Biofuels’ Big Problem: Land, Emissions, and Limits on Truly “Green” Supply

The main problem with biofuels is that many of them aren’t truly low‑carbon once land-use change and full life-cycle impacts are counted: converting forests or grasslands, competing with food production, and using fertilizer and water can make some biofuels as bad as—or worse than—fossil fuels. Put simply, sustainable biomass is limited, and scaling the wrong feedstocks drives higher emissions and ecological harm. This article explains where biofuels help, where they backfire, and how policy is evolving to steer the market toward better options.

Why “green” biofuels often aren’t

Biofuels are made from biological material—corn, sugarcane, palm oil, used cooking oil, agricultural residues, even municipal waste. In theory, the CO2 released when biofuels are burned is reabsorbed by the next crop cycle. In practice, two constraints dominate: the land needed to grow energy crops and the full life-cycle emissions—including deforestation, soil carbon losses, fertilizer-related nitrous oxide (a potent greenhouse gas), and fossil energy used across the supply chain. These factors can erase or reverse the intended climate benefits.

How biofuels can increase emissions

The following points explain common channels through which certain biofuels end up with high or even net-negative climate outcomes compared with fossil fuels.

• Indirect land-use change (ILUC): When cropland shifts from food to fuel, food production can move into forests or peatlands, causing large carbon releases. Clearing or draining high-carbon ecosystems can take decades to centuries to “repay.”
• Fertilizer and nitrous oxide: Crop-based biofuels rely on nitrogen fertilizer, which emits nitrous oxide with a global warming potential roughly 273 times that of CO2 over 100 years (IPCC AR6).
• Process energy and transport: If refineries run on coal or natural gas and supply chains are long, the added emissions reduce climate benefits.
• Peat and palm risk: Palm oil biodiesel linked to peat drainage or deforestation can carry life-cycle emissions several times higher than fossil diesel; the European Union now labels such pathways “high ILUC-risk.”

Taken together, these pathways show why headline “tailpipe” reductions can be misleading unless the entire fuel life cycle and land impacts are rigorously counted.

Beyond carbon: food, water, air, and biodiversity

While climate is central, biofuels also reshape food systems, water use, local air quality, and ecosystems. These co-impacts are often what communities experience first.

Here are the most frequently cited non-climate drawbacks of scaling the wrong biofuels.

• Food and feed price pressure: Diverting corn, soy, or vegetable oils to fuel tightens global markets, contributing to price spikes and volatility that hit low-income consumers hardest.
• Water demand: Irrigated bioenergy crops can strain freshwater; processing plants also require substantial water for cooling and fermentation.
• Biodiversity loss: Monoculture energy crops replace diverse habitats; expansion into savannas or wetlands fragments ecosystems.
• Air pollution trade-offs: Biodiesel can lower particulates but sometimes raises NOx; ethanol blends can alter evaporative emissions depending on vehicle and blend.
• Land rights and social impacts: Large-scale plantations can displace communities or alter land tenure, especially where governance is weak.

These impacts underscore that “renewable” does not automatically mean “sustainable”—the source and context matter as much as the fuel type.

Not all biofuels are equal

There is a critical distinction between first-generation fuels made from food crops and advanced fuels derived from wastes, residues, or dedicated non-food feedstocks. The former often face land and food competition; the latter can deliver genuine climate benefits when sourced and managed carefully.

Where biofuels can help

The following use-cases tend to offer better climate performance and fewer trade-offs, provided safeguards are in place.

• Waste oils and fats (e.g., used cooking oil, tallow): Typically low life-cycle carbon intensity but limited in supply and vulnerable to fraud if tracing is weak.
• Agricultural and forestry residues (e.g., corn stover, sawdust): Avoids dedicated land use, though excessive removal can harm soils unless managed conservatively.
• Biogas/biomethane from manure or organic waste: Capturing methane that would otherwise escape delivers large near-term climate benefits.
• Advanced cellulosic fuels from non-food crops or residues: Promising pathways include cellulosic ethanol and Fischer–Tropsch fuels, still scaling and cost-sensitive.
• Sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) from residues or waste lipids: Best applied to hard-to-electrify sectors like aviation; truly sustainable feedstocks are scarce.

Focusing on these pathways aligns biofuels with sectors that lack easy electrification options and leverages materials that would otherwise emit or be underutilized.

Policy is shifting toward quality over quantity

Governments are tightening sustainability rules to favor better feedstocks and more rigorous accounting. The trajectory is toward capping high ILUC-risk fuels and rewarding advanced, traceable pathways.

Key policy developments illustrate this pivot.

1. European Union: Under the updated Renewable Energy Directive (RED III), member states must meet transport targets via either a 29% renewable share or a 14.5% GHG-intensity cut by 2030, with a dedicated 5.5% sub-target for advanced biofuels and renewable fuels of non-biological origin (with at least 1% from the latter). Palm oil biodiesel is classified high ILUC-risk and is being phased out by 2030, with strengthened sustainability criteria and traceability.
2. United States: The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) sets 2023–2025 volumes but continues to lag on cellulosic scale-up; states like California are tightening Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) carbon-intensity benchmarks. New federal tax credits (e.g., 45Z for clean fuels and SAF credits) hinge on life-cycle carbon intensity, pushing producers toward lower-emission pathways.
3. Global aviation: ICAO’s CORSIA relies on life-cycle accounting and restricts high ILUC-risk feedstocks for SAF, nudging airlines toward waste/residue routes.
4. Verification and fraud prevention: Regulators are expanding chain-of-custody audits and digital tracing to curb mislabeling of virgin oils as “waste,” a growing concern as lipid demand rises.

These policy shifts don’t eliminate risks, but they increasingly reward the right feedstocks and penalize high-impact ones, aligning markets with climate goals.

How to minimize harm and maximize benefits

Choices by policymakers, investors, and fleets can reduce the core problem—land and emissions—by prioritizing the best uses and tightening standards.

The following steps are widely recommended to keep biofuels within ecological limits.

• Cap or phase down food-based biofuels and ban high ILUC-risk pathways; prioritize wastes, residues, and true cellulosic feedstocks.
• Use robust life-cycle accounting that includes ILUC, peat, soil carbon, and nitrous oxide, with conservative default values and independent verification.
• Protect high-carbon and high-biodiversity lands; apply strong land-rights safeguards and free, prior, and informed consent.
• Target hard-to-electrify sectors (aviation, shipping) rather than light-duty road transport, which is efficiently served by electrification.
• Pair biofuels with efficiency: better aircraft, ships, and logistics reduce the fuel volumes required, easing pressure on limited sustainable feedstocks.

By combining tighter rules with strategic deployment, biofuels can play a smaller but more effective role in a broader decarbonization portfolio.

The bottom line

Biofuels are not inherently good or bad; their impact depends on what they’re made from, where, and how. The central problem is scarce sustainable biomass and the heavy climate and ecological costs of land expansion for energy crops. As policies evolve to reflect full life-cycle emissions and ILUC, the case for biofuels narrows to waste- and residue-based pathways and to sectors that lack viable electric alternatives.

Summary

The main problem with biofuels is land: when energy crops displace forests, grasslands, or food production, the resulting indirect land-use change, fertilizer use, and supply-chain energy can erase climate benefits and amplify ecological harm. The solution is not abandoning biofuels altogether but tightening sustainability rules, capping crop-based fuels, prioritizing wastes and residues, verifying supply chains, and reserving limited sustainable volumes for hard-to-electrify sectors like aviation and shipping.

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 is biofuel not popular?

Among other things, some energy crops compete with food crops for land, creating problems like higher food prices and deforestation. In addition, the costs of converting some energy crops, as well as retrofitting cars and power plants to run on biofuel, can be pricey [source: Brune].