditional bioenergy into account, the share of global energy use is
as follows: 79% from fossil fuels, 3% nuclear, 3% hydroelectric, 13% traditional
biomass, and other energy sources are negligible (e.g., 0.3% biofuels) (REN21
2007). Traditional bioenergy is an important energy source in developing countries
where it accounts for about 33% of energy use, while for only 34% in industrial
countries (Hazell and Pachauri 2006). There are also significant differences between
developing regions: biomass accounts for more than 60% of final energy use in
Africa, 34% in Asia, and 25% in Latin America (Hazell and Pachauri 2006).
Biomass is in fact the main source of household energy use for approximately
23 billion people in the developing world. Agricultures own consumption of
energy is relatively small, about 48% of total energy use in developing countries
and 35% in OECD countries (Hazell and Pachauri 2006).
Lately, bioenergy, or better biofuels, has come into the interest of policy makers,
scientists, and investors as a possible energy source that may help to increase the
energy portfolio to deal with rising energy prices, help to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions, and offer new income and employment to farmers and rural areas. In rich
countries, the low price of most agricultural commodities is driving farmers out of
the market; so diverting some agricultural resources to the production of bioenergy
may offer an attractive way to help farmers while at the same time reducing the need
for price compensation and export subsidies (Hazell 2006).
But how realistic are these hopes and expectations?
123
Biofuels: Efficiency, Ethics, and Limits
405
In the field of environmental and agricultural ethics, two recent papers addressed
some key issues. Rawlings (2007) investigates the likely impact of an expanding
liquid biofuel market on welfare and environment. Thompson (2008) puts forward
an ethical argument against the standard scientific practice of offering stipulative
definitions, he claims the need to substitute a form of context setting narrative as an
alternative way to frame subsequent discussions.
The goals of this paper are two fold: (1) we carry on a more detailed analysis of
those issues discussed by Rawlings (2007) and Thompson (2008). In addition, we
present a comprehensive review of the most recent findings concerning the relation
between biofuels, food prices, and poverty creation. We show that in literature there
are already valid attempts to set alternative narratives and frames, based on
hierarchical and complex system theories, leading to frame output/input analysis
within the socioeconomic structure of the society and its metabolism, resulting in
dealing with many different efficiencies related to different system narratives and
frameworks; (2) in our paper we highlight and integrate two other issues: one
concerns the analysis of biofuels in the light of the human growth and the expanding
needs for food and space that this implies (a fact that the most seem to ignore), the
second deals with the effect of the ever expanding human appropriation of earth
productivity and its services against all the other living being inhabiting this planet
(shouldnt they have any right to exist?).
We claim that before planning for large scale biofuels policy a broad and
sensitive multidisciplinary analysis should be carried onto address those issues.
Is Energy Efficiency Positive?
The idea of transforming biomass in biofuels is not new. In the 1930s, Henry Ford
in the USA suggested using ethanol from corn to fuel his model T. Critics are not
new too. In the 1940s, in the USA, Samuel Brody, the pioneer of animal
bioenergetics, claimed that biomass is a primary energy source of a very low quality
when compared with fossil fuels and remarked that: it is said that we should use
alcohol and vegetable oils after the petroleum energy has been exhausted. This
reminds one of Marie Antoinettes advice to the Paris poor to eat cake when they
had no bread (Brody 1945, p. 968).
Lately, much research has been carried out on fuel crops concerning their energy
efficiency as well as Green House Gasses (GHGs) emission. Findings from different
experts, however, diverge considerably. Some authors claim that biofuels may
represent an efficient alternative to oil, some referring to fuelcrops (e.g., Marlandn
and Turhollow 1991; Shapouri et al. 1995, 2003; Kim and Dale 2005; Perlach et al.
2005), others referring to future cellulosic ethanol (e.g., Hill et al. 2006; Tilman
et al. 2006, 2009). Some others, based on different model assumptions and scale of
analysis (that is: average crop productivity, use of inputs, use of by products,
environmental impact assessment, discount time, etc.), claim the opposite (e.g.,
Boardman 1980; Pimentel et al. 1981; Giampietro et al. 1997; Ulgiati 2001;
Pimentel and Patzek 2005; Giampietro and Mayumi 2009; MacKay 2009).
An example to compare different figures: Hill et al. (2006) find that ethanol from
corn grain yields 25% more energy than the energy invested in its production, whereas
123
406
T. Gomiero et al.
biodiesel and biodiesel from soybeans yields 93% more; Pimentel and Patzek (2005)
state instead, that making ethanol from corn requires 29% more fossil fuel than the net
energy produced and biodiesel from soy results in a net energy loss of 27%.
Hill et al. (2006) state that transportation biofuels such as synfuel hydrocarbons
or cellulosic ethanol, if produced from low-input biomass such as switchgrass
(Panicum virgatum a perennial warm season grass native to North America),
diverse mixtures of prairie grasses and forbs, and woody plants, grown on
agriculturally marginal land or from waste biomass, while avoiding competing
with food production, could provide much greater biofuels supplies and
environmental benefits than food-based biofuels. Again, according to Pimentel
and Patzek (2005) switchgrass and woody biomass require, respectively 45% and
57% more energy to harvest and process than the energy value of the fuel that is
produced.
In this paper, however, we do not want to enter into the details of energy
accounting. As we will see being such an indicator slighter positive or negative it
does not change much the point we wish to make: that the use of biofuels are not a
good idea for a several reasons.
Energy Demand vs. Land Supply: Is There Enough Land?
Be net energy gain positive or negative, there is a point on which scholars of both
parts agree upon: the quantity of energy required by modern industrial societies is so
huge that in any case fuelcrops can provide just a very limited share of it. As
summarized by Hill et al. (2006), who are in favor of biofuels, even dedicating all
US corn and soybean production to biofuels would meet only 12% of USA gasoline
demand and 6% of USA diesel demand. Like other authors they are aware of the
fact that because of the cost of input (oil dependent) the production of biofuels are
unprofitable without subsidies, but still they state that biodiesel provides sufficient
environmental advantages to justify governmental subsidies. We will see, later on,
to what extent this may be hold true.
Hill et al. (2006), however, stress the fact that biofuel can not replace much
petroleum without impacting on food supplies. Actually, according to Hill et al.
(2006), what many optimistic energy analysis miss to properly take into account, are
the environmental and social issues. We claim that there is an urge to conduct
serious and deep analysis on the environmental and social impact of large scale
biofuels production before important energy policies are launched at global level
because of novel problems can be generated that may greatly worsen the global
environmental and social situation.
Is Energy Efficiency to be Positive Enough?
The output/input analysis of biofuels production is of key importance to establish,
first of all, the feasibility of the enterprise, but it is not enough to establish its
viability at the level of the society. As early reconsigned by Brody (1945) and then
explored and developed by other authors (e.g., Giampietro et al. 1997; Giampietro
and Mayumi 2009), when moving from an energy source to another, what changes
123
407
is not just the energy source but the whole socioeconomic system and its
functioning. In the field of energy analysis/energetics, it is well known that biomass
is a primary energy source of a very low quality (when compared with others
existing primary energy sources). That is, considering the actual energetic
metabolism of industrial societies, a large substitution of fossil energy fuels with
biofuels is not either feasible nor desirable because of (Pimentel et al. 1981; Hall
et al. 1986; Smil 2003, 2008; Giampietro et al. 1997; Giampietro and Ulgiati 2005;
Pimentel and Patzek 2005; MacKay 2009; Giampietro and Mayumi 2009; Pimentel
2008): (1) the EROI (Energy Return on InvestmentHall et al. 1986; Cleveland
1992, 2008) of most of fuels crops is much lower than that of fossil fuels
(EROI \ 2:1 against 1020:1 of fossil fuels); however, it has to be noted that for
some crops EROI is quite high, for sugar cane in Brazil, EROI reach 8/9:1 (Boddey
et al. 2008), but still this does not make ethanol from cane a substitute for fossil
fuels for (2) the power density (W/m2) of biomass is simply too low to fuel our
energivorous society (Smil 2003, 2008; Giampietro and Mayumi 2009; MacKay
2009) (Fig. 1), (3) such low power density makes biofuels a highly labor intensive
energy source, resulting in the displacement of a high fraction of society labor force
to energy production and so an increase of the price of energy (Giampietro et al.
1997; Smil 2008; Giampietro and Mayumi 2009).
But even if biofuels could make for an important share of present day energy
consumption we may still run out of the new resource quite soon, by keep increasing
consumption per capita and the global population. So, further to look for novel
sustainable energy sources we should also rethink our pattern of resource
consumption. We cannot but agree with Smil (2008, p. 382) stating: I strongly
Fig. 1 Power density of different energy sources (on the left diagram) and energy consumption (on the
right diagram). It can be visualized that, at present, the power density for human metabolism is thousands
times higher than that supplied by biomass (after Smil 2003 and Giampietro and Mayumi 2009,
modified). Power is the rate at which something uses energy. Power density refers to the power
production per unit area; wood, for instance, has a range from 0.095 to 0.254 W/m2
123
408
T. Gomiero et al.
believe that the key to managing future global energy needs is to break with the
current expectation of unrestrained energy use in affluent societies.
Are Biofuels Able to Accomplish the Goal of Reducing CO2 Emission?

Substituting biofuels for gasoline was believed to have a positive effect in reducing
GHGs emission because of biofuels sequester carbon through the growth of the
feedstock. However, it has now be realized that previous analyses have failed to account
for the carbon emissions that occur as farmers worldwide respond to higher prices and
convert forest and grassland to new cropland to replace the grain (or cropland) diverted
to biofuels (Niven 2005; Fargione et al. 2008; Searchinger et al. 2008).
Recently, two important works, in which such missing emissions have been taken
into account (Fargione et al. 2008; Searchinger et al. 2008), came to the conclusion
that when considering such carbon-debt (that is to say, the release of carbon when
converting rainforests, peatlands, savannas, or grasslands to produce food-based
biofuels), the overall greenhouse emissions is greatly increased. These works
suggest that agricultural waste and crop residues can be used instead to replace
fuelcrops in the production of biofuels. Estimates from Searchinger et al. (2008), for
instance, found that corn-based ethanol, instead of producing a suggested 20%
savings, nearly double GHGs emissions over 30 years and increases GHGs for
167 years; biofuels from switchgrass, if grown on U.S. corn lands, increase
emissions by 50%.
Crutzen (Nobel prize in 1995 for his research on ozone depletion) and his team,
adopted a broad life cycle analysis focusing on the relation between the increased
production of biofuels (that should supposedly reduce dependence on imported
fossil fuels and to achieve carbon neutrality) and the atmospheric N2O
concentrations due to NxO emissions associated with N-fertilization (N fertilization
causes a release of N2O in agricultural fields that is highly variable but averages
close to 1% of the fixed nitrogen input from mineral fertilizer or biologically fixed
NCrutzen et al. 2007). Their work came to the conclusion that: When the extra
N2O emission from biofuels production (coming from the extra use of synthetic
fertilizers) is calculated in CO2-equivalent global warming terms, and compared
with the quasi-cooling effect of saving emissions of 15 fossil fuel derived CO2,
the outcome is that the production of commonly used biofuels, such as biodiesel
from rapeseed and bioethanol from corn (maize), can contribute as much or more to
global warming by N2O emissions than cooling by fossil fuel savings (Crutzen
et al. 2007, p. 11192).
Niven (2005), in his review of the effects of the use of ethanol in gasoline, argues
that E10 (ethanol as a gasoline additive at levels around 10% by volume) is of
debatable air pollution merit, and may, in fact, increase the production of
photochemical smog. Niven (2005) states that ethanol as biofuels, offers little
advantage in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, energy efficiency, or environmental sustainability, and will significantly increase both the risk and severity of
soil and groundwater contamination. In contrast, E85 (ethanol as a gasoline additive
at levels around 85% by volume) offers significant greenhouse gas benefits, but it
123
409
produces significant air pollution impacts, involves substantial risks to biodiversity,

and the level of impact on groundwater contamination and overall sustainability are
largely unknown.
Ethical and Scientific Issues: Reasons for Concern
Recently, Tilman et al. (2009), while expressing optimism towards cellulosic
ethanol (but being quite pessimist on fuelcrops), stated that: rigorous accounting
rules will need to be developed that measure the impacts of biofuels on the
efficiency of the global food system, greenhouse-gas emissions, soil fertility, water
and air quality, and biodiversity. (Tilman et al. 2009). This sentence simply means
that, according to the authors, at the moment nobody knows what are the real
impacts of biofuels and how to measure them. In fact, the authors end up their piece
by stating that: This is a complex question that cannot be addressed with simplistic
solutions and sound bites. It needs a new collaboration between environmentalists,
economists, technologists, the agricultural community, engaged citizens, and
governments around the world (Tilman et al. 2009, p. 271).
Along with Tilman et al. (2009), as well as many others authors (see for instance
Giampietro et al. 1997; Pimentel and Patzek 2005; Robertson et al. 2008;
Giampietro and Mayumi 2009), we stress the urge to conduct a serious multicriteria
assessment of the whole biofuels strategy, addressing its socioeconomic and
environmental implications. The question of the limits to the human appropriation
of nature services and the impact of biofuels (included cellulosic ethanol) on soil
ecology and the environment has also to be urgently addressed. We claim that the
precautionary principle must be adopted before launching large scale biofuels
programs, whose effects may have detrimental effects precluding an easy way back.
There is a larger and larger body of evidence that is telling us that biofuels are not
solving the problems they are called for, but actually may concur to dramatically
exacerbate the situation. We should be careful not to let our energetic despair (or
any vested interests willing to take advantage of the situation) lead us into
worsening the very same environmental problems we wish to solve.
In the next sections we will deal in detail with some social and environmental
issues of much concern. We point out that there are serious ethical and moral
implications to turn our head away from such numerous evidences. This energy
policy put at stake the life of hundreds million people and the fate of remaining
ecosystems. More sustainable energy sources has to be explored. Above all, a
rethinking of our life style and pattern of population growth and energy
consumption has to be undertaken.
Biofuels and Global Food Security: The Ethical and Social Dimension
Social and environmental issues are often complexly interwoven, greatly influencing
each other. Agriculture development led to the growth of early civilizations, which
eventually collapsed after soil fertility got exhausted or was affected by salination
(increasing levels of salt like sodium, magnesium, and calcium in topsoil caused by
123
410
T. Gomiero et al.
irrigation and land clearing, to the extent that soil fertility is severely reduced), as in
the fertile crescent (Carter and Dale 1975; Hillel 1991; Montgomery 2007a). Of
course, climate plays a major role in affecting agriculture production. But the more
the soil and agroecosystems are exploited, the greater the reduction of their resistance
and resilience are reduced, eventually impeding to resist and recover from climate
extremes.
So, in the following section we will try to put together both sides to sketch a
portrait of the actual situation of world agriculture and social system. In doing that,
we want to stress the dynamic nature of the picture.
Population Growth, Land Sink, and Food Security: A Gloomy Scenario
The USA Case
USA population, 310 million in 2009, will reach 440 million by 2050 (USCB
2008). The demand for food, fiber, and space will increase in parallel. However,
due to the biofuels policy, USA corn area will increase from about 30 million ha
in 20042006 to 32 million ha in 2010 with the additional land coming from
displacing soy bean, cotton, wheat, barley, and the area under the Conservation
Reserve Programme (CAST 2006). According to Nowak and Walton (2005) the
rate of rural land lost to development in the 90s was about 0,4 million ha per year
and the authors warn that if this rate continues until 2050, USA will have lost an
additional 44 million ha of rural countryside. Such areas will be lost mostly at the
expense of agriculture or conservative land programs. Brown (2003) points out
that USA, with its 214 million motor vehicles, paved an estimated 16 million ha
of land (in comparison to the 20 million ha that US farmers plant in wheat).
Pimentel and Pimentel (2005) estimate that about 0.4 ha of land is required for
urbanization and highways per person in the US. About 13% of US land area is
currently covered with highways and urbanization with a population of
300 million. When the population doubles to 600 million then about 26% of the
US will be covered with urbanization and highways, assuming the same
development rate.
Considering future trends and competition for alternative land uses, Bindraban
et al. (2009) estimate that in Europe, biofuels production will not be sustainable
already by 2020.
However, recent policy decisions have mandated increased production of
biofuels in the USA and worldwide. For instance, in the Energy Independence and
Security Act of 2007, President Bush set a mandatory renewable fuel standard
(RFS) requiring fuel producers to use at least 36 billion gallons of biofuel in 2022.
Some authors, like Hill et al. (2006), and Tilman et al. (2006, 2009), suggest that
all the grass in the US could be harvested and used to produce ethanol. Perlach et al.
(2005) and the previous US President Bush suggested that as much as 1.3 billion tons
of dry biomass could be harvested in the USA each year, from forest land and
agriculture land, for ethanol production (accounting for 3036 billion gallons of
ethanol/year), enough to supply 30% of USA transport fuels. These figures rely on a
123
411
number of highly debatable assumptions, among which that yield of corn, wheat and
other grains were increased of 50%, residue-to-grain ratio of soybeans was increased
to 2:1, harvest technology was capable to recover 75% of crop residues etc. At
present, however, this goal would require harvesting 80% of all biomass in the USA,
including all agricultural crops, grasses, and forest. With nearly total biomass
harvested, biodiversity and food supplies in the USA would be decimated (Pimentel
et al. 2009).
One must consider also how much land and of what quality would be left to feed
future USA population considering the land lost to urbanization and fertility loss; soil
erosion, biodiversity loss, and other environmental impacts must be addressed too.
Tilman et al. (2006) suggest that all 235 million hectares of grassland available in
the USA plus crop residues can be converted into cellulosic ethanol, recommending
that crop residues, like corn stover, can be harvested and utilized as a fuel source.
Harvesting all crops residues would pose a threat to agricultural ecosystems
because crop residues are vital for protecting topsoil. Leaving the soil unprotected
would intensify soil erosion by tenfold or more (Rasnake 1999) and in some critical
areas it may increase soil loss as much as 100-fold (Fryrear and Bilbro 1994).
Furthermore, what would happen to the 100 million cattle, 7 million sheeps, and
4 million horses that are grazing on that grass (USDA 2008), as well as to all the
wild fauna and flora living in those ecosystems? We cannot forget about the
livestock and its use as food for USA citizens. Although overgrazing can represent a
major threat to soil health, grazing is still important to preserve grassland
ecosystems, let alone its contribution to the USA foods system.
Eventually we should ask what are the real benefits. Converting all 235 million
hectares of US grassland into ethanol, even using the optimistic conversion rate
suggested by Tilman et al. (2006), would still provide only 12% of annual US
consumption of oil (USDA 2006; USCB 2007).
The Global Scenario

Coming to the global scenario the situation is even more scary. By 2050 global
demand for food is expected to double (Fedoroff and Cohen 1999; Smil 2000; Foley
et al. 2005). Human population is rising by about 75 million (1.1%) per year, and
will reach the staggering figures of 8.3 billion by the 2030 (Cohen 1996; FAO 2002)
and of 9.2 billion by the 2050 (UN 2007a). At the same time when: (1) crop
productivity stagnates and the yearly supply of grain per capita is decreasing1
(Brown 2005; Trostle 2008; FAO 2008a, b, UNEP 2009), (2) about 2 billion ha of
worlds agricultural land have been degraded (Pimentel and Kounang 1998; Foley
et al. 2005; Montgomery 2007a; UNEP 2009), and (3) the Human Appropriation of
Net Primary Productivity (HANPP) reached 50% leaving less and less room and
resources to biodiversity and ecosystems, thus compromising the existence of many
1
Although production has generally increased, the rising prices coincided with extreme weather events
in several major cereal producing countries, which resulted in a depletion of cereal stocks. The 2008
world cereal stocks were forecast to fall to their lowest levels in 30 years time, to 18.7% of utilization or
only 66 days of food (FAO 2008a).
123
412
T. Gomiero et al.
species and the proper functioning of ecosystems (Cohen 1996; Haberl et al. 2002;
Tilman et al., 2002; Wackernagel et al. 2002; McKee 2005).
Again, we have to account for the growing trend all over the world in converting
cropland to other uses due to increasing urbanization, industrialization, energy
demand, and population growth (Foley et al. 2005).
By 2030, worldwide, an additional 120 million ha, an area twice the size of
France, will be needed to support food production (FAO 2003), while built-up area/
cropland areaestimated 3.5% in 2000will reach 5.1% (then 7% in 2050) (UNEP
2009). The Millenium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) estimated that, roughly, 1020%
(low to medium certainty) of current grassland and forestland is projected to be
converted to other uses between now and 2050, mainly due to the expansion of
agriculture and, second, due to the expansion of cities and infrastructure.
Under these scary scenarios, we cannot see much room for devoting extensive
areas to the production of sustainable biofuels, able to cover an important share
of our energy consumption.
Brown (2003) states that if China will follow with the same growth rate of car
ownership, assuming the same paved area per vehicle in China as in Europe and
Japan (a car for every two persons), 640 million cars, would require paving nearly
13 million hectaresmost of which is cropland. This would equal almost half of
Chinas 28 million hectares of rice-land, which produces 122 million tons of rice,
the main food staple. In most of developing and densely populated countries, such
as China, India, Indonesia, Pakistan, Egypt, Mexico, the combined effect of
urbanization and land paving will lead to large areas of cropland need to feed the
people to disappear (Brown 2003, 2005).
FAO estimates that, at present, about 815 million people are suffering from
severe malnutrition (based only on calorie and protein malnutrition) (FAO 2005),
with the latest estimated of chronically hungry people reaching 932 million (WFP
2008), the largest number ever. The real figure, however, is much larger as it should
include many forms of nutritional deficiencies. Micro-nutrient deficiencies, for
instance, affect more than twice the number of calorie-hungry people (Micronutrient
Initiative and UNICEF 2004). The WHO (2000) reports that nearly 30% of
humanity (infants, children, adolescents, adults, and older persons in the developing
world), are suffering from one or more of the multiple forms of malnutrition.2 Early
childhood undernutrition contributes more than 50% of the 11 million child deaths
per year (WHO 2005). Under this scenario, converting cropland to biofuels in those
very same countries facing malnutrition problems poses some serious ethical and
moral issues.
At the same time, strong global growth in average income combined with rising
population is leading to increasing demands for food, particularly in developing
2
WHO (2000) reports 3.7 billion people are estimated to be somehow malnourished. Malnutrition is
defined as a poor nourishment resulting from an inadequate or improper diet, or from some defect in
metabolism that prevents the body from using its food properly (Dorlands Medical Dictionary 2008). In
this sense it includes conditions such as obesity. US professor Barry Popkin told the International
Association of Agricultural Economists that the number of overweight people worldwide has topped
1 billion, overtaking the number of undernourished (BBC 2006). WHO (2000) reported the obese were
just 320 million in the late 1980s.
123
413
countries. As per capita income rose, consumers in developing countries not only
increased per capita consumption of staple foods, they also diversified their diets to
include more meat, dairy products, and vegetable oils, which in turn, amplified the
demand for grains and oilseeds (Smil 2000; Brown 2005; FAO 2008a; UNEP 2009).
Some authors suggest that crop residues can be used instead of fuelcrops to avoid
competition (Hill et al. 2006; Tilman et al. 2009). But crop residues are essential to
preserve soil from erosion and to maintain soil organic matter (SOM) content, a key
resource for the soil health3 (Pimentel et al. 1995; Pimentel and Kounang 1998;
Lavelle and Spain 2002; Wilhelm et al. 2007). Although a certain percentage of
crop residues could be converted to ethanol without causing major soil damages,
still synthetic fertilizers (made from fossil fuel) have to be used to compensate for
N loss. It is also not clear how much can be taken away in order to preserve soil
fertility in the long run (Wilhelm et al. 1986, 2007). Reducing SOM reduces the
amount of detritivores pabulum and may increase the risks of a change in food
preferences of invertebrates from detritus to crops (e.g., Paoletti et al. 2007a, b).
The dynamic involves not only population growth and land shrinkage, but also
energy consumption itself. Global demand for energy and transportation fuels is
expected to increase even more rapidly in the next decades. In the latest EIA (2009),
it has been estimated that world marketed energy consumption will increase by 44%
from 2006 to 2030, and total energy demand in the non-OECD countries (OECD
stands for Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) will increase
by 73%, compared with an increase of 15% in the OECD countries.4
Biomass should provide us for an ever increasing amount of food, fibers, energy,
and ecosystem services for a skyrocketing increasing population, at the same time in
which much land will be converted by urbanization, eroded away or loose its
fertility and water resources depleted (not mentioning the possible effects of climate
chance). Arent we pretending a little too much from the planet?
Biofuels and Food Price
During 20072008 the world experienced an international food price crisis. The
International Monetary Funds index of internationally traded food commodities
prices increased 130% from January 2002 to June 2008 and 56% from January 2007
to June 2008 (Mitchell 2008). During the first 3 months of 2008, international
nominal prices of all major food commodities reached their highest level in nearly
50 years, while prices in real terms were the highest in nearly 30 years (IMF 2007;
FAO 2008b; Mitchell 2008; Trostle 2008).
Taking a thermodynamic approach, Patzek (2008), argues that currently corn production in USA is
unsustainable, with or without tilling the soil. He calculates an average erosion rates of soil necessary to
dissipate the entropy produced by US maize agriculture of 2345 t ha-1 yr-1, this is bounded from above
by an experimental estimate of mean soil erosion by conventional agriculture worldwide of
47 t ha-1 yr-1 (Montgomery 2007b).
4
World energy consumption will increase from 472 quadrillion British thermal unit (Btu) in 2006 to
552 quadrillion Btu in 2015 and 678 quadrillion Btu in 2030a total increase of 44% over the projection
period (EIA 2009).
123
414
T. Gomiero et al.
The increase in food commodities prices was led by grains, which began
sustained price increases in 2005, despite a record global crop in the 2004/05 crop
year that was 10.2% larger than the average of the three previous years. Global
stocks of grain increased in 2004/05 but declined in 2005/06 as demand increased
more than production. However, from January 2005 until June 2008, maize prices
almost tripled, wheat prices increased 127%, and rice prices increased 170%. The
increase in grain prices was followed by increases in fats and oils prices in mid2006, notwithstanding 2004/05 record crop production. Fats and oils prices have
shown similar increases to grains, with palm oil prices up 200% from January 2005
until June 2008, soybean oil prices up 192%, and other vegetable oils prices
increasing by similar amounts. Other foods prices (sugar, citrus, bananas, shrimp,
and meats) increased 48% from January 2005 to June 2008 (Mitchell 2008).
The increase of food prices had dramatic consequences for poor people in the
developing countries, particularly on those who spend most of their income on
staple food (Brown 2006; Naylor et al. 2007; UN 2007b; Chakrabortty 2008; FAO
2008b; Gallagher 2008; Mitchell 2008; UNEP 2009). In the past few years, in many
poor countries rioting and demonstrations took place in many cities linked to sudden
increase of the price of staple food (Chakrabortty 2008).
Many causes have been called into explain the increase of commodities price:
(1) the gradual reduction in the level of grain stocks since the mid-90 s, (2)
increasing fuel costs affecting fertilizer use (the USA dollar prices of some
fertilizerse.g., triple superphosphate and muriate of potashincreased by more
than 160% in the first 2 months of 2008, compared to the same period in 2007), food
production, distribution, and transport, and subsequently food prices, (3) the
constant increase of world population, (4) the rapidly rising incomes in China and
India, again particularly important for agricultural demand due to diet diversification, (5) weather-related production shortfalls, and (6) financial speculation (Braun
2007; Abbott et al. 2008; Brahmbhatt and Christiaensen 2008; FAO 2008b;
Gallagher 2008; Trostle 2008).
It has to be pointed out, however, that China and India have usually been cited as
the main contributors to the increase of staple food price. However, since 1980, the
imports of cereals in these two countries have been trending down, on average by
4% per year. Moreover, mainland China has been a net exporter of cereals since the
late-1990s. India, since the beginning of the twenty-first century, has been a net
importer of these commodities only once, in the 200607 season (FAO 2008a).
For some experts (usually reporting for or dealing somehow with farmer
associations or corporations operating in the sector), biofuels had minor influence on
the food price increase, and indicated the other points (oil price, climate, population,
and market) as those having determined the situation (Tokgoz et al. 2007; Trostle
2008; Abbott et al. 2008).
Late reports from international organizations such as the World Bank, the
International Monetary Fund, FAO, United Nation, however, ascribe to biofuels
most of the weight, stating that biofuel production has greatly affected global food
market and adversely affected the poor through price-level and price-volatility
effects (Braun 2007; IMF 2007; Johnston 2007; OECD-FAO 2007; UN 2007a;
2007b; Brahmbhatt and Christiaensen 2008; Eide 2008; Gallagher 2008; Mitchell
123
415
2008; UNEP 2009; World Bank 2008). Reports from international institutions stated
that the production of biofuels has distorted food markets in three main ways: (1) it
has diverted grain away from food for fuel, with over a third of US corn now used to
produce ethanol and about half of vegetable oils in the EU going towards the
production of biodiesel; (2) farmers have been encouraged to set land aside for
biofuel production; and (3) it has sparked financial speculation in grains, driving
prices up higher.
Mitchell (2008) of the World Bank, has concluded that 65% of the rise in food
prices was due to biofuels and factors related to their rapid increase in demand for
feedstocks, while rising energy and fertilizer prices and the falling dollar have
contributed about 35%.
According to the UN (2007a, b) and UNEP (2009) biofuels production played a
role in the recent surge in food prices, which resulted in a 50200% increase in key
commodity prices and driven, leading just in 2008, 110 million people into poverty
with 44 million added to the undernourished. Also reports from the World Bank and
the IMF concludes that rising biofuel production, largely due to biofuel policies, is
responsible for a significant part of the jump in commodity prices and this drove
about 100 million people world wide to be under the poverty line (IMF 2007;
Mitchell 2008).
In the next few years, due to the effects of the EU and the USA biofuels policy,
which will push large amount of land in developing tropical countries to turn into
fuel crops to fuel Northern countries economies, many millions of small farmers and
indigenous people are expected to lose their land to large land holding and put at
stake their food security (Oxfam 2007a, b; UN 2007a, b; Chakrabortty 2008; Eide
2008; UNEP 2009). Such a recent dramatic increase of global poverty led Jean
Ziegler (previously UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food from 20002008,
and now a member of the UN Human Rights Councils Advisory Committee), to
claim that biofuels are a criminal act against humanity and must be stopped
(UN 2007b).
Will Food Market Price Control Itself? The Hidden Play of Subsidies
Why worry about the effects of biofuels on food price? Once international price of
grain will rise, due to supplydemand self-regulating market force, this will divert
crops from fuels generation back to the food market. Thats a simple economic
reasoning, or we would rather say simplistic, or just naive.
Although increasing food prices might push biofuels prices high enough to spur
dramatic conservation, or trigger an economic contraction that reduces demand,
such market forces are overthrown by the presence of large direct and indirect
subsidies to fuelcrops cultivation and biofuels production. Through the cover-up
allowed by subsidies, an inefficient economic allocation of (scarce) resources can be
maintained notwithstanding its damage to the socioeconomic system, the citizens,
the consumers, and last but not least, the environment. This is not to back a
deregulated free market (which can lead to as much as the same problems), but
rather to warn that an uncritical use of subsidies (or abuse, when vested interests lie
behind subsidy policies), may not only miss the initial objective, but, much worst,
123
416
T. Gomiero et al.
aggravate the situation. The fact that Northern farm subsidies amount to over
$1 billion a day (Peterson 2009), and that an average European cow receives more
in subsidies than the nearly 3 billion people who live on less than two dollars a day,
should be a reason for concern. Even though the perverse effects of agriculture
subsidies have been widely analyzed (e.g., Myers and Kent 2001; Pye-Smith 2002;
Kutas et al. 2007; Peterson 2009) the perverse subsidies seem to resist any
changes, remaining in force and thus damaging most and threatening our future.
Kutas et al. (2007) estimated that subsidies for biofuels in Australia, Canada, the
EU, USA, and Switzerland amounted to a $11 billion in 2006! Bailey (2008), states
that in 2007 the OECD countries spent, including tax breaks, up to $15 billion on
support to biofuels. This sum is the same amount that Oxfam estimates is needed
immediately to help the most vulnerable people affected by the food crisis. As noted
by the National Center for Policy Analysis (2002), without more than $3 billion
federal and state government yearly subsidies, US ethanol production would be
reduced or ceased, confirming the basic fact that ethanol production is
uneconomical.
Are we entering a new biofuels perverse lock-in, with tax payers in the North
subsidizing the destruction of tropical environments and the increase of world food
prices, that will affect both people in developing countries as well as their own food
bill?5
According to von Braun (2008), director general of the International Food Policy
Research Institute in Washington D.C., to prevent the next international food crisis,
among other things, actions have to be taken also concerning biofuels. Subsidies for
biofuels, claims von Braun, have diverted funds from food and feed production, and
should be removed. Although biofuels will surely play a part in future energy
systems, the billions spent on subsidies would be better invested in research and
development for innovative biomass use and other energy innovations (von Braun
2008). Also according to a recent report from the UN, one of the options for
improving food security is stated to rely on: Encourage removal of subsidies and
blending ratios of first generation biofuels, which would promote a shift to higher
generation biofuels based on waste (if this does not compete with animal feed),
thereby avoiding the capture of cropland by biofuels. This includes removal of
subsidies on agricultural commodities and inputs that are exacerbating the
developing food crisis, and investing in shifting to sustainable food systems and
food energy efficiency. (UNEP 2009, p. 8).
According to World Bank analysis (Brahmbhatt and Christiaensen 2008) biofuels
mandates, trade tariffs, and subsidies in the industrial countries have distorted world
food markets and have played an important role in rising world food prices. So there
is an increasingly urgent need for greater international engagement and
collaboration to address the competing demands of energy and food security.
(Brahmbhatt and Christiaensen 2008, p. 16)
At current subsidy rates, EU taxpayers will be spending $34 billion (22 billion) a year to support
biofuels by 2020 (Bailey 2008).
123
417
North-South Biofuels Trade: Towards an Energetic Colonialism?

Biofuels policy in USA and Europe (where it is mandatory by 2020 for 10% of all
member states transport fuels to come from biofuels), is going to affect the
economies of developing countries. In fact, in order to meet the high increase in
demand, the EU will have to import biofuels from developing countries (such as
sugar cane, palm oil, and soybean), and USA can find this to be economically
convenient, because it is much cheaper to produce ethanol from sugar cane in Brazil
rather than from maize in USA.
This will drive big companies and governments in developing countries to rush
towards land conversion and fuelcrops planting. This is already affecting countries
such as Indonesia, Colombia, Brazil, Tanzania, and Malaysia. According to some
international Non Governmental Organizations (NGOs) (e.g., Oxfam 2007a;
UN 2007b; Action Aid International 2008) social problems are already taking
place: small landowners and natives are forced out from their land by large
landowners, workers are exploited in plantations, the availability of staple food for
the poor is lost, and local ecosystems are directly (such as the case of oil palm) or
indirectly (such as the case of sugar cane) displaced in favor of fuelcrops plantation.
Energy companies have stated that many African countries are good sources of
biofuels, and have estimated that between 30 to 50% of their territory is suitable to
fuelcrops (Oxfam 2007a). So we wonder if we are facing a new sort of energetic
colonialism, where northern developed countries are exploiting southern agroecosystems and labor to supply cheap bio-energy to their economies.
Most sugar cane in Brazil, for instance, is cultivated where once there were
tropical rain forests and the last native Guarani people. Such territory has already
been greatly reduced (along with its native population) by cattle ranching. So further
land conversion to sugar cane production will threaten the remaining areas of
Amazon, its biodiversity, and its people. Work in sugar cane plantations is also
extremely harsh (Bilton 2008) with people working 10 or more hours per day for
less of an euro per ton of cane harvested (Bilton 2008).
However, this time the issue seems even more hopeless. If in the past, resource
supply from the colonies were of some utility to Northern countries (as well as
representing new markets where Northern industries could dump their subsidized
products at the expenses of local economies), this time the very same utility is
lacking (Peterson 2009). Oxfam (2007a) estimates that if the entire world supply of
oilseed were converted to biodiesel, this would only be able to replace, at most, 10%
of global diesel consumption. Ethanol, if energetically sound, could only replace a
maximum of 2% of global gasoline production (Pimentel 2009).
Not Only North-South
It may seem that by subsidizing fuelcrops and biofuels it is going to greatly benefit
farmers in industrial countries, lately afflicted by the erosion of profits margins from
agricultural activities. But is it really so?
In USA, current ethanol production technology uses more fossil fuel and costs
substantially more to produce in dollars than its energy value is worth on the market.
123
418
T. Gomiero et al.
Federal and state subsidies for ethanol production that total more than $7 per bushel
of corn are mainly paid to large corporations (McCain 2003; Burnett 2005; Peterson
2009; Tepe et al. 2009), while corn farmers are receiving a maximum of only an
added 2 per bushel for their corn (or about $2.80 per acre) in the subsidized corn
ethanol production system (Pimentel and Patzek 2005). Burnett (2005) summarized
it quite strictly stating that: Yet, more than two decades and tens of billions of
dollars in subsidies, tax credits and fuel mandates have done little other than to
further enrich Archer-Daniels Midland (ADM), the multibillion dollar agri-giant
that produces more than 70% of the ethanol used in America. In return, ADM has
been a major campaign contributor to key farm state legislators in both political
parties. The economic impact of ethanol subsidies is negative. One report by the
U.S. Agriculture department determined that every $1 spent subsidizing ethanol
costs consumers more than $4. Recent analysis (Tepe et al. 2009) seems to
evidence that crop input suppliers gain from US biofuels policy while meat
processors lose (Tepe et al. 2009). So, it seems that those who will gain from
subsidies are large corporations that sell the fossil-fuels-derived inputs, and the
losers are the farmers, the consumers, and the tax payers! And the environment,
of course.
Biofuels: A Possible Resources for Poor Countries?
Many NGOs have claimed to be extremely worried about the effects that large scale
biofuels production can have on the socioeconomical and environmental situation in
developing countries (e.g., WWI 2006; Oxfam 2007a, b; UN 2007b; Action Aid
International 2008; Seager 2008). Some claim that a moratorium should be launched
on biofuels and policy stopped until their consequences are adequately cleared and
policy established to prevent any critical effects on poor people (Oxfam 2007a, b;
UN 2007b; Action Aid International 2008). Others seem more optimistic (e.g.,
WWI 2006; Hazell and Pachauri 2006; Arndt et al. 2008) and while, on one hand,
support biofuels as a sustainable source of green energy, on the other hand, stress
the need to adopt some international standards to assess the real social and
environmental sustainability of fuelcrops.
Arndt et al. (2008), who conducted an analysis for Mozambique for the NGO The
International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), state that benefits from
biofuels depend on production technology; compared with the more capitalintensive plantation approach an outgrower approach to producing biofuels is more
pro-poor, due to the greater use of unskilled labor and accrual of land rents to
smallholders in this system. These benefits will be further enhanced if they result in
technology spillovers to other crops.
However, in a review work for the same IFPRI, Hazell and Pachauri (2006)
conclude that in spite of the important promises of bioenergy, many important
questions remain still unresolved, such as its implications for the poor, the
environment, and international trade. Authors state that bioenergy could make
multiple contributions to the fight to eradicate poverty and improve food security in
developing countries. But, they claim, most of the environmental and social benefits
and costs of bioenergy are not priced in the market, and leaving bioenergy
123
419
development entirely to the private sector and the market will lead to bioenergy
production and processes that fail to achieve the best environmental and social
outcomes (Hazell and Pachauri 2006). Hazell (2006) is also concerned that such a
context may lead the development of bioenergy to pose risks and difficult trade-offs
for the poor and the environment. Experts from the World Bank stated that
there is an increasingly urgent need for greater international engagement and
collaboration to address the competing demands of energy and food security
(Brahmbhatt and Christiaensen 2008, p. 16).
Oxfam (Oxfam 2007a, b), for instance, says that a biofuels market might
potentially offer a way for poverty reduction and job creation, a market that can
offer benefit to small farmers and supply cheap energy to local people. However, we
are worried that such an option may clash with the much stronger international
interests and the power exerted by international corporations eager to take
advantage of the large benefits from governmental subsidies and lobbyist interests,
so that this well-intentioned option may fail to work in the real world market, at
least as it is structured and working today. At the same time, it seems to ignore the
fact that nearly 60% of the world population, especially in developing countries, is
malnourished (WHO 2000; WFP 2008).
The Ecological Side

According to recent reviews, today about 50% of the earths ice-free land surface
has been transformed, and virtually all land has been affected by direct or indirect
anthropic impact. About 40% of land surface is devoted to agriculture activities
(including improved pasture and co-adapted grassland), which accounts for nearly
85% of annual water withdrawals globally. Human activities has surpassed nature as
the principal source of nitrogen emissions; 3.3 billion ruminants graze rangelands,
producing methane; and land uses take up 1050% of terrestrial net primary
productivity (NPP) (Haberl et al. 2002; Imhoff et al. 2004; Foley et al. 2005; Turner
et al. 2007; Global Footprint Network 2009). Expansion of biofuels production will
exacerbate our appropriation of NPP and enlarging our planetary foot print. In the
next section we will review some important issues on this topic.
While biofuels have been indicated as a potential low-carbon energy source, it
turned out that they may create instead a carbon debt, increasing the overall
global carbon emission, created by land cleared elsewhere to replace displaced food
production and intensive farming, so exacerbating existing environmental problems
(Robertson et al. 2008).
Human Appropriation of Net Primary Productivity: Arent We Going Too Far?
It has been estimated that until 1,700, humans used less than 5% of natures Net
Primary Productivity (NPP) while in the second half of the 1900s the Human
Appropriation of Net Primary Productivity (HANPP) already reached 40%
(Vitousek et al. 1986, 1997). In 2000, it has been estimated that HANNP reached
50% (Haberl et al. 2002; Imhoff et al. 2004). Also, other indicators of sustainability
123
420
T. Gomiero et al.
(or better of in-sustainability) such as the Foot Print (Wackernagel and Rees 1996)
are telling us that the ecological overshoot reached an alarming stage. Today,
humanity uses the equivalent of 1.3 planets to provide the resources we use and
absorb our waste (Global Footprint Network 2009), this dramatically indicates that
humans are already living far beyond sustainability (Wackernagel et al. 2002).
In USA, biofuels have the greatest cumulative areal impact of any energy
production technique, despite providing less than 5% of the U.S. total energy under
all scenarios. Biofuel production, and hence new area impacted, is similar among
scenarios; The Energy Information Administrations (the official energy statistics
from USA government) economic models suggest that, under current law,
incentives for biofuel production cause expansion of this energy production
technique regardless of climate policy (EIA 2009). According to McDonald et al.
(2009) at least 206,000 km2 of new land will be required to meet US energy demand
just by 2030.
With a human population that will grow from 6.7 billion in 2007 to the
staggering figure of 8.3 billion by the 2030 and to 9.2 billion in 2050 (FAO 2002;
UN 2007a), HANPP will further increase just to keep pace with the production of
food and fibers. To that, we have to add all the land that will be lost to urbanization,
leading to the destruction of vast areas with its nature services along with it.
Concerning human overshoot, Cairns (2005) raises some important ethical issues:
(1) what is the justification for ruining posteritys opportunity of inheriting a
habitable planet? (2) we are already living much beyond our limits, and in doing so
are displacing the other life forms with which humans share the planet and which
collectively constitute the living part of the biospheric life support system, have our
co-dwellers any right to exist? (3) there is a vast difference in each countrys
demand on nature, shouldnt that be taken into account?
The Brazilian Case
The last Global Forest Resources Assessment 2005, conducted by the U.N. Food
and Agriculture Organization (FAO), was the most comprehensive in its 50 year
history (FAO 2006). From that review it has been estimated that the worlds tropical
forests are still lost to other land uses at the net rate of 13.5 million ha/yr, while new
forest plantation areas were established globally at the rate of 4.5 million ha/yr,
with Asia and South America accounting for more new plantations than the other
regions. Brazil, Indonesia, Sudan, Zambia, Mexico, the Democratic Republic of
Congo, and Myanmar were rank-ordered as the countries that lost the most forest
during the 1990s. Brazils total forest area diminished by 22 million hectares over
the decade, while Indonesias forest area declined by 13 million hectares.
The Amazon region hosts more than half of the worlds remaining tropical
forests. Overall, the region is estimated to host about a quarter of all global
biodiversity (Betts et al. 2008). Brazil is an important ethanol sugarcane producer.
Brazil and other tropical countries in the global South can have a new role as
producers of agroenergy, because land and labor have low costs and natural
conditions (sunlight, temperature, and rainfall) are favorable for photosynthesis all
year round. So governments and business are also keen to invest. Furthermore, at
123
421
advanced stages of development, an increase in GDP per capita can lead to an

expansion of ethanol demand that can promote further deforestation (Morton et al.
2006; Laurance 2007; Nepstad et al. 2008; Sawyer 2008; Araujo et al. 2009) and the
current wave of destruction in the Amazon could leave lasting consequences for the
natural ecosystem but few lasting benefits both in social (e.g., local economy) and
environmental (e.g., CO2 emission abatement) benefits (Laurance 2007; Betts et al.
2008; Nepstad et al. 2008; Sawyer 2008).
However, efficient large-scale production of carbohydrates and oils generally
involves monocultures. Monocultures exacerbate concentration of land tenure since
monocultures of cane and soybeans require large areas for mechanization and,
especially in the case of sugar-cane processing, for sufficient scale. There is also
concentration of income, given that producers and processors make large profits,
while workers are displaced or earn low wages (Morton et al. 2006; Sawyer 2008;
Araujo et al. 2009).
According to some authors (Laurance 2007; Nepstad et al. 2008) corns
expansion in USA has displaced USA soy bean production areas. Expansion of
sugar cane production in southern Brazil produced the similar effect. This led to
reducing the global supply of soy and increasing its market price, a trend influenced
also by the emerging meat-eating nations. This mechanism drove the price of soy
at its highest level in history, and, as a result, the Brazilian soy harvest (20072008)
expanded 7% over the previous year. The increased market price of soybean spurred
soybean cultivation in converted land. However, soybean is seen with increasing
interest also by the emerging Brazilian biodiesel industry, which in turn may
appropriate a large quantity of soybean for energy production both for export in
Northern countries and internal market. In Brazil, the production of sugar cane and
soybean (the latter used both as biodiesel and feed) can keep expanding without
facing significant increasing cost of production, because much land can still be
converted to crops, of course at the expenses of natural ecosystems. Even when such
land conversion take place at the expense of cattle ranching, eventually the
remaining cerrado and forests will pay for that as the cattle ranching activity will
move further into those areas.
The increased international and internal demand for ethanol and biodiesel will
affect soybean production resulting in short supply for the food market so
inactivating the conversion of new land to crop soybean.
Are Biofuels Useful to Curb CO2? The Carbon-debt Issue
Much has been said about the beneficial role of biofuels to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions. However, while biofuels are a potential low-carbon energy source, it has
recently been estimated that the conversion of rainforests, peatlands, savannas, or
grasslands to produce biofuels in the USA, Brazil, and Southeast Asia may create a
biofuel carbon debt by releasing 17420 times more CO2 than the annual
greenhouse gas reductions that these biofuels would provide by displacing fossil
fuels (Fargione et al. 2008; Searchinger et al. 2008). Corn-based ethanol will nearly
double greenhouse emissions over 30 years (Searchinger et al. 2008). Biofuels from
123
422
T. Gomiero et al.
switchgrass, if grown on USA corn lands, will increase emissions by 50% (Fargione
et al. 2008).
Such a fact is becoming so self-evident that important USA public institutions are
wondering about whether much worse problems are caused by fuelcrops than fossil
fuels. As reported by Babcock (2009), according to the California Air Resources
Board (CARB) states that corn ethanol causes such large amounts of land
conversion (and so a high carbon debt) that it does not qualify as a low-carbon
fuel. The US Environmental Protection Agency estimates that corn ethanol
and biodiesel made from soybean oil cause enough land-use changes to call
into question whether these biofuels meet required greenhouse gas reductions
(EPA 2009).
To escape this drawback, biofuels supporters are placing their hope in cellulosic
ethanol. Technology may be developed within 1015 years (Service 2007;
Stephanopoulos 2007), which may allow, at competitive cost, to transform crops
residues, prairies grasses, and other cellulosic biomass into ethanol (FAO 2008a, b;
Fargione et al. 2008; Tilman et al. 2009). Would this be the final solution to get
a sustainable and competitive source of energy? The next section will review
this issue.
Cellulosic Ethanol as a Sustainable Biofuel?
Lately the conversion of crop residues into biofuels to produce cellulosic ethanol
has attracted much interest among researchers and policy makers (Lynd et al. 1991;
Perlach et al. 2005; Tilman et al. 2006, 2009; USDE 2006; Goldemberg 2007;
Himmel et al. 2007; Lange 2007; Service 2007; Solomon et al. 2007; Stephanopoulos 2007; Fargione et al. 2008; Gallagher 2008). While the first-generation
biofuels, use food crops such as corn, rapeseed, palm, and soybean, the secondgeneration fuels should be based on cellulosic material from plants, which could
be grown without competing with crops, or coming from crop residues and other
organic waste.
Actually, some experts argue that cellulosic ethanol, if produced from low-input
biomass grown on grassland, agriculturally marginal land or from waste biomass,
could provide much greater energy supplies and environmental benefits than foodbased biofuels (Hill et al. 2006; Tilman et al. 2006, 2009; USDE 2006; Goldemberg
2007; Koutinas et al. 2007; Lange 2007; Fargione et al. 2008).
Transforming agricultural residues into energy is, at first sight, an interesting
option, but is it really a viable option? How much waste is there in ecological
systems? Are crop residues really expendable without consequences for the soil? To
what extent can we convert grassland and prairie ecosystems to biofuel production?
Before launching an environmental policy so ambitious, we should carefully
examine its possible consequences.
As Pimentel et al. (1981) warned, the total net contribution from converting
agriculture residues into energy would result in a relatively small proportion when
referring to the overall energy consumption (in the case of the USA it accounts just
for the 1% of the energy consumed as heat energy), while the effect on soil ecology
would be detrimental. When compared to grain, it takes from 2 to 5 times more
123
423
cellulosic biomass to obtain the same amount of starch and sugars that are in corn
grain. This means that 2-5 times more biomass has to be produced and handled in
order to obtain the same starches as via corn grain (Pimentel and Patzek 2005).
Actually, at present there are no commercial plants in the world producing ethanol
from cellulosic biomass, because it is neither energetically nor economically sound;
only a few pilot plants have been built to produce cellulosic ethanol, but experts
think that a proper technology could be available to make cellulosic ethanol
competitive in 1015 years (Schubert 2006; Goldemberg 2007; Naylor et al. 2007;
Stephanopoulos 2007; Robertson et al. 2008).
But even if in a decade or so cellulosic biomass could become competitive to
crops, what may be the effects? Again, lets look at the trends!
The National Research Council (NAS 2003) state that prime crop and pasture
land are lost from production because of severe soil erosion caused by rainfall and
wind. Indeed, the soil on USA cropland is eroding 10 times faster than sustainable
soil replacement (NAS 2003).
Crop residues play a major role in preserving soil fertility by supplying a source
of organic matter and other elements that improve soil fertility (Lindstrom 1986;
Smil 1999; Mader et al. 2002; Lavelle and Spain 2002; Lal 2005; Wilhelm et al.
2007). Soil organic matter has a fundamental role in soil ecology: it improves soil
structure, which in turn facilitates water infiltration and ultimately the overall
productivity of the soil, enhancing root growth and stimulating the increase of soil
biota diversity and biomass. Many studies confirm that the loss of organic matter
poses a threat to the long term fertility of soil and in turn to the very same human
life (Allison 1973; Carter and Dale 1975; Hillel 1991; Pimentel et al. 1981, 1995;
Drinkwater et al. 1998; Rasmussen et al. 1998; Smil 1999; Mader et al. 2002; Lal
2004, 2005; Pimentel et al. 2006). Rasmussen et al. (1998) pointed out that: If
socioeconomic constraints prevent concurrent adoption of residue return to soil,
degradation of soil quality and loss of sustainability may result from selective
adoption of technology.
There is clear evidence that corn residue removal in the agro-ecosystems of the
Corn Belt (USA) has greatly reduced corn yields and soil properties (Lindstrom
1986; Wilhelm et al. 1986, 2007; Linden et al. 2000; Blanco-Canqui et al. 2006;
Varvel et al. 2008). Other works seems to indicate that a certain amount of residues
(2030% and in some cases even more) can be harvested from the field without
compromising soil fertility and increasing soil erosion (Barber 1979; Karlen et al.
1984; Lindstrom 1986). However, nutrients have to be replaced by synthetic
fertiliser (Karlen et al. 1984). Recently, a review by Wilhelm et al. (2007) concludes
that, estimates of the amount of corn stover needed to maintain soil carbon are about
5.2512.50 t ha-1. These estimates indicate stover needed to maintain soil organic
carbon, and thus productivity, are a greater constraint to environmentally
sustainable cellulosic feedstock harvest than that needed to control water and wind
erosion. Some experts (e.g., Blanco-Canqui et al. 2006; Wilhelm et al. 2007) state
that, at present, we have not a proper knowledge about the sustainable amount of
appropriation of crop residues, and that this depends on many factors (from the soil
characteristics to the climate, from the crops to the environment at large), so a
precautionary approach has to be applied (as stated also by previous authors, e.g.,
123
424
T. Gomiero et al.
Lindstrom 1986; Lal 2005). Wilhelm et al. (2007) state that farmers have to know
what is the proper amount of residues that can be harvested without compromising
soil fertility, and note that if such quantity is low the enterprise can be economically
inefficient and unsustainable.
It has to be stressed that when biomass is taken away from, or not returned to the
field and burned, this interferes with closing the nutrient cycles and may greatly
affect soil erosion (Pimentel et al. 1995; Pimentel and Kounang 1998; Smil 1999;
Lal 2005; Pimentel 2007). At present, there is an urge to implement management
practices to limit soil erosion, such as minimum tillage. Topsoil is being lost from
land areas worldwide 1040 times faster than the rate of soil renewal threatening
soil fertility and future human food security (Pimentel et al. 1995; Pimentel 2007).
A consistent harvest of crop residues as feedstock may result in worsening soil
erosion rates from 10 up to 100-fold in critical areas (Pimentel 2007), resulting in a
disaster for agriculture.
Agricultural soil, when properly managed, plays also an important role as a
carbon sink. Lal (2004) estimated that a strategic management of agricultural soil
(e.g., reducing chemical inputs, moving from till to no-till farming (also known as
conservation tillage or zero tillage, a way of growing crops from year to year
without disturbing the soil through tillage, contrasting soil erosion and increasing
soil organic matter) has the potential to offset fossil-fuels emission by 0.41.2 Gt C/yr,
that is to say 515% of the global emissions. Evidence from numerous Long Term
Agroecosystem Experiments indicate that returning residues to the soil rather than
removing them converts many soils from sources to sinks for atmospheric CO2
(Rasmussen et al. 1998; Lal 2004, 2005; Pimentel et al. 2005). Such data should
represent a warning for those who wish to use the results from successful lab
experiments to plan the management of global ecosystems.
Intensive agriculture already poses a threat to soil ecology, accelerating soil organic
matter oxidation and predisposes soils to increased erosion (Pimentel et al. 1995). The
use of chemical fertilizers can increase soil acidity leading to numerous detrimental
effects on soil quality such as reduction of soil fauna and flora diversity, increasing the
activity of soil-born pathogens, affecting nutrient cycling, and can restrict water
infiltration and plant roots development. Insecticides, fungicides, and herbicides also
have a direct effect in harming soil biodiversity (Matson et al. 1997; Rasmussen et al.
1998; Krebs et al. 1999; Paoletti 2001; Tilman et al. 2002; Pimentel 2005).
The greater availability of crop residues and weed seeds translates to increased
food supplies both for invertebrates and vertebrates. We have to stress that soil
biodiversity plays important ecological functions in agroecosystems, influencing,
among other things: soil structure, nutrients cycling, and water content, and the
resistance and resilience against environmental stress and disturbance (Paoletti and
Bressan 1996; Matson et al. 1997; Coleman et al. 2004; Heemsbergen et al. 2004;
Brussaard et al. 2007). Loss of surface residues inside fields or in the rural landscape
natural vegetation network (hedgerows, woodlots, shelterbelts) can exacerbate food
preference of detritivores that can result in new potential pests (Paoletti et al.
2007a, b).
While some ecologists, like Tilmann et al. (2006, 2009), suggest diverting USA
prairies to cellulosic ethanol, other ecologists and conservation biologists are
123
425
proposing a rewilding of those same prairies and ecosystems (Soule` and Terborgh
1999; Foreman 2004). Rewilding has become a landmark for the wilderness
conservation movement as well as for those primarily concerned with protecting
biological diversity. Some scholars take this rewilding to the extreme, suggesting
repopulating North America with the cousins of those large animals that suddenly
disappeared in the Pleistocene, such as elephants and lions or native animals that
have disappeared from the continent such as cheetahs, camels, and horses (which
originated in North America around 50 million years ago, and around 3 million
years ago they crossed from Alaska to Siberia and moved down into Asia and into
the African continent) to live free in parts so also to resume natural evolution in
near time (Donlan et al. 2005; Martin 2005). With human population increasing to
reach 9 billion in 2050 (UNEP 2009) the conflict between human population and
earths biodiversity will be exacerbated to the extent that many species will be lost
by being displaced from their habitat, or having their population extremely reduced
and so exposed to environmental fluctuation that eventually will led their to
disappearance (Wilson 1994; McKinney 2001; McKee 2005; Millenium Ecosystem
Assessment 2005).
The Millenium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) warns that changes in biodiversity
due to human activities were more rapid in the past 50 years than at any time in
human history, and that biodiversity loss is increasing in intensity, with between
10 and 50% of well-studied higher taxonomic groups (mammals, birds, amphibians,
conifers, and cycads) are currently threatened with extinction. Although the effect
associated with changes in biodiversity may be slow to become apparent, still its
cost may result high along with the loss of ecosystem services (Krebs et al. 1999;
Soule` and Terborgh 1999; Millenium Ecosystem Assessment 2005; Pimentel 2005;
Pimentel et al. 2006; Paoletti et al. 2007b; Primack 2008; Luck et al. 2009).
Human population size affect species loss. In a study of about 150 nations,
McKinney (2001) found a highly significant positive relationship (P 0.01)
between population size and threat levels of birds and mammals, with log
population for continental nations, explaining 1633% of the variation in threat
level among nations.
There is an urge for preserving habitat as large as possible to allow ecosystem
processes to take place and biodiversity to be preserved (Soule` and Terborgh 1999;
Foreman 2004; Primack 2008).
Conclusions
In this paper, we reviewed and discussed some key issues concerning the social and
environmental sustainability of biofuels.
In recent decades, the USA and the EU governments increased their interest in
biofuels in the belief that this resource could represent a sustainable and green
source of energy. The hope of finding a way out to our energy crisis, led many to see
biofuels as a sort of energetic panacea.
However, from this review we can state that:
123
426
T. Gomiero et al.
biofuels production, including cellulosic ethanol from crops residues and

grasslands, does not appear be energetically very efficient (especially concerning cellulosic ethanol). Fierce debate concerns fraction of a unit (output/input
0.8 vs. 1.2) when our industrial society is fueled by fossil fuels that make an
output/input ratio 1520 times higher. More important, they have a power
density thousands of times higher then the best biofuels such as sugar cane in
Brazil. For our industrial society to rely on sustainable biofuels for an
important fraction of its energy, it would require to crop most of the agricultural
non-agricultural land, implementing an amazing cut to our pattern of energy
consumption and achieving a consistent reduction of the population,
it is becoming evident, and there is a general agreement from both supporters
and contrary to biofuels, that there is not enough land available to produce much
fuelcrops without causing a severe impact on global food commodities (even
allocating the entire USA cropland and grassland to biofuels production the
energy supply will account for only a few percentage points of the USA energy
consumption, so there is no hopes for biomass covering an important share of
USA energy demand; the same is true for EU),
at global level biofuel production cannot, in any significant degree, improve the
energy security of developed countriesto do so it would require so vast an
allocation of land that it would be impossible for a multitude of reasons,
it is consistently argued that, when the whole accounting is done, biofuels may
not help to reduce GHGs emission, actually late assessments state the opposite,
warning that extensive biofuels production may contribute to exacerbate GHGs
emission and in turn global warming,
increasing demand for biofuels by rich countries may lead large public and
private companies to create large plantations in tropical countries, resulting in
the conversion of remaining natural ecosystems to fuelcrops, as well as to the
displacement of small farmers if proper policies are not adequately implemented
to protect small landowners from loosing their properties to large holders,
biofuels may greatly accelerate the destruction of natural ecosystems and spared
land and their biodiversity by the appropriation of a far too large a fraction of
NPP, this results in a threat to ecosystems health, soil fertility, and those key
services needed by human society. It has to be noted that land use change to
biofuels production has recently been indicated as a possible source of GHGs
emission.
It is evident that we are living in a critical time, and have important choices to
make right now. We cannot turn our head away, letting the future generations to
deal with the leftover. We may wish to consider as well if other species have any
right to live in this planet, or if they are considered as the sole benefit of humans,
being manipulated or led to extinction at our pleasure. The fact that this has been the
pattern so far (Wilson 1994; Martin 2005; Mckee 2005) does not mean that we
should keep on eliminating any other species living on this planet apart from those
we guess may represent a potential direct economic benefit for us.
We know that biofuels cannot be either our energy panacea, nor supply even a
minimal share of energy supply for our society without causing major social and
123
427
environmental problems, mining food security of billions and even resulting in

worsening GHGs emission.
We can try to spend our hard earned money much better. Subsidies should not be
burned away to increase social and environmental problems. We can use them to
help farmers, both in developed and developing countries, to adopt energy savingenvironmentally friendly agricultural practices, that can really help to cut GHGs
emission, prevent soil erosion, reduce water consumption, relieve the environment
from toxic pollutants, preserve wild and domesticated biodiversity, and supply
many other services.
We should also have the courage to face two key issues: (1) we cannot keep
increasing resources consumption and have to change our life style accordingly, and
(2) we have to deal with population growth, we cannot expect to have 9-10 billions
people inhabiting the earth by 2050, without this representing a major impact on its
support system. In any closed system there are limits to growth. This is neither a
moral nor an ethic consideration, just pure logic supported by hard facts.
As scientists we favor research on biofuels and to convert cellulosic biomass into
ethanol as a possible energetic alternative. But this has to be done under a
reasonable number of constraints and coming from dedicated limited experimental
land to grow perennial species or plantations. At the same time multicriterial
analysis should also be implemented to evaluate possible benefits and drawbacks.
We warn, however, that large scale conversion of crop residues and agricultural
waste into bioenergy may not be as energetically efficient, and will pose a major
threat to long term soil fertility and soil biodiversity. Converting prairies to
cellulosic ethanol production may also not be viable with the present number of
grazing livestock and the need to feed an ever growing population.
We should be careful not to let our energetic despair (or vested interest) lead
us to worsen the very same environmental and social problems we wish and need
to solve.
Acknowledgments We would like to thank several anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments
that were used to improve this paper.
References
Abbott, P. C., Hurt, C., & Tyner, W. E. (2008). Whats driving food prices? Farm foundation issue report,
July 2008, Farm foundation, Oak Brook, IL. http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/pdfs/farm_
foundation_whats_driving_food_prices.pdf. Accessed 27 July 2009.
Action Aid International. (2008). Food, farmers and fuel: Balancing global grain and energy policies
with sustainable land use. http://www.actionaid.org/assets/pdf%5CAAI%20Biofuels%20final.pdf.
Accessed 20 Aug 2009.
Allison, F. E. (1973). Soil organic matter and its role in crop production. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Araujo, C., Araujo Bonjean, C., Combes, J.-L., Combes Motel, P., & Reis, E. J. (2009). Property rights
and deforestation in the Brazilian amazon. Ecological Economics, 68, 24612468.
Arndt, C., Benfica, R., Tarp, F., Thurlow, J., & Uaiene, R. (2008). Biofuels, poverty, and growth: A
computable general equilibrium analysis of Mozambique. International Food Policy Research
Institute (IFPRI). Available online at: http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/ifpridp00
803.pdf. Accessed 23 Aug 2009.
123
428
T. Gomiero et al.
Babcock, B. A. (2009). Measuring unmeasurable land-use changes from biofuels. Iowa Ag Review,
Summer 2009, vol. 15 No. 3 College of agriculture and life sciences at iowa state university http://
www.card.iastate.edu/iowa_ag_review/summer_09/article2.aspx. Accessed 23 Aug 2009.
Bailey, R. (2008). Time to put the brakes on biofuels. The Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/
commentisfree/2008/jul/04/biofuels.carbonemissions. Accessed 12 Feb 2009.
Barber, S. A. (1979). Corn residue management and soil organic matter. Agronomy Journal, 71, 625627.
BBC. (2006). Overweight top worlds hungry. BBC news, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4793
455.stm. Accessed 23 Nov 2008.
Betts, R. A., Malhi, Y., & Roberts, J. T. (2008). The future of the Amazon: new perspectives from
climate, ecosystem and social sciences. Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society B, 363,
17291753.
Bilton, R. (2008). Hard graft: Sugarcane for biofuel. BBC, 21 November 2008. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/
hi/science/nature/7740397.stm. Accessed 23 Aug 2009.
Bindraban, P. S., Bulte, E. H., & Conijn, S. G. (2009). Can large-scale biofuels production be sustainable
by 2020? Agricultural Systems, 101, 197199.
Blanco-Canqui, H., Lal, R., Post, W. P., & Owens, L. B. (2006). Changes in long-term no-till corn growth
and yield under different rates of stover mulch. Agronomy journal, 98, 11281136.
Boardman, N. K. (1980). Energy from the biological conversion of solar energy. Philosophical
transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A, 295, 477489.
Boddey, R. M., Soares, L. E., Alves, B. J. A., & Urquiaga, S. (2008). Bio-Ethanol production in Brazil. In
D. Pimentel (Ed.), Renewable energy systems: Environmental, energetic issues. Cap 13 (pp. 321
356). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
BP (British Pretrol). (2008). BP statistical review of world energy. June 2008. http://www.bp.com/live
assets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/reports_and_publications/statistical_energy_review_
2008/STAGING/local_assets/downloads/pdf/statistical_review_of_world_energy_full_review_2008.pdf.
Brahmbhatt, M., & Christiaensen, L. (2008). Rising food prices in East Asia. Challenges and policy
options. Sustainable Development Department of the East Asia and Pacific region of the World
Bank, Washington D.C. Available online at: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EASTASIA
PACIFICEXT/Resources/EA_Rising_Food_Prices050508.pdf. Accessed 3 Aug 2009.
Braun, J. (2007). The World food situation. Food Policy Report 18. IFPRI, Washington D.C. Available
online at: http://www.ifpri.org/pubs/fpr/pr18.pdf. Accessed 3 Aug 2009.
Brody, S. (1945). Bioenergetics and growth. New York: Reinhold.
Brown, L. R. (2003). Plan B: Rescuing a planet under stress and a civilization in trouble. W.W. Norton,
NY. http://www.earth-policy.org/Books/PB3/index.htm. Accessed 23 Jan 2009.
Brown, L. R. (2005). Outgrowing the earth. London: Earthscan.
Brown, L. R. (2006). Exploding U.S. grain demand for automotive fuel threatens world food security and
political stability. Earth Policy Institute, November 3, 2006-10 http://www.earthpolicy.org/Updates/
2006/Update60.htm. Accessed 27 Nov 2008.
Brown, K. S., Marean, C. W., Herries, A. I. R., Zenobia, J., Tribolo, C., Braun, D., et al. (2009). Fire as an
engineering tool of early modern humans. Science, 325, 859862.
Brussaard, L., de Ruiter, P. C., & Brown, G. G. (2007). Soil biodiversity for agricultural sustainability.
Agriculture, ecosystems & environment, 121, 233244.
Burnett, S.H. (2005). Special interests look to gain most. National Center for Policy Analysis
http://www.ncpa.org/media/special-interests-look-to-gain-most. Accessed 23 Aug 2009.
Cairns, J. Jr. (2005). Ecological overshoot and sustainability ethics. Ethics in Science and Environmental
Politics, June, 2122. http://www.johncairns.net/Papers/Ecological%20Overshoot%20and%20Sus
tainability%20Ethics.pdf. Accessed 15 July 2009.
Carter, V. G., & Dale, T. (1975). Topsoil and civilization. Revised edition: Univ. of Oklahoma Press.
CAST (Council for Agriculture Science and Technology). (2006). Convergence of agriculture and energy:
Implications for research and policy. CAST Commentary QTA 2006-3/. CAST, Ames, IA. http://
iis-db.stanford.edu/pubs/21310/2006_CAST_Energy_Ag_Converg.pdf. Accessed 12 Aug 2009.
Chakrabortty, A. (2008). Secret report: biofuel caused food crisis: Internal World Bank study delivers
blow to plant energy drive. The Guardian, 4 July 2008. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/
2008/jul/03/biofuels.renewableenergy. Accessed 23 Dec 2008.
Cleveland, C. J. (1992). Energy Surplus and energy quality in the extraction of fossil fuels in the U.S.
Ecological Economics, 6, 139162.
123
429
Cleveland, C. J. (2008). Energy return on investment (EROI). Available online at: http://www.
eoearth.org/article/Energy_return_on_investment_(EROI). Accessed 22 May 2009.
Cohen, J. E. (1996). How many people can the earth support?. New York: W. W. Norton.
Coleman, D. C., Crossley, D. A., Jr., & Hendrix, P. F. (2004). Fundamentals of soil ecology (2nd ed.).
Amsterdam: Academic Press.
Crutzen, P. J., Mosier, A. R., Smith, K. A., & Winiwarter, W. (2007). N2O release from agro-biofuel
production negates global warming reduction by replacing fossil fuels. Atmospheric Chemistry and
Physics Discussions, 7, 1119111205.
Da Silva, R. R., & Avissar, R. (2006). The hydrometeorology of a deforested region of the amazon basin.
Journal of Hydrometeorology, 7(5), 10281042.
Donlan, C. J., Greene, H. W., Berger, J., Bock, C. E., Bock, J. H., Burney, D. A., et al. (2005). Re-wilding
north America. Nature, 436, 913914.
Dorlands Medical Dictionary. (2008). Malnutrition. http://www.mercksource.com/pp/us/cns/cns_hl_
dorlands_split.jsp?pg=/ppdocs/us/common/dorlands/dorland/five/000062745.htm. Accessed 27 Nov
2008.
Drinkwater, L. E., Wagoner, P., & Sarrantonio, M. (1998). Legume-based cropping systems have reduced
carbon and nitrogen losses. Nature, 396, 262265.
EIA (Energy Information Administration). (2009). International Energy Outlook, 2009. http://www.eia.
doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/index.html.
Eide, A. (2008). The right to food and the impact of liquid biofuels (Agrofuels). FAO, Rome,
http://www.fao.org/righttofood/publi08/Right_to_Food_and_Biofuels.pdf. Accessed 23 Aug 2009.
EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). (2009). Emissions from land use change due to increased biofuel
productionSatellite imagery and emissions factor analysis. Peer Review Report July 31, 2009
http://www.epa.gov/OMS/renewablefuels/rfs2-peer-review-land-use.pdf. Accessed 27 Aug 2009.
FAO. (2002). World agriculture: towards 2015/2030. FAO Rome, http://www.fao.org/docrep/
004/Y3557E/Y3557E00.HTM. Accessed 12 Nov 2008.
FAO. (2003). World agriculture: towards 2015/2030. FAO, Rome. Available online at: ftp://ftp.fao.
org/docrep/fao/004/y3557e/y3557e.pdf. Accessed 20 Jan 2009.
FAO. (2005). The state of the world agriculture. FAO, Rome. Available online at: http://www.fao.org/
docrep/008/a0050e/a0050e00.htm#TopOfPage. Accessed 12 Nov 2008.
FAO. (2006). The global forest resources assessment 2005: Progress towards sustainable forest
management. Fao Forestry Report 147, U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, Italy,
ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/008/A0400E/A0400E00.pdf. Accessed 20 July 2009.
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). (2008a). The state of food and agriculture 2008. FAO, Rome.
Available online at: http://www.fao.org/docrep/011/i0100e/i0100e00.htm. Accessed 13 Aug 2009.
FAO. (2008b). Soaring food prices: facts, perspectives, impacts and actions required. FAO, Rome.
Available online at: http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/foodclimate/HLCdocs/HLC08-inf-1E.pdf. Accessed 12 Nov 2008.
Fargione, J., Hill, J., Tilman, D., Polasky, S., & Hawthorne, P. (2008). Land clearing and the biofuel
carbon debt. Science, 319, 12351238.
Fedoroff, N. V., & Cohen, J. E. (1999). Plants and population: Is there time? PNAS, 96, 59035907.
Foley, J.A, and eighteen others. (2005). Global consequences of land use. Science 309, 570573.
Foreman, D. (2004). Rewilding North America: A vision for conservation in the 21st century.
Washington, D.C: Island Press.
Fryrear, D. W., & Bilbro, J. D. (1994). Wind erosion control with residues and related practices. In P. W.
Unger (Ed.), Managing agricultural residues (pp. 717). Boca Raton, FL: Lewis.
Gallagher, E. (2008). The Gallagher Review of the indirect effects of biofuels production. Renewable fuel
agency. http://www.renewablefuelsagency.org/_db/_documents/Report_of_the_Gallagher_review.pdf.
Giampietro, M., & Mayumi, K. (2009). The biofuel delusion: The fallacy of large scale agro-biofuels
production. London: Earthscan.
Giampietro, M., & Ulgiati, S. (2005). An integrated assessment of large-scale biofuel production. Critical
Review in Plant Sciences, 24, 120.
Giampietro, M., Ulgiati, S., & Pimentel, D. (1997). Feasibility of large-scale biofuel production: Does an
enlargement of scale change the picture? BioScience, 47(9), 587600.
Global Footprint Network. (2009). World Footprint: Do we fit on the planet? http://www.footprint
network.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/world_footprint/. Accessed 23 Aug 2009.
Goldemberg, J. (2007). Ethanol for a sustainable energy future. Science, 315, 808810.
123
430
T. Gomiero et al.
Haberl, H., Krausmann, F., Erb, K. H., Schulz, N. B., Rojstaczer, S., Sterling, S. M., et al. (2002). Human
appropriation of net primary production. Science, 14, 19681969.
Hall, C., Cleveland, C. J., & Kaufmann, R. (1986). Energy and resource quality. New York: WileyInterscience.
Hazell, P. (2006). Developing bioenergy: A winwin approach that can serve the poor and the
environment. In P. Hazell & R. K. Pachauri (Eds.), Bioenergy and agriculture: Promises and
challenges. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/
files/publications/focus14.pdf. Accessed 28 July 2009.
Hazell, P., & Pachauri, R. K. (2006). Overview. In Hazell, P., & Pachauri, R. K. (Eds), Bioenergy and
agriculture: promises and challenges. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/focus14.pdf. Accessed 28 July 2009.
Heemsbergen, D. A., Berg, M. P., Loreau, M., van Hal, J. R., Faber, J. H., & Verhoef, H. A. (2004).
Biodiversity effects on soil processes explained by interspecific functional dissimilarity. Science,
306, 10191020.
Hill, J., Nelson, E., Tilman, D., Polasky, S., & Tiffany, D. (2006). Environmental, economic, and
energetic costs and benefits of biodiesel and ethanol biofuels. PNAS, 103, 1120611210.
Hillel, D. (1991). Out of the earth: Civilization and the life of the soil. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Himmel, M. E., Ding, S.-Y., Johnson, D. K., Adney, W. S., Nimlos, M. R., Brady, J. W., et al. (2007).
Biomass recalcitrance: Engineering plants and enzymes for biofuels production. Science, 315, 804807.
IMF (International Monetary Found). (2007). Reaping the benefits of financial globalization. http://
www.imf.org/external/np/res/docs/2007/0607.htm. Accessed 20 July 2009.
Imhoff, M. L., Bounoua, L., Ricketts, T., Loucks, C., Harriss, R., & Lawrence, W. T. (2004). Global
patterns in human consumption of net primary production. Nature, 429, 870873.
Johnston, S. (2007). The (Food) Price of Success. Finance & Development, 44 (4) December, The
International Monetary Fund, Washington, DC. http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2007/
12/pdf/straight.pdf. Accessed 20 July 2009.
Karlen, D. L., Hunt, P. G., & Campbell, R. B. (1984). Crop residue removal effects on corn yield and
fertility of a Norfolk sandy loam. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 48, 868872.
Kim, S., & Dale, B. E. (2005). Life cycle assessment of various cropping systems utilized for producing
biofuels: Bioethanol and biodiesel. Biomass and Bioenergy, 29(6), 426439.
Koutinas, A. A., Wang, R.-H., & Webb, C. (2007). The biochemurgist: Bioconversion of agricultural raw
materials for chemical production. Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining, 1, 2438.
Krebs, J. R., Wilson, J. D., Bradbury, R. B., & Siriwardena, G. M. (1999). The second silent spring?
Nature, 400, 611612.
Kutas, G., Lindberg, C., Steenblik, R. (2007). BiofuelsAt what cost? Government support for ethanol
and biodiesel in the European Union. The International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD)
http://www.globalsubsidies.org/files/assets/Subsidies_to_biofuels_in_the_EU_final.pdf. Accessed 28
July 2009.
Lal, R. (2004). Soil carbon sequestration impact on global climate and food security. Science, 304,
16231627.
Lal, R. (2005). World crop residues production and implications of its use as a biofuel. Environment
International, 31, 575584.
Lange, J.-P. (2007). Lignocellulose conversion: An introduction to chemistry, process and economics.
Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining, 1, 3948.
Laurance, W. F. (2007). Switch to corn promotes amazon deforestation. Science, 318, 1721.
Lavelle, P., & Spain, A. V. (2002). Soil ecology. Amsterdam: Kluwer.
Linden, D. R., Clapp, C. E., & Dowdy, R. H. (2000). Long-term corn grain and stover yields as a function
of tillage and residue removal in east central Minnesota. Soil Tillage Research, 56, 167174.
Lindstrom, L. J. (1986). Effects of residue harvesting on water runoff, soil erosion and nutrient loss.
Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 16, 103112.
Luck, G. W. et al. (2009). Quantifying the contribution of organisms to the provision of ecosystem
services. BioScience, 59, 223235.
Lynd, L. R., Cushman, J. H., Nichols, R. J., & Wyman, C. E. (1991). Fuel ethanol from cellulosic
biomass. Science, 251, 13181323.
MacKay, D. J. C. (2009). Sustainable EnergyWithout the hot air. http://www.withouthotair.
com/download.html. Accessed 20 Aug 2009.
123
431
Mader, P., Fliebach, A., Dubois, D., Gunst, L., Fried, P., & Niggli, U. (2002). Soil fertility and
biodiversity in organic farming. Science, 296, 16941697.
Malhi, Y., Timmons, R. J., Betts, R. A., Killeen, T. J., Li, W., & Nobre, C. A. (2008). Climate change,
deforestation and the fate of the Amazon. Science, 319, 169172.
Marlandn, G., & Turhollow, A. F. (1991). CO2 Emissions from the production and combustion of fuel
ethanol from corn. Energythe International Journal, 16(1112), 13071316.
Martin, P. S. (2005). Twilight of the Mammoths: Ice age extinctions and the rewilding of America. CA:
University of California Press.
Matson, P. A., Parton, W. J., Power, A. G., & Swift, M. J. (1997). Agricultural intensification and
ecosystem properties. Science, 277, 504509.
McCain, J. (2003). Statement of senator McCain on the energy bill. press release. Wednesday, Nov 2003.
McDonald, R. I., Fargione, J., Kiesecker, J., Miller, W. M., & Powell, J. (2009). Energy sprawl or energy
efficiency: Climate policy impacts on natural habitat for the United States of America. PLoS ONE
4(8): e6802. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0006802. Accessed 27 Aug 2009.
McKee, J. K. (2005). Sparing nature: The conflict between human population growth and earths
biodiversity. NJ: Rutgers University Press.
McKinney, M. L. (2001). Role of human population size in raising bird and mammal threat among
nations. Animal Conservation, 4(1), 4557.
Micronutrient Initiative and UNICEF (United Nations Childrens Fund). (2004). Vitamin and Mineral
Deficiency: A Global Progress Report. UNICEF, Ottawa and New York. http://www.micronutrient.
org/CMFiles/PubLib/VMd-GPR-English1KWW-3242008-4681.pdf. Accessed 20 July 2009.
Millenium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: Biodiversity synthesis.
World Resources Institute, Washington, DC. http://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/
document.354.aspx.pdf. Accessed 20 July 2009.
Mitchell, D. (2008). A note on rising food prices. The World Bank Development Prospects Group July
2008 http://www-wds.worldbank.org/servlet/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2008/07/28/000020439_
20080728103002/Rendered/PDF/WP4682.pdf. Accessed 17 July 2009.
Montgomery, D. R. (2007a). Dirt: The erosion of civilizations. Berkeley, CA: University of California
Press.
Montgomery, D. R. (2007b). Soil erosion and agricultural sustainability. PNAS, 104(33), 1326813272.
Morton, D. C., DeFries, R. S., Shimabukuro, Y. E., Anderson, L. O., Arai, E., del Bon Espirito-Santo, F.,
et al. (2006). Cropland expansion changes deforestation dynamics in the southern Brazilian
Amazon. PNAS, 103(39), 1463714641.
Myers, N., & Kent, J. (2001). Perverse subsidies: How misused tax dollars harm the environment and the
economy. Washington, DC: Island Press.
NAS (National Research Council). (2003). Frontiers in agricultural research: Food, health, environment,
and communities. Washington, DC: National Academies of Science.
National Center for Policy Analysis. (2002). Ethanol subsidies. Idea house. National Center for Policy
Analysis. http://www.ncpa.org/pd/ag/ag6.html. Accessed 23 July 2009.
Naylor, R. L., Liska, A. J., Burke, M. B., Falcon, W. P., Gaskell, J. C., Rozelle, S. D., et al. (2007). The
ripple effect: Biofuels, food security, and the environment. Environment, 49, 3143.
Nepstad, D. C., Stickler, C. M., Filho, B. S., & Merry, F. (2008). Interactions among Amazon land use,
forests and climate: Prospects for a near-term forest tipping point. Philosophical transactions of the
Royal Society B, 363, 17371746.
Niven, R. K. (2005). Ethanol in gasoline: Environmental impacts and sustainability. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, 9, 535555.
Nowak, D.J., & Walton, J.T. (2005). Projected Urban Growth (20002050) and Its Estimated Impact on
the US Forest Resource. Journal of Forestry. Dec, 383389. http://www.fs.fed.us/ne/newtown_
square/publications/other_publishers/OCR/ne_2005_nowak001.pdf. Accessed 20 May 2009.
OECD-FAO (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development)(Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations). (2007). OECD-FAO agricultural outlook 20072016. Paris.
Oxfam. (2007a). Biofuelling PovertyEU plans could be disastrous for poor people. Oxfam, 29 October
2007, http://www.oxfam.org/en/node/217. Accessed 28 July 2009.
Oxfam. (2007b). Bio-fuelling Poverty Why the EU renewable-fuel target may be disastrous for poor people.
http://www.oxfam.org.uk/resources/policy/trade/downloads/bn_biofuels.pdf?m=234&url=http://www.
oxfam.org.uk/resources/policy/trade/downloads/bn_wdr2008.pdf. Accessed 28 Nov 2008.
123
432
T. Gomiero et al.
Paoletti, M. G. (2001). biodiversity in agroecosystems and bioindicators of environmental health. In M.

Shiyomi & H. Koizumi (Eds.), Structure and function in agroecosystems design and management
(pp. 1144). Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press.
Paoletti, M. G., & Bressan, M. (1996). Soil invertebrates as bioindicators of human disturbance. Critical
Reviews in Plant Sciences, 15(1), 2162.
Paoletti, M. G., Thomson, L. J., Hoffmann, A. A., Anderson, C. A., & Webb, L. E. (2007a). Using
invertebrate bioindicators to assess agricultural sustainability in Australia: Proposals and current
practices. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture, 47(4), 379478.
Paoletti, M. G., Tsitsilas, A., Thomson, L. J., Taiti, S., & Umina, P. A. (2007b). The flood bug,
Australiodillo bifrons (Isopoda: Armadillidae): A potential pest of cereals in Australia? Applied Soil
Ecology, 39, 7683.
Patzek, T. (2008). Thermodynamics of agricultural sustainability: The case of US maize agriculture.
Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences, 27(4), 272293.
Perlach, D. R., Wright, L. L., Turhollow, A. F., Graham, R. L., Stokes, B. J., & Erbach, D. C. (2005).
Biomass as a feedstock for a bioproducts and bioenergy industry: The technical feasibility of a
billion ton annual supply. U.S. DOE and USDA, April 2005. http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/
pdfs/final_billionton_vision_report2.pdf. Accessed 27 Nov 2008.
Peterson, E. W. F. (2009). A billion dollar a day: The economics and politics of agricultural subsidies.
Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Pimentel, D. (2005). Environmental and economic costs of the application of pesticides primarily in the
United States. Environment, development and sustainability, 7, 229252.
Pimentel, D. (2007). Soil erosion. In D. Pimentel & M. Pimentel (Eds.), Food, energy, and society (3rd
ed., pp. 201204). CRC Press.
Pimentel, D. (Ed.). (2008). Renewable energy systems: Environmental and energetic issues. Dordrecht,
The Netherlands: Springer.
Pimentel, D. (2009). Corn ethanol: Promise and problems. In preparation.
Pimentel, D., Harvey, C., Resosudarmo, P., Sinclair, K., Kurz, D., McNair, M., et al. (1995). Environmental
and economic costs of soil erosion and conservation benefits. Science, 267, 11171123.
Pimentel, D., Hepperly, P., Hanson, J., Douds, D., & Seidel, R. (2005). Environmental, energetic, and
economic comparisons of organic and conventional farming systems. BioScience, 55, 573582.
Pimentel, D., & Kounang, N. (1998). Ecology of soil erosion in ecosystems. Ecosystems, 1, 416426.
Pimentel, D., Marklein, A., Toth, M. A., Karpoff, M. N., Paul, G. S., McCormack, R., et al. (2009). Food
versus biofuels: Environmental and economic costs. Human Ecology, 37, 112.
Pimentel, D., Moran, M. A., Fast, S., Weber, G., Bukantis, R., Balliett, L., et al. (1981). Biomass energy
from crop and forest residues. Science, 212, 11101115.
Pimentel, D., & Patzek, T. (2005). Ethanol production using corn, switchgrass, and wood: Biodiesel
production using soybean and sunflower. Natural Resources Research, 14(1), 6576.
Pimentel, D., Petrova, T., Riley, M., Jacquet, J., Ng, V., Honigman, J., et al. (2006). Conservation of
biological diversity in agricultural, forestry, and marine systems. In A. R. Burk (Ed.), Focus on
ecology research (pp. 151173). NY: Nova Science Publishers.
Pimentel, D., & Pimentel, M. (2005). Land, water and energy versus the ideal U.S. population. The NPG
Forum, January. Negative Population Growth, Teaneck, NJ. http://www.npg.org/forum_series/
forum0205.html. Accessed 20 July 2009.
Primack, R. B. (2008). A primer of conservation biology (4th Edition). Sinauer Associates.
Pye-Smith, C. (2002). The subsidy scandal: How your government wastes your money to wreck your
environment. London: Earthscan Publications.
Rasmussen, P. E., Goulding, K. W. T., Brown, J. R., Grace, P. R., Janzen, H. H., & Korschens, M. (1998).
Long-term agroecosystem experiments: Assessing agricultural sustainability and global change.
Science, 282, 893896.
Rasnake, M. (1999). Tillage and Crop Residue Management. January 31, 2008; http://www.ca.uky.
edu/agc/pubs/agr/agr99/agr99.htm. Accessed 23 Aug 2009.
Rawlings, A. (2007). An expanding liquid biofuel market: Investigating the likely impacts on welfare and
environment. Environmental Ethics, 1, 2637.
REN21. (2007). Renewables 2007 global status report. Renewable energy policy network for the 21st
century. Paris: REN21 Secretariat and Washington, DC:Worldwatch Institute. http://www.ren21.
net/pdf/RE2007_Global_Status_Report.pdf.
Robertson, G. P., Dale, V. H., et al. (2008). Sustainable biofuels redux. Science, 322, 4950.
123
433
Sawyer, D. (2008). Climate change, biofuels and eco-social impacts in the Brazilian Amazon and
Cerrado. Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society B, 363, 17471752.
Schubert, C. (2006). Can biofuels finally take center stage? Nature Biotechnology, 24, 277284.
Seager, A. (2008). Poverty: 260 m driven into hunger by push for biofuel ActionAid. The Guardian, 3
July 2008. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/03/biofuels.food. Accessed 23 Aug
2009.
Searchinger, T., Heimlich, R., Houghton, A., Dong, F., Elobeid, A., Fabiosa, J., et al. (2008). Use of U.S.
Croplands for Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gases Through Emissions from Land Use Change.
Science, 319, 12381240.
Service, R. F. (2007). Biofuel researchers prepare to reap a new harvest. Science, 315, 14881491.
Shapouri, H., Duffield, J. A., & Graboski, M. S. (1995). Estimating the net energy balance of corn
ethanol. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Economic Report No. 721 http://www.
ethanol-gec.org/corn_eth.htm. Accessed November 14, 2008.
Shapouri, H., Duffield, J. A., & Wang, M. (2003). The energy balance of corn ethanol revisited: 2003.
American Society of Agricultural Engineers, 46(4), 959968.
Smil, V. (1999). Crop residues: Agricultures largest harvest. BioScience, 49(4), 299308.
Smil, V. (2000). Feeding the world: A challenge for the twenty-first century. MIT Press.
Smil, V. (2003). Energy at the crossroads. The MIT Press.
Smil, V. (2008). Energy in nature and society: General energetics of complex systems. The MIT Press.
Solomon, B. D., Barnes, J. R., & Halvorsen, K. E. (2007). Grain and cellulosic ethanol: History,
economics, and energy policy. Biomass and Bioenergy, 31, 416425.
Soule`, M. E., & Terborgh, J. (Eds.). (1999). Continental conservation: Scientific foundations of regional
reserve networks. Washington DC: Island Press.
Stephanopoulos, G. (2007). Challenges in engineering microbes for biofuels production. Science, 315,
801804.
Tepe, F. S., Du, X.-D., Hennessy, D. A. (2009). The Impact of Biofuels Policy on Agribusiness Stock Prices.
Working Paper 09-WP 497 September 2009 Center for Agricultural and Rural Development Iowa
State University. http://www.card.iastate.edu/publications/DBS/PDFFiles/09wp497.pdf. Accessed
20 July 2009.
Thompson, P. B. (2008). The agricultural ethics of biofuels: A first look. Journal of Agricultural and
Environmental Ethics, 21(2), 183198.
Tilman, D., Cassman, K. G., Matson, P. A., Naylor, R., & Polasky, S. (2002). Agricultural sustainability
and intensive production practices. Nature, 418, 671677.
Tilman, D., Hill, J., & Lehman, C. (2006). Carbon-negative biofuels from low-input high-diversity
grassland biomass. Science, 314, 15986000.
Tilman, T., Socolow, R., Foley, J. A., Hill, J., Larson, E., Lynd, L., et al. (2009). Beneficial biofuels -the
food, energy, and environment trilemma. Science, 325, 270271.
Tokgoz, S., Elobeid, A., Fabiosa, J. F., Hayes, D. J., Babcock, B. A., et al. (2007). Emerging biofuels:
Outlook of effects on U.S. grain, oilseed, and livestock markets. Food and Agricultural Policy
Research Institute (FAPRI) Publications 07-sr101, Ames, IA: FAPRI, Iowa State University.
http://www.card.iastate.edu/publications/synopsis.aspx?id=1050. Accessed 20 July 2009.
Trostle, R. (2008). Global agricultural supply and demand: factors contributing to the recent increase in
food commodity prices. United States Department of Agriculture http://www.ers.usda.gov/
PUBLICATIONS/WRS0801/WRS0801.PDF. Accessed 20 May 2009.
Turner, B. L., I. I., Lambin, E. F., & Reenberg, A. (2007). The emergence of land change science for
global environmental change and sustainability. PNAS, 104, 2066620671.
Ulgiati, S. (2001). A comprehensive energy and economic assessment of biofuels: When green is not
enough. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences, 20(1), 71106.
UN (United Nations). (2007a). Population Newsletter. Number 83. http://www.un.org/esa/population/
publications/popnews/Newsltr_83.pdf. Accessed 2 July 2009.
UN. (2007b) The right to food. Note by the Secretary-General, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the
right to food. http://www.righttofood.org/new/PDF/A62289.pdf. Accessed 2 July 2009.
UNEP (United Nations Environmental Programme). (2009). The environmental food crisis the
environments role in averting future food crises a UNEP rapid response assessment. UNEP,
GRID-Arendal, www.grida.no.
USCB (United States Census Bureau). (2007). Statistical abstract of the United States 2007. US Census
Bureau, US Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
123
434
T. Gomiero et al.
USCB (United States Census Bureau). (2008). U.S. Population projections. http://www.census.
gov/population/www/projections/2008projections.html. Accessed 20 Aug 2009.
USDA (United States Department of Agriculture). (2006). Agricultural Statistics, 2006. US Department
of Agriculture, US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
USDA (United States Department of Agriculture). (2008). U.S. Agricultural Statistics http://www.nass.
usda.gov/. Accessed 15 Nov 2008.
USDE (United States Department of Energy). (2006). Breaking the Biological Barriers to Cellulosic
Ethanol: A Joint Research Agenda. http://genomicsgtl.energy.gov/biofuels/b2bworkshop.shtml.
Accessed 12 Nov 2008.
Varvel, G. E., Vogel, K. P., Mitchell, R. B., Follett, R. F., & Kimble, J. M. (2008). Comparison of corn
and switchgrass on marginal soils for Bioenergy. Biomass and bioenergy, 32, 1821.
Vitousek, P. M., Ehrlich, P. R., Ehrlich, A. H., & Matson, P. A. (1986). Human appropriation of the
products of photosynthesis. BioScience, 36(6), 363373.
Vitousek, P. M., Mooney, H. A., Lubchenco, J., & Melillo, J. M. (1997). Human domination of earths
ecosystems. Science, 277, 494499.
von Braun, J. (2008). The food crisis isnt over. Nature, 456, 701.
Wackernagel, M., & Rees, W. (1996). Our ecological footprint: Reducing human impact on the Earth.
Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers.
Wackernagel, M., Schulz, N. B., Deumling, A. C., Linares, A. C., Jenkins, M., Kapos, V., et al. (2002).
Tracking the ecological overshoot of the human economy. PNAS, 99(14), 92669271.
WFP (World Food Programme). (2008). What is hunger? UN-World Food Programme. http://www.
wfp.org/aboutwfp/introduction/hunger_what.asp?section=1&sub_section=1. Accessed 27 Nov 2008.
WHO (World Health Organization). (2000). Nutrition for health and development: a global agenda for
combating malnutrition. World Health Organization, Nutrition for Health and Development (NHD),
Sustainable Development and Healthy Environments (SDE) http://whqlibdoc.who.int/HQ/2000/
WHO_NHD_00.6.pdf. Accessed 28 Nov 2008.
WHO (World Health Organization). (2005). The World Health Report 2005make every mother and
child count. http://www.who.int/whr/2005/en/index.html. Accessed 23 Aug 2009.
Wilhelm, W. W., Doran, J. W., & Power, J. F. (1986). Corn and soybean yield response to crop residue
management under no-tillage production systems. Agronomy journal, 78, 184189.
Wilhelm, W. W., Johnson, J. M. F., Karlen, D. L., & Lightle, D. T. (2007). Corn stover to sustain soil
organic carbon further constrains biomass supply. Agronomy journal, 99, 16651667.
Wilson, E. O. (1994). The diversity of life. London: Penguin Books.
World Bank. (2008). Rising food and fuel prices: Addressing the risks to future generations. World Bank,
Washington, DC. Available online at: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DEVCOMMEXT/Resources/
Food-Fuel.pdf?resourceurlname=Food-Fuel.pdf. Accessed 3 Aug 2009.
WWI (Worldwatch Institute). (2006). Biofuels for transportation: Global potential and implications for
sustainable agriculture and energy in the 21st century. http://www.worldwatch.org/node/4078
123

Biofuels - Efficiency, Ethics Gomiero JAEE 2010

Cargado por

Información del documento

Título original

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Biofuels - Efficiency, Ethics Gomiero JAEE 2010

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

J Agric Environ Ethics (2010) 23:403434

Biofuels: Efficiency, Ethics, and Limits to Human

Accepted: 18 October 2009 / Published online: 19 November 2009

Introduction: The Implication of Biofuels on a Global Scale

Biofuels: Efficiency, Ethics, and Limits

Biofuels: Efficiency, Ethics, and Limits

Are Biofuels Able to Accomplish the Goal of Reducing CO2 Emission?

Biofuels: Efficiency, Ethics, and Limits

produces significant air pollution impacts, involves substantial risks to biodiversity,

Biofuels: Efficiency, Ethics, and Limits

The Global Scenario

Biofuels: Efficiency, Ethics, and Limits

Biofuels: Efficiency, Ethics, and Limits

Biofuels: Efficiency, Ethics, and Limits

North-South Biofuels Trade: Towards an Energetic Colonialism?

Biofuels: Efficiency, Ethics, and Limits

The Ecological Side

Biofuels: Efficiency, Ethics, and Limits

advanced stages of development, an increase in GDP per capita can lead to an

Biofuels: Efficiency, Ethics, and Limits

Biofuels: Efficiency, Ethics, and Limits

biofuels production, including cellulosic ethanol from crops residues and

Biofuels: Efficiency, Ethics, and Limits

environmental problems, mining food security of billions and even resulting in

Biofuels: Efficiency, Ethics, and Limits

Biofuels: Efficiency, Ethics, and Limits

Paoletti, M. G. (2001). biodiversity in agroecosystems and bioindicators of environmental health. In M.

Biofuels: Efficiency, Ethics, and Limits

También podría gustarte