Theme of the texts in this unit: Biofuels

Learning Objective
Using the AWL Highlighter and the Collins WordbanksOnline English corpus sampler, you will explore ways to prioritize your language learning for academic purposes.

Text 1

An environmental issue connected to use of biofuels is the impact of biofuel production on land use. In terms of beneficial effects, one argument is that some biofuel crops, such as Switchgrass, bring about improvement to the land used for growing crops in increasing soil carbon and serving as a good habitat for wildlife [2]. However, there are opposing arguments that  prior reports were biased and failed to take into account how the demand for biofuels has indirectly caused land use changes, especially in developing countries. For instance, a comprehensive study by Searchinger showed that the demand for biofuels in the West leads to widespread destruction of habitats [3]. It cited the example of how global prices of vegetable oil have increased with the demand for biofuels and farmers in developing countries, drawn by considerable profits from higher prices, have cleared large areas of land to grow crops for biofuel production as well as production of edible vegetable oil. Similarly, a study by Fargione explained how increased cultivation of corn in the U.S. for biofuel production resulted in Brazil becoming a larger producer of the world’s soybeans for food and this involved the deforestation of the Amazon [3]. When we examine these examples and the benefits mentioned above, it is evident that the destruction of habitats arising from biofuel production is far too extensive to justify the production of biofuels based on the possible benefits that biofuel croplands bring.

Another aspect of the controversy surrounding biofuels is its impact on the environment in terms of greenhouse emissions. Advocates of biofuels generally maintain that these alternative fuels are a ‘green’ alternative because the amount of carbon produced when they are burned is offset by the carbon absorbed when the plants were growing. For example, the European Biodiesel Board stated that greenhouse emissions from biodiesel are 50 to 95 percent lower than those from conventional fuels [3]. However, the validity of such benefits has been challenged by contrary figures in more recent reports. In particular, two studies by Searchinger and Fargione concluded that clearing of rainforests and grasslands for biofuel production increases greenhouse emissions significantly. According to Fargione, “clearance of grassland releases 93 times the amount of greenhouse gas that would be saved by the fuel made annually on that land” [3].  Furthermore, as highlighted by Searchinger, biofuel croplands absorb far less carbon than the rainforests or grasslands they replaced [3]. He also stressed that biofuel production involves other activities which release greenhouse gases – plowing of the land, the refining process and transport. In the light of Searchinger’s and Fargione’s arguments, it becomes apparent that biofuels are not as environmentally beneficial as they have been made out to be.

Another criticism raised against biofeuls is that increasing biofuel production would reduce the supply of food worldwide and increase food prices. For instance, the International Food Policy Research Institute asserted that world food production is barely adequate and it is not possible to grow enough crops to meet the demand for food and biofuels simultaneously [1]. However, recent research on cellulosic biofuels such as cellulosic ethanol provides a rational counter-argument. These biofuels made from cellulose, which are the indigestible part of plants, are promising because the earth produces 180 billion tones of cellulose annually [1]. Proponents acknowledge that commercial production of cellulosic ethanol is not profitable currently (as production of cellulose enzymes that convert cellulose into ethanol is costly), but they anticipate that the issue will be resolved in the near future. One potential solution is being explored in an ongoing study by Sticklen and his research team. The team has reported initial success in engineering rice plants with cellulose-degrading enzymes that only break down cellulose in the plant under the right conditions [1].

References
[1] MacKenzie, D. (2008, May 16). ‘Self-digesting’ Biofuel Plants Could Ease Food Crisis. New Scientist
[2] Natural Resources Defense Council (n.d.) Move Over, Gasoline: Here Comes Biofuels.
[3] Rosenthal, E. (2008, Feb 8). Biofuels Deemed a Greenhouse Threat. The New York Times

Text 2

Note: citations (shown in Text 3) have been omitted.
An environmental issue* connected to use of biofuels is the impact of biofuel production on land use. In terms of beneficial effects, one argument is that some biofuel crops, such as Switchgrass, bring about improvement to the land used for growing crops in increasing soil carbon and serving as a good habitat for wildlife. However, there are opposing arguments that prior reports were biased and failed to take into account how the demand for biofuels has indirectly caused land use changes, especially in developing countries. For instance, a comprehensive study by Searchinger showed that the demand for biofuels in the West leads to widespread destruction of habitats. It cited the example of how global prices of vegetable oil have increased with the demand for biofuels and farmers in developing countries, drawn by considerable profits from higher prices, have cleared large areas of land to grow crops for biofuel production as well as production of edible vegetable oil. Similarly, a study by Fargione explained how increased cultivation of corn in the U.S. for biofuel production resulted in Brazil becoming a larger producer of the world's soybeans for food and this involved the deforestation of the Amazon. When we examine these examples and the benefits mentioned above, it is evident that the destruction of habitats arising from biofuel production is far too extensive to justify the production of biofuels based on the possible benefits that biofuel croplands bring.
Another aspect of the controversy surrounding biofuels is its impact on the environment in terms of greenhouse emissions. Advocates of biofuels generally maintain that these alternative fuels are a ‘green’ alternative because the amount of carbon produced when they are burned is offset by the carbon absorbed when the plants were growing. For example, the European Biodiesel Board stated that greenhouse emissions from biodiesel are 50 to 95 percent lower than those from conventional fuels. However, the validity of such benefits has been challenged by contrary figures in more recent reports. In particular, two studies by Searchinger and Fargione concluded that clearing of rainforests and grasslands for biofuel production increases greenhouse emissions significantly. According to Fargione, "clearance of grassland releases 93 times the amount of greenhouse gas that would be saved by the fuel made annually on that land". Furthermore, as highlighted by Searchinger, biofuel croplands absorb far less carbon than the rainforests or grasslands they replaced. He also stressed that biofuel production involves other activities which release greenhouse gases - plowing of the land, the refining process* and transport. In the light of Searchinger's and Fargione's arguments, it becomes apparent that biofuels are not as environmentally beneficial* as they have been made out to be.
Another criticism raised against biofeuls is that increasing biofuel production would reduce the supply of food worldwide and increase food prices. For instance, the International Food Policy Research Institute* asserted that world food production is barely adequate and it is not possible to grow enough crops to meet the demand for food and biofuels simultaneously. However, recent research on cellulosic biofuels such as cellulosic ethanol provides a rational counter-argument. These biofuels made from cellulose, which are the indigestible part of plants, are promising because the earth produces 180 billion tones of cellulose annually. Proponents acknowledge that commercial production of cellulosic ethanol is not profitable currently (as production of cellulose enzymes that convert cellulose into ethanol is costly), but they anticipate that the issue will be resolved in the near future. One potential solution is being explored in an ongoing study by Sticklen and his research team*. The team has reported initial success in engineering rice plants with cellulose-degrading enzymes that only break down cellulose in the plant under the right conditions.