The biofuels production race is on, but new research might slow the alternative fuel momentum. A new study by The Nature Conservancy and the University of Minnesota finds that converting land for biofuel crops results in major carbon emissions, actually worsening the problem of global warming instead of mitigating it. The first-of-its-kind study will be published in Science later this month.

This research examines the conversion of land for biofuels and asks the question, “Is it worth it?” Does the carbon you lose by converting forests, grasslands and peatlands outweigh the carbon you save by using biofuels instead of fossil fuels?

“Surprisingly, the answer is no,” said lead author Joe Fargione, a scientist for The Nature Conservancy. “These natural areas store a lot of carbon, so converting them to croplands results in tons of carbon emitted into the atmosphere.”

The Pros and Cons of Biofuels

When scientists analyzed all the benefits of using biofuels as alternatives to oil, they also found that the benefits fall far short of the carbon losses. It’s what they call “the carbon debt.” If you’re trying to mitigate global warming, Fargione said, it simply does not make sense to convert land for biofuels production.

According to research, the conversion of peatlands for palm-oil plantations in Indonesia resulted in the greatest carbon losses, or debt, followed by the production of soy in the Amazon.

“All the biofuels we use now cause habitat destruction, either directly or indirectly,” Fargione noted. “Global agriculture is already producing food for 6 billion people. Producing food-based biofuel, too, will require that still more land be converted to agriculture.”

The Impact on Rain Forests

These findings coincide with observations that increased demand for ethanol corn crops in the United States is likely contributing to conversion of the Brazilian Amazon and Cerrado (tropical savanna). American farmers traditionally rotated corn crops…