Envisioning and Implementing Sustainable Bioenergy Systems in the U.S. South

Part of the World Sustainability Series book series (WSUSE)


Recent promotion and development of wood-based bioenergy in the U.S. South have targeted cellulosic liquid fuels for the transportation sector and wood pellets for power generation. Bioenergy development has promised to meet multiple sustainability goals including renewable energy, energy independence, new markets for wood, and rural development. On the other hand, it has garnered opposition from environmental groups for threatening forests and air quality and from conservatives who object to government subsidies and doubt climate science. A team of anthropologists undertook research on narratives, interests, and behaviors of various bioenergy stakeholders. We conducted multi-sited and cross-scale ethnographic research around emerging bioenergy facilities and at extension events, workshops, and conferences attended by landowners, managers, bioenergy industry representatives, and scientists. We also analyzed written materials from websites, news articles, and policy statements. We use the concept of imaginaries to analyze of the promotion of wood-based bioenergy as a new sustainable energy system, while noting the ways the dominant bioenergy imaginary excluded some sustainability goals and voices. As a result, counter-narratives emerged, success was limited, and landowners and communities received few of the expected benefits. This case provides important lessons for envisioning and implementing new sustainability technologies.



We gratefully acknowledge funding from Southern Research Station, USDA Forest Service (Agreement 11-JV-11330144-024) and USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture - Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (NIFA-AFRI) Sustainable Bioenergy Challenge Area (USDA-NIFA Award No. 2012-67009-19711) that supported this research.


  1. 25x’25 (2010) 25x’25 Meeting the goal: A progress report.
  2. Aguilar, F. X. (2014). Wood energy in the EU and US: Assessment and outlook to 2030. In F. X. Aguilar (Ed.), Wood energy in developed economies: Resource management, economics, and policy (pp. 306–327). London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  3. Bliss, J. C., & Bailey, C. (2005). Pulp, paper, and poverty: Forest-based rural development in Alabama, 1950–2000. In R. G. Field & D. R. Field (Eds.), Communities and forests: Where people meet the land (pp. 138–158). Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bracmort, K. (2015). The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS): Cellulosic Biofuels. Report 7-5700. Congressional Research Service, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  5. Brosius, J. P., & Campbell, L. M. (2010). Introduction: Collaborative event ethnography: Conservation and development trade-offs at the fourth world conservation congress. Conservation and Society, 8(4), 245–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown, T. (2016). Sustainability as empty signifier: Its rise, fall and radical potential. Antipode, 48(1), 115–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brown, R. C., & Brown, T. R. (2012). Why are we producing biofuels? Shifting to the ultimate source of energy. Ames IA.: Brownia.Google Scholar
  8. Bryce, R. (2008). A gusher of lies: The dangerous delusions of energy independence. New York: Public Affairs.Google Scholar
  9. Bullard, R. D. (2011). Dismantling energy apartheid in the United States. Dissident voice, Accessed 7 December 2011.
  10. Butler, BJ. (2008). Family Forest Owners of the United States, 2006. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-27. Northern Research Station, USDA Forest Service, Newtown Square, PA.Google Scholar
  11. Cardwell, D. (2012). Military spending on biofuels draws fire. New York Times. August 27, 2012.Google Scholar
  12. Chapman, D. (2012). Warnings ignored in Range fuels debacle. Atlanta Journal-Constitution. September 2, 2012.Google Scholar
  13. Dwivedi, P., & Alavalapati, J. R. R. (2009). Stakeholders’ perceptions on forest biomass-based bioenergy development in the southern U.S. Energy Policy, 37, 1999–2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Eaton, W. M., Gasteyer, S. P., & Busch, L. (2014). Bioenergy futures: Framing sociotechnical imaginaries in local places. Rural Sociology, 79, 227–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Elkington, J. (1999). Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21 st century business. North Mankato, MN: Capstone Publishing.Google Scholar
  16. Falzon, M. A. (2009). Multi-sited Ethnography: Theory, Praxis and Locality in Contemporary Research. Farnham: Ashegate.Google Scholar
  17. Hitchner, S., Schelhas, J., & Brosius, J. P. (2016). Snake oil, silver buckshot, and people who hate us: Metaphors and conventional discourses of wood-based bioenergy in the rural southeastern U.S. Human Organization, 73, 204–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hitchner, S., Schelhas, J., & Brosius. J. P. (2017). “Even our Dairy Queen shut down”: Risk and resiliency in bioenergy development in forest-dependent communities in the U.S. South. Economic Anthropology‚ 16, 395–417.Google Scholar
  19. Hitchner, S., Schelhas, J., Hujala, T., & Brosius, J. P. (2014). Public opinion on wood-based bioenergy. In F. X. Aguilar (Ed.), Wood energy in developed economies: Resource management, economics, and policy (pp. 32–74). London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  20. Lantiainen, S. M., Song, N., & Aguilar, F. X. (2014). Public policy promoting wood energy in the EU and US. In F. X. Aguilar (Ed.), Wood energy in developed economies: Resource management, economics, and policy (pp. 189–222). Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Lassiter, L. E. (2005). Collaborative ethnography and public anthropology. Current Anthropology, 46, 83–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Marcus, G. E. (1995). The emergence of multi-sited ethnography. Annual Review of Anthropology, 24, 95–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mayfield, C. A., Foster, C. D., Smith, C., Gan, J., & Fox, S. (2007). Opportunities, barriers, and strategies for forest bioenergy and bio-based product development in the Southern United States. Biomass and Bioenergy, 31, 631–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. McBride, A. (2011). Biomass energy sustainability. Biomass energy data book. U.S. department of energy: Oak Ridge, TN.Google Scholar
  25. McGuire, B. (2012). Assessment of the bioenergy provisions in the 2008 Farm Bill. Washington, DC: Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies.Google Scholar
  26. McCormick, K., & Kautto, N. (2013). The bioeconomy in Europe: An overview. Sustainability, 5, 2589–2608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Perlack, R. D., Wright, L. L., Turhollow, A. F., Graham, R. L., Stokes, B. J., & Erbach, D. C. (2005). Biomass as a feedstock for a bioenergy and bioproducts industry: The technical feasibility of a billion-ton annual supply. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN: US Department of energy and U.S. Department of Agriculture.Google Scholar
  28. Phillips, A. (2015). American companies are shipping millions of trees to Europe, and it’s a renewable energy nightmare. Climate Progress Accessed September 9, 2016.
  29. Quaranda, S. (no date). Don’t log the forests for the fuel: A position paper on the potential environmental and economic impacts of the cellulosic ethanol industry in the southern United States. Dogwood Alliance, Asheville, NC.Google Scholar
  30. Quinn, N. (2005). Finding culture in talk: A collection of methods. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rudel, T. K. (2001). Did a green revolution restore the forests of the American South? In: Angelsen A, Kaimowitz. D (Eds.) Agricultural technologies and tropical deforestation. CABI, Wallingford. pp 53–68.Google Scholar
  32. Schelhas, J., Hitchner, S., & Brosius, J. P. (2014). “What’s climate got to do with it?” perceptions of bioenergy and climate change in the rural U.S. South. Paper presented at the panel on “engaging ‘wicked’ problems: producing knowledge of the anthropocene at the nexus of climate, consumption, and energy.” American Anthropological Association Annual Meeting, Washington, DC. December 2–7, 2014.Google Scholar
  33. Schlossberg, J. (2013). Biomass industry reveals plans to turn U.S. into European resource colony. The Biomass Monitor. August 4, 2013.Google Scholar
  34. Strauss, C. (2006). The imaginary. Anthropological Theory, 6, 322–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Strauss, C. (2012). Making sense of public opinion: American discourses about immigration and social programs. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. US DOE, (2006). Breaking the biological barriers to cellulosic ethanol: A joint research agenda. Report from the December 2005 Workshop, DOE/SC-0095. U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science. (
  37. US DOE, (2011). U.S. Billion-ton update: Biomass supply for a bioenergy and bioproducts industry. R. D. Perlack, B. J. Stokes (Leads). ORNL/TM-2011/224. Oak Ridge National laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN.Google Scholar
  38. USDOE (2016) 2016 Billion-ton report: Advancing domestic resources for a thriving bioeconomy, Volume 1: Economic availability of feedstocks. M. H. Langholtz, B. J. Stokes, L. M. Eaton (leads). ORNL/TM-2016/160. Oak Ridge National laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN.Google Scholar
  39. Wear, D., Abt, R., Alavalapati, J., Comatas, G., Countess, M., & McDow, W. (2010). The South’s outlook for sustainable forest bioenergy and biofuels production.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • John Schelhas
    • 1
  • Sarah Hitchner
    • 2
  • J. Peter Brosius
    • 3
  1. 1.Southern Research StationUSDA Forest ServiceAthensUSA
  2. 2.Center for Integrative Conservation ResearchUniversity of GeorgiaAthensUSA
  3. 3.Department of AnthropologyUniversity of GeorgiaAthensUSA

Personalised recommendations