Jason Hill et al., Climate change and health costs of air emissions from biofuels and gasoline

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 106, No. 6, 2077–2082, February 10, 2009; doi: 10.1073/pnas.0812835106

Climate change and health costs of air emissions from biofuels and gasoline

1. Jason Hill^a,^b,¹,
2. Stephen Polasky^a,^b,
3. Erik Nelson^c,
4. David Tilman^b,¹,
5. Hong Huo^d,
6. Lindsay Ludwig^e,
7. James Neumann^e,
8. Haochi Zheng^a and
9. Diego Bonta^a

1. ^aDepartment of Applied Economics,
2. ^bDepartment of Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108;
3. ^cDepartment of Biology and Natural Capital Project, Woods Institute for the Environment, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305;
4. ^dArgonne National Laboratory, Argonne, IL 60439; and
5. ^eIndustrial Economics, Cambridge, MA 02140

1. Contributed by David Tilman, December 16, 2008 (sent for review August 14, 2008)

Abstract

Environmental impacts of energy use can impose large costs on society. We quantify and monetize the life-cycle climate-change and health effects of greenhouse gas (GHG) and fine particulate matter (PM_2.5) emissions from gasoline, corn ethanol, and cellulosic ethanol. For each billion ethanol-equivalent gallons of fuel produced and combusted in the US, the combined climate-change and health costs are $469 million for gasoline, $472–$952 million for corn ethanol depending on biorefinery heat source (natural gas, corn stover, or coal) and technology, but only $123–$208 million for cellulosic ethanol depending on feedstock (prairie biomass, Miscanthus, corn stover, or switchgrass). Moreover, a geographically explicit life-cycle analysis that tracks PM_2.5 emissions and exposure relative to U.S. population shows regional shifts in health costs dependent on fuel production systems. Because cellulosic ethanol can offer health benefits from PM_2.5 reduction that are of comparable importance to its climate-change benefits from GHG reduction, a shift from gasoline to cellulosic ethanol has greater advantages than previously recognized. These advantages are critically dependent on the source of land used to produce biomass for biofuels, on the magnitude of any indirect land use that may result, and on other as yet unmeasured environmental impacts of biofuels.

Link to abstract: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/02/02/0812835106.abstract?etoc

• ¹To whom correspondence may be addressed at: Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior, University of Minnesota, 1987 Upper Buford Circle, St. Paul, MN 55108. E-mail: hill0408@umn.edu or tilman@umn.edu

• Author contributions: J.H., S.P., E.N., and D.T. designed research; J.H., S.P., E.N., H.H., L.L., J.N., H.Z., and D.B. performed research; J.H., S.P., E.N., and D.T. analyzed data; and J.H., S.P., E.N., D.T., and J.N. wrote the paper.

• The authors declare no conflict of interest.

• Freely available online through the PNAS option.

• © 2009 by The National Academy of Sciences of the USA

Link to full, open-access article: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/02/02/0812835106.full.pdf+html