Dialogue with Indy Burke,Ph.D.

A discussion with Ingrid (Indy) C. Burke, Ph.D., on the recent report by the National Research Council's Committee on Economic and Environmental Impacts of Increasing Biofuels Production (National Academy of Sciences, 2011).

INDUSTRIAL BIOTECHNOLOGY: It is clear from the reactions from the biofuels industry and from some government leaders that your report rubbed some raw nerves. Why do you think that is so and were those reactions anticipated? How would you characterize the overall reaction to the Renewable Fuel Standards (RFS) report?

INGRID BURKE, PhD: When you publish anything in science, whether in a book or a journal, there will be people who agree and who disagree with the content. This report is not any different. Anyone who would take the time to read the 500-page report would find that we considered a wealth of published information on the environmental and economic effects of increasing biofuel production and that the committee took a balanced approach in discussing the positive and negative economic and environmental impact of achieving our RFS2 consumption mandate. Anyone taking issue with the report has probably taken a very cursory overview of it.

I think the overall reaction has been predictable. When you produce something that is not coming from an advocacy point of view on either side, the individuals on either side of the advocacy standpoint don't see everything they want. I work in the interface between science and stakeholders, and that is what happens when you review all the available information and provide an objective assessment. Some people wanted you to find out something different, whereas other people are very happy with what you found.

IND BIOTECH: Certain elements of the report should come as no surprise to the biofuels and broader industrial biotechnology communities. There is a general agreement that we are off the pace for developing cellulosic biofuels and that we face many technical, economic, and environmental challenges to biofuels development. The disagreement appears to focus on whether these challenges can be met and whether the suggestions and solutions being discussed are realistic. Would you agree with this assessment? Where do you see the major disconnects between the biofuels community and your committee on the feasibility of meeting these challenges?

DR. BURKE: We are, of course, off the pace for producing 16 billion gallons per year of ethanol equivalent cellulosic biofuels by 2022. But remember that the pace that was set was pretty quick. Corn grain industries have been around since the late 1980s, and underwent a seriously rapid expansion in the 2000s, which led to a production capacity of about 14 billion gallons a year. But there is only a span of about 15 years between 2007, when the Energy Independence and Security Act was passed, and 2022, the year we are supposed to be consuming about 16 billion gallons of cellulosic biofuels. That would be an unprecedented rate of growth.

In responding to these questions, and representing the committee, it is important to stick to the committee's report and the statement of task. Addressing whether challenges to biofuels development could be met was outside our statement of task. We had a strict set of questions that the sponsors wanted us to address, and they were specifically asking what would be the effects, both environmental and economic, if biofuel production increases were met. In fact, when the report undergoes external review, the reviewers are asked if the report satisfies the questions, to make sure that the committee did not go beyond the statement of task.

IND BIOTECH: One criticism of the committee report is that it relied on out-of-date data and analyses. It would be helpful for the IB community if you would summarize for us the methods used to gather and assess key technological, economic, and environmental data and analyses. In particular, we would be interested in understanding how the committee reaches a consensus when the scientific and technical landscape is evolving so rapidly, and when our understanding of this landscape is limited to the data and analyses that are part of the public domain.

DR. BURKE: The committee's report relied on data from literature published up until the time of its preparation. We drew on our own expertise and input from experts across a wide range of federal agencies, from academia, trade associations, stakeholders groups, and NGOs in a series of open meetings to fulfill the statement of task.

To account for technological advances that would occur in the future, we performed a sensitivity analysis, using simulation and other types of models and a variety of parameters, to give us an idea of how technological gains—for example if the conversion yield of biomass were to increase—would affect the economics of biofuels production. This yielded an array of answers based on the potential for various future conditions.

One report, the “Billion-Ton Update,” went to press after the committee had already prepared its report, but nothing in it would have changed any of our conclusions, particularly since our committee had already concluded that there is adequate biomass feedstock to meet RFS2.

IND BIOTECH: Were there any significant challenges in reaching a consensus as you discussed these different issues?

DR. BURKE: No, I would not say there were any particular challenges coming to a consensus. The data are pretty clear. Because we were talking about the future, it was important to discuss how we could express the certainty of our results. When there are concerns in a consensus-building arena like this, we look at where there is disagreement, do some research, and find conclusions we can all agree with. There was consensus, and there were no dissenting opinions in the report.

IND BIOTECH: Although the report mentioned that the RFS2 mandates for cellulosic biofuels will not be met without major technological innovation, there is very little discussion in the report on specific technological breakthroughs that are needed or how federal policy can catalyze the needed innovation. Is this a fair assessment? If yes, why was there not much discussion about the potential for technological innovation to address the challenges in meeting the mandate?

DR. BURKE: We did not provide much discussion on the specific technological breakthroughs that are needed or how federal policies can catalyze the needed innovation. The report mentioned that RFS2 is not likely to be met without technological breakthroughs, but we did not present an in-depth discussion of those or the policies needed to catalyze them because they were outside the scope of the committee's statement of task.

IND BIOTECH: In reviewing the membership of the committee, there appears to be limited representation of biofuels technology innovators. Given the committee recognition that technology innovation is necessary to address many of the economic and environmental barriers to biofuels, one would have expected to hear more strongly the voices of these innovators. Is this a fair criticism of the report?

DR. BURKE: The question is more a criticism of the committee membership than of the report. The committee was formed to address the statement of task, to provide an economic and environmental assessment of achieving RFS2. It was not a stakeholder engagement group. It was not composed to reflect the voices of different groups that might be in or affected by biofuels development. The report was also subjected to an independent peer review that was overseen by National Academy members. The peer-review process typically strengthens a report quite a bit. The Academy will not issue a report unless it is satisfied that the questions given to the study committee have been adequately addressed, and that the committee did not go beyond its task or address other questions. It evaluates and assures that the conclusions made in the report are well-supported by science, are reviewed and presented, and that all the important issues raised in the review process are addressed. I think it is fair to say that the National Academy is confident that the report provided the assessment that was asked of the committee.

IND BIOTECH: Biofuels production represents one of the most complex systems integration efforts to date, and, in fact, the term “systems” is used throughout the report. Yet there appears to be little assessment of the role of systems integration in meeting some of the biofuels development challenges. Was there much discussion about the systems integration challenges to biofuels development?

DR. BURKE: My response is similar to the one above, in that we were not engaged in answering the question about how we can get there, which probably does have to do with systems integration. The topic was outside the scope of our task.

IND BIOTECH: A reading of the committee's report leaves one with the impression that RFS2 policy is severely flawed. As policies typically represent consensus among different stakeholders, was the appropriate mix of stakeholders in place for developing RFS2?

DR. BURKE: The committee did not discuss this. We were given RFS2 as the basis of our discussion.

IND BIOTECH: Would you agree with the assessment that one could get the impression from the report that the policy itself is flawed?

DR. BURKE: No, and as an example, let's take one conclusion of the report, which is that RFS2 is not necessarily an effective policy for reducing greenhouse gas production. The ‘not necessarily’ means it depends upon how the policy will be implemented. It actually depends on how land operators, managers, and farmers produce feedstocks and what the indirect land use responses are. There are many ways that policy can be implemented. In some ways that is separate from the initial policy. The next questions could be how one might make the economic and environmental impacts less negative.

IND BIOTECH: Does the example you provide above, in which how the policy is implemented will ultimately determine the extent of its impact on greenhouse gas reduction, relate more broadly to other aspects of the report as well?

DR. BURKE: Yes, the outcomes will depend on how the policy is implemented. Some of that relates to the market and oil prices, for example, or how much fertilizer is added, how much irrigation is added, or how much land use change occurs. There are limitations to predicting the future that may not be very satisfying for some of the readers. We cannot see whether greenhouse gases will go up or down as a result of RFS2. What we can say is that it depends on a myriad of future conditions.

IND BIOTECH: How can the industrial biotechnology community help inform future federal biofuel policy and help guide implementation in a direction that will yield positive outcomes?

DR. BURKE: Unless oil prices are really high, it is going to take technological breakthroughs to make biofuels cost-competitive compared to petroleum-based fuels. These breakthroughs will most likely be in efficiencies, to decrease the price of producing these quantities of biofuels. How the industrial biotechnology community can help inform future biofuel policy was certainly outside the scope of our task. The industrial biotechnology community can certainly help with technological breakthroughs, but the committee did not discuss how that community could influence policy.