Upping the Biofuel Game Through Resource Exploitation:

A Worthy Soul-for-a-soul Trade?

Introduction
Technological advancements and industrialization contribute the greatest
percentage in the depletion of fossil fuel deposits and natural resources. Until the late
1990s, this problem has pressed scientific bodies to focus on exploration of alternative
energy sources as means to alleviate the massive 1970 energy crisis. It was then that
biofuels regain the spotlight as a promising alternative to petroleum-based fuels.
Biofuels, since then, has become a low-carbon alternative to fossil fuels as they
could help to minimize greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. However, recent concerns
reveal that their utilization could probe to not only unintended environmental
consequences, but also social and economic problems.
Biofuels
A biofuel, as defined by Trinastic (2015), is any fuel produced through refinement
of organic materials. As such, this includes cellulosic biomass from crop waste or
grasses converted for a variety of uses, vegetable oil and animal fat used for biodiesel
production, and sugarcane and maize for ethanol yield. A major advantage of the
biofuel utilization is its wide choice of start-up materials that ranges from crops, plants,
and waste. Interest in biofuels further increased as strategies to reduce green house
gas (GHG) emissions and development of policies on climate change mitigation came
to motion.
Biofuels are differentiated according to its use, conversion process utilized,
feedstock type, and technical specification (Jeswani et. al, 2020). While a multitude of
possible distinctions pose various definitions for biofuel types, this paper, however, only
categorized biofuels mainly to three major types namely first, second and third
generation biofuels.
Biofuels derived from food or animal feed crops are distinguished as first-
generation biofuels. They are also called conventional biofuels because they are
produced through already established processes like transesterification, distillation and
fermentation. Locally, sugarcane and molasses are used in Philippines for ethanol
production, while coconut oil (CNO) is the favored biodiesel feedstock (Corpuz, 2017).
On the other hand, second-generation biofuels are derived from non-food feedstocks
and energy crops like short rotation coppice, switchgrass, Miscanthus, and other
lignocellulosic plants. They can also be derived from forest residues, agricultural
residues and other waste materials. Lastly, third generation biofuels are derived from
microalgae through conventional hydro-treatment of algal oil or transesterification.
Second and third generation biofuels are also known as advanced biofuels as their
production techniques or pathways are still in the research and development (Jeswani
et. al, 2020).
Modern Concerns and Regulating Bodies
Life cycle assessment (LCA) studies have considered environmental impacts of
biofuels. The review paper of Jeswani et. al (2020) showed significant reductions in
GHG emissions from biofuels, however, at the expense of other environmental impacts,
such as biodiversity loss, eutrophication, acidification, water footprint, photochemical
smog, human toxicity and eco-toxicity. However, the outcomes of compiled LCA studies
are mostly situational and are mostly dependent on technical factors such as production
routes, type of feedstock, methodological choices, and data variations.
Moreover, Jeswani et. al (2020) found out existing relationship of land-use
change (LUC) involvement in biofuel production. LUC is the direct or indirect conversion
of agricultural lands to biofuel crop production. When there is no LUC, first-generation
biofuels have lower GHG emissions than fossil fuels, but the reductions for most
feedstocks are insufficient to meet the GHG savings required by regulating bodies.
Second-generation biofuels on the other hand prove its greater potential to reduce the
emissions, provided that there is no LUC. Lastly, third-generation biofuel is not a
feasible option at present status as their GHG emissions are higher than those from
fossil fuels and needs more development.
In addition to the environmental impacts, Stephenson et. al (2010) also consider
costs of production and competitiveness with fossil fuels in the assessment of
sustainability of biofuels. Moreover food, energy and water security, employment
provision, rural development, and human health impacts (Food and Agriculture, 2013).
Production of biofuels exhibits upward pressure on food prices, trisk of increase in GHG
emissions through indirect and direct land-use change (LUC) from production of biofuel
feedstocks, as well as the risks of degradation of land, forests, water resources and
ecosystems (Richard, 2020).
On this note, more than sixty countries have since launched biofuel programs
and set targets for blending biofuels into their fuel pools in hope to alleviate the
mentioned risks. The most notable among them are the Renewable Energy Directive
(RED) in Europe and the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) in the USA. These
organizations instruct various sustainability criteria for biofuels.
One of the main criteria in assessing biofuels is related to life cycle of GHG
emissions all throughout the process. The RED initiative instructs biofuel to have at
least 65% lower emissions than their fossil fuel alternatives for installations in operation.
RFS, on the other hand, requires standard biofuels to achieve a 20% reduction in GHG
emissions, and producers of advanced biofuels to reduce GHG emissions by at least
50% (REN21, 2019).
 In line with this, the Department of Energy (DoE) of the Philippines has tightened
biofuels accreditation and reporting requirements effective since July of 2021, in a move
aiming to boost transparency of trade and blending ratios in the country (The Philippine
Biodiesel Association, 2021).
Conclusion and Recommendation
With the purpose of examining the viability of biofuels as a green initiative, this
paper has revealed their impacts on environmental sustainability. Outcomes of LCA
studies are highly situational and dependent on many factors, including the type of
feedstock, production routes, data variations and methodological choices.
Environmentally, however, this does not excuse the fact that biofuels have adverse
impacts such as, but not limited to, acidification, eutrophication, water footprint and
biodiversity loss. Agriculturally, misuse of land resources and other agricultural products
is also pervasive. Economically, biofuels influence the restructuring of contemporary
economy by challenging traditionally dominant industries and by modifying the market
supply-demand balance.
Above all these downsides, the gradual decrease in fossil fuel reliance that spells
lesser GHG emissions redeems biofuel exploration to prove beneficial for a sustainable
future. With regards to production systems and policymaking, it is important to take into
account that biofuels do not exist in isolation but are part of much wider systems,
including energy, agriculture and forestry. It is therefore imperative to take an integrated
systems view in developing future policy to ensure that biofuels are not disadvantaged
relative to other sectors.
At a landscape level, analysis and policies based on ecosystem services and
natural capital are needed to make the best overall use of land. As such, this would
mean optimize ecosystem services like carbon storage, biodiversity, reductions of
agricultural run-off and increases in water quality and flood risk management. Moreover,
food production should not be compared and challenged by biofuels. Providing
incentives for biofuel production to achieve economic or political goals ignore
environmental considerations from decision-making. Lastly, complete value chains
rather than single bioenergy products should be analysed together to understand the
interactions across sectors and land uses with the goal of identifying opportunities
where collective benefits can be realized.
Sources
Corpuz, P. (2017). Philippine Biofuels Situation and Outlook. Global Agricultural
Information Network. Retrieved from: https://apps.fas.usda.gov/newgainapi/api/
report/downloadreportbyfilename?filename=Biofuels
%20Annual_Manila_Philippines_10-18-2017.pdf

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). (2013). Biofuels and the sustainability
challenge: a global assessment of sustainability issues, trends and policies for
 biofuels and related feedstocks. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations. Retrieved from: www.cabdirect.org/cabdirect/abstract/ 20133054982
Jeswani, H., Chilvers, A. and Azapagic, A. (2020). Environmental sustainability of
biofuels: a review. National Center for Biotechnology Information.
doi: 10.1098/rspa.2020.0351

Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century (REN21). (2019). Renewables
2019—Global status report. Retrieved from:
https://www.ren21.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/gsr_2019_full_report_en.pdf.

Richard, T. (2021). The case of the United States: reimagining biofuels as if carbon
mattered. Roadmap to 2050: The Land-Water-Energy Nexus of Biofuels. Retrieved
from: https://roadmap2050.report/biofuels/case-studies/#4-4-the-case-of-the-
european-union-the-untapped-potential-of-wastes-and-residues-for-sustainable-
biofuel-production

Stephenson, A., Dupree, P., Scott, S., Dennis, J. (2010). The environmental and
economic sustainability of potential bioethanol from willow in the UK. Bioresour.
Technol. 101. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2010.07.104

The Philippine Biodiesel Association. (2021). Biodiesel. Securing the future of Philippine
Industries. Retrieved from https://industry.gov.ph/industry/biodiesel

Trinastic, J. (2015). The biofuel controversy. Eyes on Environment. Scitable By Nature