Avoiding Bioenergy Competition for Food Crops and Land

The report contends that bioenergy is an inefficient use of land that exacerbates a projected 70 percent 'food gap' between 2006 calorie availability and 2050 needs. It asserts that large-scale bioenergy targets are unrealistic, as meeting a 20 percent global energy demand target by 2050 would require doubling the world's annual plant harvest. The author argues that bioenergy's climate benefits are often overestimated due to 'double counting' carbon absorption that would occur regardless of energy use. In contrast, solar photovoltaics are presented as significantly more land-efficient, capable of generating over 100 times the usable energy per hectare. The document recommends phasing out subsidies and regulatory requirements for crop-based biofuels and instead prioritizing 'additional' biomass—such as timber processing wastes and landfill methane—for hard-to-abate sectors like aviation.

• Dedicated bioenergy production increases the global 'food gap'—the difference between available crop calories in 2006 and those needed in 2050. While phasing out crop-based biofuels could shrink this gap from 70 percent to 60 percent, ambitious biofuel targets pursued by large economies could increase the gap to approximately 90 percent.
• A global target for bioenergy to provide 20 percent of total energy demand by 2050 is deemed unsustainable, as it would necessitate at least doubling the total annual global harvest of all plant materials, on top of increases already required for food and timber.
• Bioenergy is highly inefficient in land use compared to solar photovoltaics (PV). On most land, PV systems can generate more than 100 times the usable energy per hectare than future bioenergy, and 200–300 times more energy for vehicle transport when combined with electric motors.
• Many claims regarding bioenergy's greenhouse gas reductions are based on 'double counting' carbon. These analyses often ignore the CO2 released during biomass combustion, assuming it is offset by plant growth that would have occurred anyway for food or feed, thus failing to remove additional carbon from the atmosphere.
• Cellulosic biofuels and the use of 'degraded' lands do not effectively resolve the competition for food and carbon storage. Cellulosic feedstocks often require the same fertile lands as food crops, while using degraded lands or abandoned farmlands often carries high opportunity costs or sacrifices existing carbon storage and biodiversity.
• Only 'additional' biomass—sources that do not compete with food or dedicated land use—is consistent with a sustainable food future. Examples include timber processing wastes, urban waste wood, landfill methane, and winter cover crops, though their total potential to meet global energy needs is modest.

APA

World Resources Institute (n.d.). Avoiding Bioenergy Competition for Food Crops and Land. https://www.wri.org/research/avoiding-bioenergy-competition-food-crops-and-land

Chicago

World Resources Institute. Avoiding Bioenergy Competition for Food Crops and Land. n.d. https://www.wri.org/research/avoiding-bioenergy-competition-food-crops-and-land.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=World Resources Institute |title=Avoiding Bioenergy Competition for Food Crops and Land |url=https://www.wri.org/research/avoiding-bioenergy-competition-food-crops-and-land |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{worldresourcesinstitutendavoiding, author = {{World Resources Institute}}, title = {{Avoiding Bioenergy Competition for Food Crops and Land}}, institution = {World Resources Institute}, url = {https://www.wri.org/research/avoiding-bioenergy-competition-food-crops-and-land}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }