California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has announced a new Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) aimed at “establishing a vibrant market for cleaner-burning fuels.” The intent is to address emissions believed to cause climate change, but the LCFS itself could create several environmental problems.

In the short term, the LCFS inevitably means increased ethanol use. But producing ethanol is not without potentially negative environmental consequences. Ethanol production itself, for example, will put more vehicles on the road. 

Most experts contend that the next wave in ethanol production will be from cellulosic feedstocks, from agricultural wastes and residues among other sources. Because these waste products are currently not transported off-site, cellulosic-based ethanol production will mean a significant increase in transport of raw feedstocks. 

Large questions remain about how these residues can be efficiently transported, since they are not particularly dense, meaning a relatively small amount of residue takes up a relatively large amount of space and thus demanding a potentially significant increase in transport.

Another area of concern is soil erosion.  Agricultural areas currently not cropped, largely as a result of subsidies, could easily convert back to cropland.  Should ethanol from cellulosic feedstocks like crop residue become commercially viable, this will provide incentive for removal of as much residue as possible. Because both thick grassy cover and crop residues act like protective covering on the soil, protecting the surface from the force of raindrops and slowing down runoff, removal of this cover will increase soil erosion rates in most locations. This too creates problems.

Fertility decreases because of topsoil loss and increased off-site transport of agrochemicals that bind to soil particles. Increased erosion also causes ecosystem disruption in the downstream water bodies that receive the eroded sediments. There are also concerns about soil and water quality with increased ethanol production. 

As the demand for ethanol drives up the prices a farmer can receive for corn, more acres will be continuously planted in corn. There are several environmental advantages, however, to rotating crops from one season to the next. For example, planting corn and soybeans in alternating seasons. 

Crop rotation decreases the need for pesticides, since many pests prefer one crop. If an infestation develops, it does not continue into the next season if a different crop is planted.  In the case of corn/soybean rotations, probably the most common rotation with corn, less nitrogen fertilizer is needed.  This is because unlike corn, which takes nitrogen from the soil, soybeans “fix” nitrogen from the atmosphere. 

Nitrogen, easily transported off-field, is a key source of water-quality impairment, most notably the hypoxic “dead zone” in the Gulf of Mexico. While research has been going on for decades to understand how to manage corn-after-corn rotations, many concerns exist over the amounts of chemicals needed to sustain this practice, and the effects of these chemicals on soil and water quality.

The governor of California wants a cleaner environment but when it comes to policy, good intentions are not enough. A better test for any policy whether it creates other problems. While there are plausible solutions on the horizon for some, Governor Schwarzenegger's Low Carbon Fuel Standard fails to address any of these other environmental issues.