RESPONSE TO CRITIQUES FROM M. WANG AND J. DUNN (ARGONNE LABORATORY)

WRI responds to critiques from Argonne National Laboratory, reaffirming that dedicating land to bioenergy is highly inefficient compared to solar PV and poses significant risks to food security and carbon storage. WRI argues that 'marginal lands' are often misidentified and that bioenergy does not inherently provide greenhouse gas reductions unless it creates additional plant growth.

• WRI maintains that producing 20% of global energy in 2050 via bioenergy would require a biomass amount equal to all of the world’s harvested biomass in 2000, estimated at roughly 225 EJ. This figure is supported by Haberl et al. (2007) and the IPCC, which reported a similar value of 219 EJ/y.
• Solar photovoltaic (PV) cells are significantly more land-efficient than bioenergy. WRI's cell-by-cell analysis of 259,200 land cells indicates that on approximately 75% of the world's land, solar PV produces at least 100 times more energy per hectare than bioenergy. Even in the most efficient cell for bioenergy, solar PV would generate 40 times more usable energy per hectare.
• WRI argues that the concept of “marginal land” for bioenergy is often misapplied. Land that is marginal for cropping may still be fertile enough to support vegetation that provides critical benefits, such as carbon storage in wet savannas. Furthermore, theoretical availability of degraded land does not account for real-world constraints including economic viability, legal availability, and social acceptability.
• The document asserts that the release of carbon dioxide from burning biomass is scientifically equivalent to the release of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels in terms of greenhouse gas effect. Bioenergy only provides a carbon offset if the plant growth is “additional” to what would have occurred without bioenergy production.
• WRI disputes claims that bioenergy could boost food availability or reduce poverty, particularly in Africa. It argues that sub-Saharan Africa must more than triple crop production by 2050 to meet food needs without land use change, and that bioenergy would likely compete for the best available lands.
• The response clarifies that WRI's calculations for crop energy required for biofuels account for by-products. Specifically, by-products used for food or feed are counted as remaining in the food supply, and energy by-products like electricity from bagasse are included in net energy calculations.

APA

Searchinger, T. (2015). RESPONSE TO CRITIQUES FROM M. WANG AND J. DUNN (ARGONNE LABORATORY). World Resources Institute. https://wriorg.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/uploads/WRI_responds_to_Argonne_critiques.pdf

Chicago

Searchinger, Tim. RESPONSE TO CRITIQUES FROM M. WANG AND J. DUNN (ARGONNE LABORATORY). World Resources Institute, 2015. https://wriorg.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/uploads/WRI_responds_to_Argonne_critiques.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite press release |last1=Searchinger |first1=Tim |title=RESPONSE TO CRITIQUES FROM M. WANG AND J. DUNN (ARGONNE LABORATORY) |publisher=World Resources Institute |date=28 May 2015 |url=https://wriorg.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/uploads/WRI_responds_to_Argonne_critiques.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@misc{searchinger2015response, author = {Searchinger, Tim}, title = {{RESPONSE TO CRITIQUES FROM M. WANG AND J. DUNN (ARGONNE LABORATORY)}}, publisher = {World Resources Institute}, year = {2015}, month = may, url = {https://wriorg.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/uploads/WRI_responds_to_Argonne_critiques.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }