Biofuel is in the news again. The renewable energy can’t escape the attention of Iowans, particularly ISU students now that Iowa State has partnered with ConocoPhillips to invest in eight years of biofuels research. Biofuel is a subject we often hear about.

Just in case you are not familiar with the story, I will summarize it quickly for you.

Biofuel is considered not only a promising renewable energy source but also a viable option for mitigating emissions of CO2, the primary greenhouse gas. According to a recent study, ethanol from corn grain yields 25 percent more energy than the energy invested in its production, and biodiesel from soybeans yields 93 percent more. Also, relative to the fossil fuels they displace, greenhouse gas emissions are reduced 12 percent by the production and combustion of ethanol and 41 percent by biodiesel. That is, we are expecting to obtain a new energy source that replaces fossil fuel and prevents global warming and climate change at the same time. From the government to the private sector, from the CEOs of major oil companies to our neighborhood farmers and from scientific journals to city newspapers, all are looking to biofuel as the answer.

However, the recent rush to endorse biofuel as the answer to both energy and environmental problems has brought three important questions, which should not be overlooked, to my mind.

First, is it really true that biofuel is an energy source that can both replace fossil fuel and protect our environment at the same time?

I have found there are increasing and diverse concerns about the negative effects on the environment resulting from the production of both biofuel feedstock and ethanol. Increased corn and soybean acreage, and the subsequent increased use of nitrogen fertilizer for high production of biofuel feedstock, can increase surface water pollution. Also, removal of crop residues for ethanol or other uses would exacerbate risks of soil degradation by erosion and other processes – e.g. nutrient depletion, structural decline. As the pressure to maximize corn and soybean acreage increases, land once held under the conservation program to keep environmentally sensitive land out of production may be converted to biofuel feedstock production, and this land will be more likely to sustain the risks just outlined.

If all that weren’t enough, the ethanol production process requires considerable water consumption – around four gallons per gallon of ethanol produced, and the impact on water supplies may become a very critical issue. In addition to the direct effects on soil and water, a number of crops being considered for biofuels could damage the environment are invasive species which possess characteristics such as rapid growth, low pest incidence, and efficient water utilization. I think none of these issues is ignorable, and certainly, we don’t want to solve our energy problem at the expense of creating additional problems new threats to our environment.

Second, is it appropriate to focus exclusively on biofuel for creating a viable alternative energy source?

I have found there are two facts we must not ignore in this situation. First, biofuel can only provide 12 percent of gasoline demand and 6 percent of the diesel demand, even if we convert all our crop fields to produce it, notwithstanding that it might cause scarcity in food supplies and detrimental environmental effects. Second, there are other available alternative energy sources which have been improved to practical stages or are being actively used, such as solar, wind, wave, tidal and geothermal energy.

How can we supply the other 80 percent of our energy needs if we just look to biofuel while ignoring other alternative energy sources which could potentially cover some of the energy deficit? It seems we may wind up depending on other countries to supply us with sufficient biofuel feedstock.

I am afraid the following imagined scene will come true: Several decades from now, the U.S. president in his/her State of the Union address says “America is addicted to biofuel, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world.” Sound familiar?

Third, aren’t we looking to biofuel as an excuse to keep our old habits, our addiction to high energy consumption and an unsustainable and nonenvironmentally friendly lifestyle?

In a television documentary regarding the oil crisis featured by CNN, an engineer of a major vehicle company in the United States mentioned the following: “The automotive engineers have done a great job of making the engine more efficient, but all of that efficiency improvement was used to make the vehicles bigger and more powerful. In fact, today’s vehicles, on average, have the same fuel economy as 20 years ago.”

We are driving bigger vehicles using the improved fuel efficiency, while consuming excessive gasoline, which, in turn, contributes to global warming and air pollution. Let’s switch the word “engine efficiency” to “biofuel” and read a similar statement: “Science and technology has done a great job of making an alternative energy source – biofuel – but the availability of biofuel has been used to make vehicles bigger and more powerful.”

Isn’t that interesting? Whether we obtain energy from oil, biofuel, or other alternative energy sources, will it be possible to halt the energy crisis and climate change if we want to pursue our endless desire to drive bigger cars, live in bigger houses and buy more items?

Concentration on biofuel as the solution to our energy and environment problems fails to address the other important part of these problems, namely, consumption. I believe successful biofuel production cannot excuse our proud record that the United States is ranked first in greenhouse gas emissions per person, as well as per country/region.

I know we all hear the chorus: Biofuel is a promising alternative energy source that can save our earth. However, whenever we hear the word “biofuel,” we should keep these three important questions in mind before being so eager to devote all of our energy, so to speak, into developing this renewable energy. If not, we’ll be no better off than where we started.

Dong-Gill Kim is a graduate student in natural resource ecology and management from Seoul, South Korea.