Scientists urge court to reject land-use claims

Eight leading national experts in agricultural economics and biofuel life-cycle analysis are urging the District Court of the District of Columbia to dismiss claims brought by the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) in a lawsuit challenging EPA’s 2023-2025 renewable fuel volume standards.

In its opposition to the EPA’s so-called “RFS set rule,” CBD cited debunked research by University of Wisconsin researcher Tyler Lark and others to falsely suggest that RFS caused habitat loss and the conversion of grasslands to cropland. In a detailed amicus curiae brief filed last week, eight scientists told the court that Lark’s research and CBD’s claims are “detached from the scientific evidence and reality” and “based on outdated, flawed, and debunked research.” They pointed out that “there is simply no valid scientific evidence to support claims that RFS-driven ethanol demand is leading to the conversion of grasslands that were previously uncultivated.”

“Neither biofuel production nor RFS have been scientifically linked to the conversion of ‘natural’ lands, such as native prairies, forests, and wetlands, to land for crop cultivation,” the researchers said in a brief.

They also noted that ethanol producers are on track to achieve net-zero life-cycle emissions. “Renewable Fuels Association members have announced a commitment to further reduce the carbon intensity of corn ethanol, with a goal of achieving a 70 percent reduction compared to petroleum-based gasoline by 2030 and net-neutral status by 2050,” according to the memo.

“As we pointed out last week, the walls are closing in on the Center for Biological Diversity, Tyler Lark, the National Wildlife Federation and other anti-biofuel activists who perpetuate the absurd myth of land-use change,” said Geoff Cooper, RFA’s president and CEO. “In his latest paper, even Lark acknowledges that U.S. cropland has continued to decline while biofuel production has grown.”