Certainly. Plants convert sunlight into food (stored energy), so transforming that food into fuel seems like it should yield a sustainable biofuel with zero carbon emissions, right? Wrong. In reality, the surge in biofuels is driving up emissions and harming both people and wildlife. Yet, production is ramping up rapidly. What gives?

If you believe biofuels are beneficial, you may be misled by the pervasive greenwashing. Evidence suggests that biofuels generally do more harm than good. A recent report by the campaign group Transport and Environment (T&E) reveals that the shift to biofuels has resulted in a 16% increase in carbon dioxide emissions on average, as compared to sticking with fossil fuels.

Why is this? Because agricultural cultivation is one of the leading sources of greenhouse gases. To be fair, the 16% figure is a global average according to the T&E report. Some regions, like Europe, argue that biofuels marginally reduce emissions overall, but only by a slight amount. We are making substantial sacrifices for minimal emissions reductions, given the numerous adverse effects of biofuels.

For starters, rising food costs are a significant consequence we’re all experiencing. Converting wheat and corn into bioethanol and vegetable oil into biodiesel escalates demand, leading to soaring prices. It’s difficult to quantify, but experts I’ve consulted over the years generally agree this is a major factor in food price inflation.

Moreover, biofuel crops frequently necessitate irrigation, worsening water scarcity in various areas. According to the T&E report, producing enough biofuel for a vehicle to travel just 100 kilometers (62 miles) consumes 3,000 liters of water. In contrast, a solar-powered electric car only requires 20 liters for the same distance.

We also need land. Agricultural land continues to expand globally to accommodate growing populations that are consuming more meat. As biofuel production rises, more land is needed. This often results in deforestation, such as clearing rainforests in Indonesia to establish new palm oil plantations. In essence, biofuels are exacerbating another global crisis: the loss of wildlife and biodiversity.

What’s particularly concerning is the inefficiency of biofuel production. A report from T&E suggests that if solar panels were installed on the same land, the equivalent amount of energy could be generated using just 3% of the space. In other words, solar energy can mitigate emissions with a significantly lower environmental footprint. It appears we can outperform nature when it comes to harnessing the sun’s energy.

In contrast, biofuels contend with all the same pollution problems as traditional agriculture, from pesticides detrimental to humans and wildlife to nutrient runoff that devastates rivers, lakes, and seas. Utilizing non-food biofuel sources like waste could help address some of these challenges. However, by 2030, over 90% of biofuel production is still expected to rely on food crops, according to the T&E report.

So why are numerous countries incentivizing the production of more biofuels than ever? A financial interest in biofuels drives influential lobby groups to advocate for more government support. Simultaneously, some nations and organizations look to meet emissions targets without confronting the inconvenient truths.

For instance, politicians across the American political spectrum have aimed to maintain favor with Corn Belt farmers growing corn for bioethanol. Earlier this year, tax incentives for biofuels were introduced in the U.S. in 2022 and further extended.

Additionally, the shipping and aviation sectors claim they are reducing emissions but view biofuels as a means to maintain their traditional operations. Aviation industry standards for “sustainable aviation fuels” at least consider emissions linked to increased land use and impose limits on biofuels, which are the highest emitters. The shipping industry could be facing even greater repercussions, as it has yet to decide whether to account for land use. The usage of biofuels for maritime purposes alone could double by the 2030s, as warned by the T&E report—this could be catastrophic for all the reasons discussed.

For years, it has been evident that producing biofuels to minimize emissions is counterproductive, and continuing on this path is sheer madness.