Land Use and Greenhouse Gas Implications of Biofuels: Role of Technology and Policy

  • Xiaoguang Chen
  • Madhu KhannaEmail author
Part of the Natural Resource Management and Policy book series (NRMP, volume 40)


This paper examines the changes in land use in the U.S. likely to be induced by biofuel and climate policies and the implications of these policies for GHG emissions over the 2007–2030 period. The policies considered here include a modified Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) by itself as well as combined with a cellulosic biofuel tax credit, a carbon price policy, or a low carbon fuel standard (LCFS). We use a dynamic, spatial, multi-market equilibrium model, biofuel and environmental policy analysis model (BEPAM), to trace the impacts of alternative biofuel policies on the mix of biofuel feedstocks, crop prices, land use pattern, and GHG emissions. We endogenously determine the effects of these policies on cropland allocation, food and fuel prices, and the mix of first- and second-generation biofuels. We find that the RFS could be met by diverting 5% of cropland for biofuel production and would result in corn prices increasing by 31% in 2030 relative to the business-as-usual baseline. The reduction in GHG emissions in the U.S. due to the RFS is about 4%; these domestic GHG savings can be severely eroded by emissions due to indirect land use changes and the increase in gasoline consumption in the rest of the world. Supplementing the RFS with a carbon price policy, a cellulosic biofuel tax credit, or a LCFS induces a switch away from corn ethanol to cellulosic biofuels and achieves the mandated level of biofuel production with a smaller adverse impact on crop prices. These supplementary policies enhance the GHG savings achieved by the RFS alone, although through different mechanisms; greater production of cellulosic biofuels with the tax credit and the LCFS but larger reduction in fossil fuel consumption with a carbon tax.


Renewable fuel standard Low carbon fuel standard Carbon tax Cellulosic biofuel Food versus fuel 



Authorship is alphabetical. Funding from the Energy Biosciences Institute, University of California, Berkeley, the ESC Project and NSF is gratefully acknowledged.


  1. Adler, P.R., S.J.D. Grosso, and W.J. Parton. 2007. Life-cycle assessment of net greenhouse-gas flux for bioenergy cropping systems. Ecological Applications 17 (3): 675–691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson-Teixeira, K.J., S.C. Davis, M.D. Masters, and E.H. Delucia. 2009. Changes in soil organic carbon under biofuel crops. Global Change Biology Bioenergy 1 (1): 75–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beach, R.H., and B.A. McCarl. 2010. U.S. Agricultural and Forestry Impacts of the Energy Independence and Security Act: FASOM Results and Model Description.” RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. Final Report Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. Document available online at:$File/FASOM+Report_EISA_FR.pdf.
  4. CARB. “Proposed Regulation to Implement the Low Carbon Fuel Standard Volume I.” California Environmental Protection Agency Air Resouces Board:
  5. Chakravorty, U., and M. Hubert. 2013. Global impacts of US and EU biofuels mandate and carbon taxex. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 95 (2): 282–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chen, X., H. Huang, and M. Khanna. 2012. Land-use and greenhouse gas implications of biofuels: Role of technology and policy. Climate Change Economics 03 (03): 1250013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chen, X., H. Huang, M. Khanna, and H. Önal. 2014. Alternative transportation fuel standards: Welfare effects and climate benefits. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management.Google Scholar
  8. Chen, X., H. Huang, M. Khanna, and H. Önal. 2011. “Meeting the Mandate for Biofuels: Implications for Land Use, Food and Fuel Prices” ed. J.Z.A.J. Perloff, University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  9. Davis, S.C., S. W. Diegel, and R. G. Boundy. 2010. Transportation energy data book: Edition 29.” Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN.Google Scholar
  10. Drabhik, D., and H. de Gorter. 2011. Biofuel policies and carbon leakage. AgBioForum 14 (3): 104–110.Google Scholar
  11. EIA. 2010. “Annual Energy Outlook 2010: With Projections to 2035.” U.S. Energy Information Administration, Office of Integrated Analysis and Forecasting, U.S. Department of Energy.Google Scholar
  12. Elobeid, A., Tokgoz, S., Hayes, D.J., Babcock, B.A., and Hart, C.E. (2007). The long-run impact of corn-based ethanol on the grain, oilseed, and livestock sectors with implications for biotech crops.Google Scholar
  13. Environmental Protection Agency. 2010. Renewable Fuel Standard Program (RFS2) Regulatory Impact Analysis. Available at:
  14. Greene, D.L., and N.L. Tishchishyna. 2000. “Costs of oil dependence: A 2000 update.” Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.Google Scholar
  15. Hamelinck, C.N., and A.P.C. Faaij. 2006. Outlook for advanced biofuels. Energy Policy 34 (17): 3268–3283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hamilton, J.D. 2009. Understanding crude oil prices. The Energy Journal 30 (2): 179–2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hertel, T.W., A.A. Golub, A.D. Jones, M. O’Hare, R.J. Plevin, and D.M. Kammen. 2010. Effects of us maize ethanol on global land use and greenhouse gas emissions: Estimating marketmediated responses. BioScience 60 (3): 223–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hochman, G., D. Rajagopal, and D. Zilberman. 2010. The Effect of Biofuels on Crude Oil Market. AgBioForum 13(2).Google Scholar
  19. Huang, H., M. Khanna, H. Önal, and X. Chen. 2013. Stacking low carbon policies on the renewable fuels standard: Economic and greenhouse gas implications. Energy Policy 56: 5–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jain, A., M. Khanna, M. Erickson, and H. Huang. 2010. An integrated bio-geochemical and economic analysis of bioenergy crops in the Midwestern United States. GCB BioEnergy 2 (5): 258–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Khanna, M., X. Chen, H. Huang, and H. Onal. 2011a. Land use and greenhouse gas mitigation effects of biofuel policies. University of Illinois Law Review 549–588.Google Scholar
  22. Khanna, M., and C.L. Crago. 2012. Measuring indirect land use change: Implications for policy. Annual Review of Resource Economics 4 (1): 161–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Khanna, M., C.L. Crago, and M. Black. 2011b. Can biofuels be a solution to climate change? The implications of land use change-related emissions for policy. Interface Focus: The Royal Society Journal 1 (233–247): 2011.Google Scholar
  24. Lee, H., and D.A. Sumner. 2009. “International Trade Patterns and Policy for Ethanol in the United States” ed. M. Khanna, J. Scheffran, and D. Zilberman. New York, Springer, pp. 327–346.Google Scholar
  25. Leiby, P. 2008. “Estimating the energy security benefits of reduced U.S. oil imports: Final report.” Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.Google Scholar
  26. Parry, I.W.H., and K.A. Small. 2005. Does Britain or the United States have the right gasoline tax? American Economic Review 95 (4): 1276–1289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Thompson, W., J. Whistance, and S. Meyer. 2011. Effects of US biofuel policies on US and world petroleum product markets with consequences for greenhouse gas emissions. Energy Policy 39 (9): 5509–5518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Witt, M.D., M. Junginger, S. Lensink, M. Londo, and A. Faaij. 2010. Competition between biofuels: Modeling technological learning and cost reductions over time, biomass and bioenergy, a roadmap for biofuels in Europe. Biomass and Bioenergy 34(2): 203–217.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Research Institute of Economics and ManagementSouthwestern University of Economics and FinanceChengduChina
  2. 2.Department of Agricultural and Consumer EconomicsUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignUrbanaUSA

Personalised recommendations