The biggest problem with biofuels

The biggest problem with biofuels is land: using food crops or new cropland for fuel can drive deforestation and indirect land‑use change, undermining climate benefits while competing with food production. Put simply, when biofuel demand expands cropland, the carbon released from forests, peatlands, or grasslands—and the loss of future carbon sequestration—can outweigh the tailpipe savings, sometimes for decades.

Why land use is the core issue

Biofuels are made from plant material or organic waste and are often promoted as “renewable” because plants absorb CO2 as they grow. But the climate math hinges on where the biomass comes from and what land would otherwise have done. Converting high‑carbon ecosystems to grow energy crops releases large stores of carbon immediately; even without direct conversion, extra crop demand can push agriculture into new areas elsewhere, a ripple effect known as indirect land‑use change (ILUC). Fertilizer use adds nitrous oxide—a powerful greenhouse gas—and intensive monocultures can degrade soils, biodiversity, and water resources.

How land-driven emissions overwhelm the benefits

The following points outline the main mechanisms by which land dynamics can turn biofuels from a climate solution into a liability.

• Indirect land‑use change (ILUC): Growing corn, soy, or palm for fuel can displace food production and drive expansion into forests or peatlands elsewhere, releasing long‑stored carbon.
• Carbon opportunity cost: Even if no forest is cleared, dedicating land to energy crops can forgo the higher carbon sequestration that natural ecosystems or reforestation could deliver.
• Fertilizer and nitrous oxide: Nitrogen fertilizers used for high yields emit N₂O, with a global warming potential far higher than CO₂, eroding lifecycle gains.
• Water and biodiversity stress: Large‑scale monocultures strain freshwater supplies and reduce habitat complexity, particularly in water‑stressed regions.
• Food‑fuel tensions: Diverting crops to fuel can tighten grain and vegetable‑oil markets, contributing to price spikes and social impacts during supply shocks.

Together, these factors mean some first‑generation, crop‑based biofuels can end up with equal or higher lifecycle emissions than the fossil fuels they replace once land effects are counted.

What the evidence and policymakers say

Assessments by the IPCC and the International Energy Agency conclude that biofuels can reduce emissions in hard‑to‑electrify transport segments, but only when sourced from waste, residues, or truly additional biomass that does not cause land expansion. Policymakers have reacted accordingly. The European Union’s Renewable Energy Directive (RED II and the 2023 update RED III) caps crop‑based biofuels and mandates a phase‑out of high‑ILUC‑risk feedstocks (notably palm oil) by 2030 while raising targets for advanced biofuels made from residues. In the United States, the Renewable Fuel Standard sets lifecycle thresholds for advanced fuels, and recent tax credits for sustainable aviation fuel and clean fuels require verified emissions reductions using accepted models; state programs like California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard include ILUC factors in carbon scoring. The trend is clear: support is shifting toward waste‑ and residue‑based fuels with rigorous accounting for land impacts.

Not all biofuels are equal

“Biofuel” covers a wide range of feedstocks and technologies with very different climate profiles and constraints.

• Crop‑based fuels: Corn ethanol, sugarcane ethanol, and biodiesel from soy, rapeseed, or palm are mature and scalable but carry ILUC, fertilizer, and food‑market risks; palm‑based biodiesel is especially problematic where it drives deforestation or peat draining.
• Waste and residue fuels: Used‑cooking‑oil or tallow biodiesel and fuels from agricultural or forestry residues can deliver strong GHG cuts with low ILUC risk, but supplies are limited and increasingly contested.
• Lignocellulosic/“cellulosic” fuels: Fuels from non‑food grasses or wood promise low land pressure if sourced from residues or marginal lands, yet face cost, logistics, and technology hurdles; dedicated energy crops still raise land‑use questions at scale.
• Biogas/RNG: Capturing methane from manure, landfills, or wastewater can yield large climate benefits if methane leakage is tightly controlled; feedstock availability and monitoring are critical.
• Algae: High theoretical yields without arable land use, but costs and energy inputs remain prohibitive at commercial scale.

The best options today are fuels from genuine wastes and residues, with transparent supply chains and conservative accounting; scaling them sustainably is the challenge.

What would make biofuels part of the solution

To minimize the core land‑use problem while delivering real emissions cuts, experts point to the following priorities.

1. Prioritize wastes and residues: Channel support to fuels from used oils, tallow, municipal solid waste, manure, and forestry or agricultural residues with robust verification.
2. Protect high‑carbon and high‑biodiversity lands: Establish no‑go zones for sourcing and for any indirect expansion; enforce deforestation‑free supply chains.
3. Count all carbon: Use lifecycle assessment that includes ILUC, fertilizer N₂O, and methane leakage, with conservative default values where data are uncertain.
4. Set binding performance standards: Tie eligibility for credits or mandates to demonstrated GHG reductions and traceability, not fuel type alone.
5. Target hard‑to‑electrify uses: Reserve scarce sustainable biofuels for aviation, marine, and some heavy transport rather than light-duty vehicles where electrification is viable.
6. Boost yields and circularity: Improve residue recovery, double‑crop where agronomically appropriate, and valorize co‑products without double counting climate benefits.

These measures do not eliminate trade‑offs, but they meaningfully reduce the land‑use risk and direct scarce sustainable feedstocks to where they matter most.

Bottom line

Biofuels can help decarbonize certain transport segments, but the biggest problem remains land: when fuels rely on expanding or diverting cropland, the resulting land‑use change, carbon opportunity costs, and food‑system impacts can negate climate gains. Policies and markets are increasingly steering toward waste‑ and residue‑based options with strict safeguards. Without those guardrails, scaling crop‑based biofuels risks higher emissions and tighter food markets, precisely the opposite of the intended outcome.

Summary

The central challenge for biofuels is land use and its climate and food repercussions. Crop‑based fuels often falter once ILUC and fertilizer emissions are counted, prompting policy shifts toward waste‑ and residue‑based alternatives and stricter lifecycle accounting. Sustainable biofuels exist—but only when feedstocks, safeguards, and end uses are chosen to avoid expanding cropland and to deliver verifiable, durable emissions reductions.

What is the biggest problem for biofuels?

Biofuel production and use has drawbacks as well, including land and water resource requirements, air and ground water pollution. Depending on the feedstock and production process, biofuels can emit even more GHGs than some fossil fuels on an energy -equivalent basis.

What are five disadvantages of biofuels?

Disadvantages of biofuels

• Impact on drive units.
• Less energy efficiency.
• Increase in food prices.
• Risk to biodiversity.
• Water demand.
• Degradation of natural habitats.
• Technical problems.

Why are biofuels not a good solution right now?

Disadvantages of Biofuels: Biofuels Threaten Public Health
In addition to spewing climate-warming emissions, biofuels also pollute our air. Burning these fuels produces tiny toxic particles, ozone, and nitrogen dioxide.

Why are biofuels not very popular?

In some instances, the manufacturing process of biofuels can end up emitting more greenhouse gases than fossil fuels. Then, there is the question of scalability. Currently, the world churns out about 600 million litres of sustainable aviation fuel – a type of biofuel – each year.