evaluating biofuels: the consequences of using land to make fuel

8/8/2019 Evaluating Biofuels: The Consequences of Using Land to Make Fuel

1/30

Evaluating BiofuElsThe ConsequenCes of

using Land To Make fueL

tim sEarchingEr

The German marshall Fund oF The uniTed sTaTes

PaPEr sEriEs


2/30

2009 Te German Marshall Fund o the United States. All rights reserved.

No part o this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any orm or by any means without permission

in writing rom the German Marshall Fund o the United States (GMF). Please direct inquiries to:

Te German Marshall Fund o the United States

1744 R Street, NW

Washington, DC 20009

1 202 683 2650

F 1 202 265 1662

E [email protected]

Tis publication can be downloaded or ree at http://www.gmus.org/publications/index.cm. Limited print

copies are also available. o request a copy, send an e-mail to [email protected].

GMF Paper Series

Te GMF Paper Series presents research on a variety o transatlantic topics by sta, ellows, and partners o the

German Marshall Fund o the United States. Te views expressed here are those o the author and do not neces-

sarily represent the view o GMF. Comments rom readers are welcome; reply to the mailing address above or by

e-mail to [email protected].

About GMF

Te German Marshall Fund o the United States (GMF) is a non-partisan American public policy and grant-

making institution dedicated to promoting greater cooperation and understanding between North America

and Europe.

GMF does this by supporting individuals and institutions working on transatlantic issues, by convening leaders

to discuss the most pressing transatlantic themes, and by examining ways in which transatlantic cooperation canaddress a variety o global policy challenges. In addition, GMF supports a number o initiatives to strengthen

democracies.

Founded in 1972 through a gi rom Germany as a permanent memorial to Marshall Plan assistance, GMF

maintains a strong presence on both sides o the Atlantic. In addition to its headquarters in Washington, DC,

GMF has seven oces in Europe: Berlin, Bratislava, Paris, Brussels, Belgrade, Ankara, and Bucharest.

About Brussels Forum

Brussels Forum is an annual high-level meeting o the most infuential American and European political, corpo-

rate, and intellectual leaders to address pressing challenges currently acing both sides o the Atlantic. Partici-

pants include heads o state, senior ocials rom the European Union institutions and the member states, U.S.Cabinet ocials, Congressional representatives, Parliamentarians, academics, and media. For more inormation,

please visit www.brusselsorum.org.


3/30

Evaluating Biouels

The consequences of using land to make fuel

Brussels Forum Paper Series

March 2009

S*

G M F U S

I 3

B C L 5

A C L 17F Ey C

F B P

R 5

* S w w G M F U S (GMF) w , y, H P Uy B j GMF, M S w - C C I E D w w


4/30

Evaluating Biouels

he consequences o using land to make uel

3

By the end of 200

at least ten major

technical institutio

had released

highly cautionary

to harshly critical

reports on biofuels

I 8, w y

I b w

b w y

b y y

b b b U

w

B

S by b

, b b w y

U S E 1 by7 18 w

(OECD 8b) S

w w

y w

by (N R C ;

F 1; Hwj 4) A 7,

US E

C

x b

y F y

, z b y w

w

wy

b ,

w b y w

Y by 7, w

b bw 1

, w b y

(FAO 8, F 1) A y

8, y , b

F A Oz

(FAO) W B b

b,

U S E W

b 8,

w, w w b b

B w 5 1

y, x b

y

w y

y

A , ( )

b y w

w, U S E w

w

y b

b b b

x (S 8; F 8) P

b

y ,

b b

x (W 1)

b w

y

y by - w

By 8, j

y y

y b I

W B FAO, y J

R C E C,

E E S C,

U

K N ( y,

S 8)

b y

w , y

y

wb

b A ,

Introduction

1


5/30


6/30

Evaluating Biouels


5

The dominant

questions for

biofuel policy

today focus on th

costs and benefi

of devoting

productive land

to biofuels, rathe

than to other

human needs.

w b w y 15 b , 35 b

, 4 b

( ) (W 1)

E b

b B

b ,

b , y,

y b b y

w y

,

U S, E, L A U

b, w , b , b ,

w b

y y b

b,

A. Fundamental importance of land to the

greenhouse gas equation

W US B Ob,

US E

w ,

W

b b, b y

b x y

y I, y

w , Ob,

8 by 5

B

b y ,

w , w y

b w b y -

y

L y

b b

Uy, w w w

b w

y w b y -

b y

b x

b

W b , y

y b b

By , b

b

A

y

w b,

w b b

Ly y xy w

b b

b A y y

b

b w

b 1 GREE

y U S

by B Rw 1

w w b

, z,

, Rw w

, , ,

b Rw 3 w

b ,

y b

A w 6 w

b

, b

y

B y, y

y w b b

b by b, w w 4, w w

b w w 7

Uy, w b

, b x

w b I b,

Biofuels and the Competition

for Land2


7/30

he German Marshall Fund o the United States6

Understanding the role of land in comparing greenhouse gas emissions from biofuelsand conventional fuels

Wy j w b

Table 1. GREET and U.K. default values CO2 emissions for various fuels, grams (CO2 equivalent)

per mega joule of energy in fuel

GREE

G

GREE

C

E

GREE

B

E

GREE

D

1 P E 4 4 1 5

R R 15 4 113 Cb 7 71 71 68

4Land Use Benefitb by

b 6 6

5

Land Use Cost

x

b ( by S

8/S & H 8)

14 111

6 w y

(w 1++3)1

135

(+48%)

(1%)84

7 b y (w 1++3+4)

1 73(%)

8(7%)

84

8 b

(w 1++3+4+5)1

177

(+3%)

138

(+51%)84

* P b GREE A N

Lby 7 UK UK Rwb F Ay 8

Lan

dUseEffects


8/30

Evaluating Biouels


7

Unfortunately,

growing plants fo

biofuels requires

land. If not used

for biofuels, land

would typically

already be

growing plants

that are removing

carbon from the

atmosphere.

EE

y

UK

D

V

D*

UK D

P

B

UK DR

B

UK

3 3 8 5

3 14 3536 6 6 6 6

76 6 6

18 ? ?

115

7%)86

11114

(+3%

+33%)

11

(+41%)

357)

86 4345(5% 48%)

5(4%)

4

+186 ? ?

w yy y b w b L

, x, b

, , y

, w w b

L

b , w

y b w ( w

) b

x w b y B

, w , y

w

, b

Rw 5 b 1 w

US US yb

b by S 8

S 8 W

w b, b b

w y

, b y y

wy y w w by

b b w w

I , b b

y ,

b b

w , w B y

b w x

b,

S

b by w w

, w b S

b

b b y

y , b

B y y w

b b

y j b y


9/30


Most hectares

productive enough

to produce

average U.S. corn

yields would also

regenerate into

trees if left alone.

Using that spare

hectare for corn

ethanol would

therefore increase

carbon dioxide in

the air compared

to leaving it alone

and allowing it

to regenerate

into trees.

b w b w W b ,

b w b I b

, b w

b b,

J y b

-,

b U y y

b, b b

, y b w y

b bx

B. The carbon opportunity cost

B b y y,

b y

, y wy b,

w y

b

b, w

b y ,

w b

x wy

, y b US

Mw U S ( 47 ),

y

I w

y x 15,

by-, w

b

x y

GREE (S 8)1

1 A GREE, w 18 b x, b y (K- 8) I , b y 6 y b 18 b x, 3

Y, US y w

w b

x b, ,

bb 75 1 3 U

w

b x

w

B O

y b

y

y, 75 (Gbb 8), b

bby b x 14 8 y

(R 7)

C x

yy w D

y, w 355

b x w w y, w

1 3 y 3 y4 I

w y, w ,

- b w b w, b

w b

w bby 7 y I ,

b b

My w y , w b b w , b w b y , w

3 w b - -w E b by D R H W H R C w (S 8, SO M b D-) A y b

U S 13 b x y, by IPCC (J 4; W 1)w y b b , b b

4 y b Gbb (8), S(8b) F (8)


10/30

Evaluating Biouels


9

Using land for

biofuels comes

at a high carbon

opportunity cost

for the intuitive

reason that

land with the

rainfall and soils

necessary to be

highly productive

for biofuels woul

probably also

produce a great

deal of forest or

food.

I b w,

- 65

y C ,

65 y 3 y (F

8; S 8b; Gbb 8) B

y

b y z R

w z

, , w w y

b

w b b w yy

b, w w

w P

I My

w x

D b 3 y

y bw 43 17

y (F 8; S 8)

P b y

b y

F x, w

y w 86

b x y,

b

w 5

S b

b y -

w y

(K 8) Y 36 b (

b) y w

,

b z B

y,

5 T y 18 yb by D Ey b w (P 5) , y y j GREE (S 8b)

y , w y by 6 A

y w w x

w w

U b b

y

w y b y

b w bby

I ,

b b y,

bby 5 , y b , b

b w wy (IEA

8, 31) D b y

y b

y w b

w by b

S y b

b (

y ) B b

b y

b , w

w (Hwj 5),

b

y (B 7; 67) Dy y,

w y

P y,

6 T GREE G 188 (CO ) (S 8b, b 1A) B -, GREE y , 53 , 135 A 36 b 3433 , - 1,35 , w 135 / 17 b x y B w 1 b x y , b y b yby U S, 8 , wy y 7 y T 586 , 188


11/30


y b 17 w (B 7), w

b y wy

U b

y

C. What happens when biofuels divert

existing cropland

b U S E

b x b w wy-

y C

b y

b

w w

w w

b x A

y y wy

, w w

w y w w

,

b w

y

w

(, G 7; H 8; OECD 8b), b

y S ?

A y , D

b7 y : ,

; w, by

w w ;

, by b

y x

y b

, b y ,

b,

w b

7 A , y b , F x, b y b by yb , b E w w w F b, y y

Reduced food consumption

A b b

,

A ,

18

wy

Bw 8, w

3 b

by 4 (FAO 8) Rb w

by ,

ww w

A , w

B b

w ,

, y b ,

5 -8

x b b

U S E, y bby

x C

y ,

B

, y y b

w $1 y w y

y y ,

b w $ y (R

7; FAO 8b) b

8

, w

, b b

S w

O w

w

b ,

8 D I My F R y C B


12/30

Evaluating Biouels


11

b y w y y b (FAO

8b; B 7)

B w

A FAO , y

j 5 w

y 8 w b 7

(OECD 8, b 3 5) Vb

15

y w

B y b

w w y w

y w w

E w y

w bw 5 7,

w

b B b

b

, w

(OECD 8, b , 3, 4,

5) W , b

w b x

wy b y

j

E P Uy

F F (Abb 8) W

B (M 8)

A b, w

y by y

O w

, y ,

w w

w y b

b w M y, b w, b

y , by

j - x

8 Y, by

b by

y j b

S w b y

x, w

x

bw b

w , w ,

U S,

w w Ew P Lz,

C E A, b

US C 8 y

by C E A,

b j , b

y , C y wy

w w b

O bw

- b

-

y

y I ,

j, b,

y y

, y F

x, w U S,E, C, J y 1

b, D y

18

b 1

6 (B 8)

M O E

C- D (OECD)

b y

(OECD 8b) A

, , w

w Y, y

w

J y,

S b

, w b,

w x y,

The key to

understanding th

impact of biofuel

on food prices is

the rapid growth

rate.


13/30


w y - L

b by y

w

y

xy

8

H y

b , w

Hw

,

y C A R B

(

by-) M

y ,

7 (W 8)

, w,

bby w

x b

w

Agricultural land expansion

I ,

x x

b x b Ex

b y

w w

b w

y , b

w b

w x F x, x Bz

y b, b

b y b E

E b

b , y

y b

Ex b

, b b y w (

w ), U

, b- b

, b w

b

w wy b y,

xy b,

, b

y : b

b, b b

b 1

A E E w b 1 I w - 75 bby 3 y w, b- 38 b E b D- D-1 S (8b) T y 337 x L A 1 (S 8)

1 O , , w y b y - w (K ) (N- w )A w b yy U S w Nw b b - b b: w b (B 7;B-C 8) N- x, w , w by w y - b - (Dxby 8) A y x bw 1 y, ww bby b - (Gy 7) I , b b b -, y y , x y - by w w y w x (K ) z b y b F x, b y , w b

Higher crop prices

imply that some of

the crops diverted

to biofuels are

not replaced,

which dampens

greenhouse gas

emissions. To most

people, however,

these reductions

in demand

are probably

a worse result

than agricultural

expansion


14/30

Evaluating Biouels


13

These ongoing yi

increases that w

occur with or wit

biofuels have gre

significance for

the worlds land

use and carbon

emissions, but th

merits of biofuels

have to be judge

independently.

Price-induced yield Increases

C y w

y, y w w

w w b S b

b y w

, b

B y ,

b, w

w

U b

y w w wb w

b , b b

b j y

O , w b

, w

y

x y y z,

w, y x,

- O , b

, y x L

x w by B

x w yy

w w y x

b y b

w y w x b

y

x: I by b

y x

b, b

w

, w y

z I w,

x w w y

S b y

x W W II

b w

w , w

y by w y b

y w

w I b

w , w w

w w

, ,

y , w

, by b, w

y

I y

w N y, w

z ,

y y,

y US

z 16 (Mz 183) B

y

z, US

y (Mz 183; C 13)

w

y y

b

Uy, , b-S A, y

y

w

Sb-S A L A

b w ,

w

y x w

(B 3, 133)

E y y,

y

A y , y b w , w

Iy

I z

y y


15/30


w (V 17) A y 85 w

by ,

w w (Fy 5; Ab-

Ew ) I y ,

w ,

w x

S y

UN z w

(UNESCO 6), b w

x xb

Iy

w w xb b

S y

w w

F x, by Iw Syb

A w

y y

b ,

b (Iw Syb A

5) N x, w , b

y

US C B y

w11

B y

w, w y

b y y

F x, w

US D A (USDA)

11 A S 8, 14 , CO j ( y) I w x z Iw, b x w 13 , CO

y ww 8 y b

( 8), y w

w w by j

w w

1 R b

y 1 w

by , w b b

y, w y

y w USDA

j

Mw, w w

b w , w ,

y w

13 w y b y,

w ,

y

P y, w y wy

y

U y

b y

w w b b

D. Doubts about the land use challenge

D

y I y w y

1 T w b by R H jw by OECD FAO 17 (OECD

8), x , FAO y w j y 16-5

13 by R H w b by E4 G w UK, j b y - b w w I j OECD 8 17 x

Many controllable

factors could in

theory change

the world land

use situation for

good or bad, but

if those factors

are independent

of biofuels, they

neither make

biofuels a better

strategy nor a

worse one.


16/30

Evaluating Biouels


15

Making Land Available for Biofuels : S x w

y y,

(K 8), w

by b E

w w b

w w w b E

b w b

b

My b y

w b, b

b, y b b y w

Multiple Causes of Deforestation: S

b y

y b

: y w

w

O

w

b x,

w : W

w , w

? M wy

x wy

; x, w

x w b

B by

(F y b,

K 8)

M y, y

b

w yy y

I

, b b w

b j (I

Bz, x, w b y

y

) I , b b y

, y y

y

(F

, K 8)

O, y

y w b

, y wy

x, , wy

w x

I y (S

8), w y w

w w

1, y bw

/14

y

A

wy w b, b

w y (B 3),

b b- w

w w

b

Unexpected Short-Term Economic Responses: M

US y (

USDA F A Py

R I (FAPRI), w

yy by ),

j US w y

yb U S yb x Bz I 7,

US yb w wy w, y 8,

14 S b - S (8b) b y L A, yb, y Bz C

The best potentia

additional cropla

for the world

consists mostly o

tropical forests, a

there is good rea

to believe carbon

rich lands will

provide much of

worlds new crop

and pasture to

replace agricultu

lands diverted to

biofuels.


17/30


yb U S b x Mw, yb

Bz y E

b

Py, y z

I , y

: Bz y

x yb b

x yb

Bz B y

b b I U S,

US C C

R P (CRP), w

, by , US by

7 Mw, x

I C w

w

US by y

yb, ,

b

x ,

CRP , y y

Uy,

b wy

b b, b xw b

y b y


18/30

Evaluating Biouels


17

Much of the

case for biofuels

has relied on

the potential

availability of

waste biomass.

Waste and

residual biomass

also has the

advantage that it

is cheap or free.

y b E

y z b

x y

, b

,

b (S 8)

W , y

b y

y

w I UK,

x, G Rw by Rwb

F Ay by x , w, :

A y

,

b, b

w w

by b

w w

(UK RFA 8b) RFA

w j bw

b, b bw

A G Rw , P

b

x b

w b

z w, ,

W w

?

Waste biomass

M b

by w b I

U S, D Ey

b by

b b , y

1 b , w

y US (P 5) Ry w-

b w w

, w b

, w S

w b

b ,

y w (Hwj 5)

I ,

j b

w

W b

S P Uy

Iw S, ,

w

b

US C B

b

Ex

y y b b I

C w U S,

w b b

U b b b b w

y b

Uz w j

F x, b

w y b , w

b y -y y

b ,

w w

w

b b w ,

y yb w

b S-,

b w b b

C , , w

y b , b w

y

Avoiding Competition for Land

3


19/30


Former forests

converted to

grazing provide

perhaps the most

promising set of

lands.

b C y

b ,

ww y y

, b , b

(S 1) K

b w

M w y

b y y

w w

O y By w

U S 3 US

(J 7)

Marginal land

A y

I

w b Rb

Sb B, b -

, w y

Y b, b y

b y

b-w , A

I

, wy w y b y

b? M

y, - b ,

j, w y y

My by

w My I w

yy b w y,

(B 7)

b w b

, b b b

-w wy-

Uy, y y x

O C I

yz b b

y

,

(F 8) I 1 b

by w

1 y b y,

y 7

w y y y,

B w 5

y b y

A

, w b b

b y z b

y, , w y

y w

A

w

G y 35

b , w w w

Y, y y,

y z, w y y

A b y,

b w b y

b y b

My

b Bz C

7, , 44 w

w (K 5)

F z

w b

w, b w z

y y y M

b Bz

b by w y


20/30

Evaluating Biouels


19

On balance

there is probably

potential to mak

meaningful levels

of biofuels from

waste biomass

and residuals, an

probably some

potential to use

marginal lands

that otherwise

would store little

carbon or produc

little food.

y b x b

b, , by

w

z b b O

, Bz

x

Bz x

Az y w Bz

z

b , x y

O b b x b b

y x

x ,

w Bz w L A

P b y

by w

I , y y b

w w

, , y

w

b w w z S b

z y b y

Y b bby

b w b

, bby

w w

b


21/30


Beyond

environmental

concerns, critics

have also raised

a number of

questions about

the costs of

biofuel subsidies.

It takes at least

50 percent of the

energy in biomass

to turn the other

half of that energy

into a liquid fuel.

Financial costs of biomass

By ,

b b

b b A OECD,

b 6 y $11

b, by j y $8 $7

(OECD 8b)

OECD b w w $7

b y 1317

,

w bw w (OECD

8b) M y y b w

(S 8b, Ax A

), b

y, OECD

$6 $17 CO-

(OECDb) x

b x ,

yy $5 $

by (IEA 8b)

by

O

,

b w

y, b

b w

w y b

w

b w

- -

F b,

,

y y, b,

A

, b

, b y

I Ey Ay (IEA)

b b w $65

b , b

b (IEA 8)

, y Bz

w w (OECD 8b)

Alternative uses of biomass

A , IEA

E C J R C

b

y

(IEA 8; D S 8) I

5 y b

y

E y b ,

y By ,

y , y

y

O , b b

y y b

A , b

b y

, b b

15

B y y

wb

I , w

y b b y

w wb w ,

b w y b w

15 T fy z y, , b T fy y S w , b y T y - fy b, , y y U b y fy , b b f

Financial and Efficiency Concerns

4


22/30

Evaluating Biouels


21

A IEA ,b y y b

y Y,

wb y y ,

b y y

w y

I IEA b w y y

y b y

( b by)

(IEA 8b)

b b y wy b b

b x ,

b b y y

wy b b B

y b

y w , y y

b ,

w, y b

y w yy


23/30


D w 8, E U Db

y

1 by

wb y

wby- y b bby

b w j Ey

I Sy A by

US C Db 7, w

36 b b by ,

,

b y w w b:

U S, y y

; E, y

b, by Uy

by w

b y

y by b w F x,

y

b y

E B wy y

w F

w ,

, y

R b, US w

1 36

by 5 (6 16

b )

D

by EP, Db

7 w E

C b , by

F y 5

E C

by 1, b w

y

bj -

w

E

y , w

b :

Hw 1

, y

b, by

?

I , w

? A EU J

R C , x

y 5

E b b,

b

E b (D S 8) O ,

y, b y

Hw ?

I b y b

w x b

bby b

b b w

b b U

xy

b b F w b

b, w b w y

w b

B

x by

The Future of Biofuel Policies

5


24/30

Evaluating Biouels


23

Instead of

subsidizing the

biofuel per se,

an alternative

approach would

subsidize the

production of the

feedstock from

specific degrade

lands.

y 5

Y, b b

w, y

, by, w

, Fw bby

w w b , y

w y ,

w b

, w b A

j y w ,

b y z

w

Hw y y b

?

US E b y

z

y b

y

b

y w

w w y

Ex

w I

b w -

w w

y W b

y b w y w, y w

b y

w

I bz b ,

w bz

I y b

w , w

Sy,

w , y bz y w

S y w w

b O

b ,

by b b

y b y y

wy w y

A by

b

, w b

b y b

w w

b , , by w

w M

b by

b w b- b w wy

w z

w b

w

b b y w w-

b M w w

b

y y

, y w w, ,

w

b B y

j b, -,

y- y ,

w-b y

A w x b

B

b

y

Y

I ,


25/30


I , y b b

y y I

, b

y y by

y w

F b, b y

w

w

b w w

y I 5 1 b

w y w , b y

w w w

b wy

Public policy

should now focus

on showing we

can produce one

billion gallons the

right way.


26/30

Evaluating Biouels


25

References

Abb, PC, H, C, & y, WE (8) WhatsDriving Food Prices F F O

B, I

Ab-Ew, S, () F Futures:

Rethinking UK Strategy Ry I

I A C H L

A N Lby (7) Greenhouse

gases, regulated emissions, and energy use in

transportation (GREET) computer model

A, I

B, JM, O, E, V R, & G, J(7) S Cb S

W D W Ry Kw?Agriculture,

Ecosystems and Environment, 118, 1-5

B, K K S (7) P

Pb A W

I: A Sy M M-

P Geoforum, 38, 176-18

B, M, Mj, H, & Wj, G (8)

The Impact of First Generation Biofuels on

Global Agricultural Production (W P,A E R I (LEI),

W UR) H, N

B (7) Technical Summary in Climate

Change 2007: Mitigation Cb

W G III F A

R I P

C C Cb Uy P:

Mz, B, D, OR, B, PR, D, R &

My, LA (E)

B-C, H, & L, R (8) N-

S-P Cb S: A O-FA Soil Science Society of America

Journal, 72, 63-71

B, J (E) (3) World Agriculture:Toward 2015/30, an FAO Perspective F

A Oz UN R

C, J- & Hb, PG (13) Hw

S A C Y P C

F P?Journal of Agriculture &

Applied Economics, 25, 37-44

D S, G (E), Ew, R, Sz, S,

Nw, F & M, V (8) Biofuels in the

European Context: Facts and Uncertainties J

R C E C

I, Iy

Dxby, JM (5) R G

W P by Cb S

S: O, L

R L, N U, BA Sw & DO H

(E), Climate Change and Global Food Security

(435-45) B R, F: CRC P

E C D G

A R D (7)

The Impact of a Minimum 10% Obligation for

Biofuel use in the EU-27 in 2020 on AgriculturalMarkets (AGRI G-/WM D) B, B

F, J, (8) L C

B Cb Db Science, 319, 135-38

F, C, Cb, JE & Lb, DB (8)

B Ey, S P

R Trends in Ecology & Evolution,23,

65-7

F, G & Sz, L (1) Gb

By P 5 Biomass &

Bioenergy, 20, 15115

Fy, JA, (5) Gb

Science, 309, 57-574


27/30


F A Oz UN (FAO) (8) Soaring Food Prices: Facts,

Perspectives, Impacts and Actions Required R

F A Oz

UN (FAO) (8b) The State of Food and

Agriculture: Biofuels: Prospects, Risks and

Opportunities R

Gbb, HK, (8) Cb Pyb

B Ex: E

C Y y Environmental

Research Lett, 3, 341

Gy, SA & Rb, GP (7) L-

y b

Ecosystems,

10, 58-73

G, A, Ry, JM & P, S (7)

P L U I Gb

B IyJournal of Agriculture & Food

Industrial Organization,5, A

H, W, y, WE & B, DK (8)

Biofuels for All? Understanding the GlobalImpacts of Multinational Mandates C

Gb Ay, P Uy

Hwj, M, A, Fj, B, E, B V,

& b, W (5) P B

Ey O 1, F IPCC SRESS

L-U S Biomass and Bioenergy, 29,

5-57

I Ey A (IEA)

(4) Biofuels for Transport: An International

Perspective P

I Ey A (IEA) (8)

EnergyTechnology Perspectives P

J, R & S, WH (4) Cb

US Cb D Proceedings of the National

Academy of Sciences, 45, 1587-158

J, A, OH, M, & F, A (7) BiofuelBoundaries: Estimating the Medium-Term Supply

Potential of Domestic Biofuels UC By

Sby R C

By, C

K, V, S, , & H, RA

(8) B Cy A:

Ex Science,322, 37-374 : 1116/

35371b

K, H, K, S & D BE () B, L

U C, G G E:

S Ux Vb Environmental

Science & Technology, 43, 61-67

K, KL, D, VH, & S, (8)

B: E L F: Ex

Science, 321,

K, C & R M (5) C

Bz C Conservation Biology 1,

77-713

K, J, E, GE, & B VR

(8) B I Rw: U DBy B C F Iy

Journal of Animal Science, 86, 13-131

K, SA (M, 8) F, L U

C, B [E-L R]

Science, 319, 138-14 : 1116/

1151861

Mz, K M & P Py (183) y

US y: P

RAmer. J. Agr. Econ 65, 558-563

M, D (8)A Note on Rising Food Prices(Py R W P 468)

W B D P G

W, DC


28/30


29/30


UK Rwb F Ay (8b) TheGallagher Review of the Indirect Effects of Biofuel

Production L

U N E S C

Oz (UNESCO) (6) Water a

Shared Responsibility; The United Nations World

Water Development Report 2 P

V, PM, (17) H

b y,

C Ecological Applications, 7, 737-5

V B, J (7) The World Food Situation:New Driving Forces and Required Actions

I F Py R I

W, DC

W, R, (E) (1) Land Use, Land-

use Change and Forestry I

P C C G

W, P (8) F Cy P: Wy

B W H Nw? Choices, 23,

6-1


30/30

Off i c e s

Washington Berlin Bratislava Paris

evaluating biofuels: the consequences of using land to make fuel

Documents