Life Cycles and Loopholes

Plant-based fuels (or “biofuels”) are an increasingly touted
climate solution, on the basis that they emit fewer greenhouse gases
(GHGs) compared to fossil fuels. But do they? Biofuel emissions are
currently undercounted in many climate policies which ignore the
GHGs generated to produce them. In this Article, we aim to better
understand how to address biofuel GHG accounting shortfalls at the
subnational level. We focus on California, a state which used to
account for certain biofuel GHGs but then excluded them. What
factors influenced this decision? We answer the question by
conducting research that includes interviews with stakeholders in
biofuels emissions accounting to make sense of what might have
played a role in the policy shift. We aim to understand how
stakeholders on the ground viewed California’s decision, since it could
provide useful findings about how rent-seeking works and about how
GHG accounting is politicized. Our results suggest that while most
practitioners agree that a life cycle analysis approach is the best
practice to account for GHG emissions from biofuels, they disagree as
to the system boundaries of this approach. Moreover, we develop a
typology of biofuel GHG accounting perspectives where we suggest
that policy decisions are determined by (1) whether actors think
current biofuel GHG accounting approaches are accurate, and (2)
whether actors think they matter for climate mitigation. This typology
may inform how to better approach GHG accounting issues in policy
and legal realms, and in California and beyond. Different perceptions
of biofuel emissions accounting impact climate policies, and there are
ways to address those deficiencies. Incorporating an understanding of
the typologies of biofuel GHG accounting is important to help ensure
successful climate mitigation.