• Energy Research

Abstract The special issue Scaling up bioenergy? identifies major policy expectations attached to biofuels production worldwide, and it provides systematic reviews of actual biofuel performance and governance in these areas. Papers address the extent to which policy expectations related to climate change mitigation, energy security, rural livelihoods and risk mitigation have been achieved, and the effectiveness of public and private governance in advancing sector sustainability. Building on these findings, the synthesis paper asks, "What next?" for countries wishing to advance national biofuel programmes as one option for the necessary divestment from fossil fuels. Among other sine qua nons, the special issue highlights the urgent need to downscale global energy demand, and to stop treating biofuels as an isolated sector. Goldemberg et al. (2018) query several aspects of our approach, from research design, data collection, to our recommendation to apply the "precautionary principle" in research as well as policy making. Unfortunately, Goldemberg et al. (2018) incorrectly portray our main argument. Moreover, they claim bias in our approach and mistakes in our empirical evidence, however, without bringing forward an evenhanded critique of research philosophy, methodology or referencing different empirical literature. We fully stand behind our research philosophy and findings presented.

Abstract The special issue Scaling up bioenergy? identifies major policy expectations attached to biofuels production worldwide, and it provides systematic reviews of actual biofuel performance and governance in these areas. Papers address the extent to which policy expectations related to climate change mitigation, energy security, rural livelihoods and risk mitigation have been achieved, and the effectiveness of public and private governance in advancing sector sustainability. Building on these findings, the synthesis paper asks, "What next?" for countries wishing to advance national biofuel programmes as one option for the necessary divestment from fossil fuels. Among other sine qua nons, the special issue highlights the urgent need to downscale global energy demand, and to stop treating biofuels as an isolated sector. Goldemberg et al. (2018) query several aspects of our approach, from research design, data collection, to our recommendation to apply the "precautionary principle" in research as well as policy making. Unfortunately, Goldemberg et al. (2018) incorrectly portray our main argument. Moreover, they claim bias in our approach and mistakes in our empirical evidence, however, without bringing forward an evenhanded critique of research philosophy, methodology or referencing different empirical literature. We fully stand behind our research philosophy and findings presented.

The development of an economically viable biofuel industry rests on strong state subsidies for production and processing, creation of markets through government procurement, fuel-blending mandates, price controls, as well as foreign trade tariffs and quotas, and multiple interventions in agricultural, ecological, and other regulations. We use an approach grounded in agrarian political economy to critically analyze the literature on how biofuel policies interact with broader production, trade, and agro-ecological processes. We focus on policies involving the most prominent crops in the places where biofuel production has advanced the most (i.e. USA, Brazil, and the EU), but also extend analysis to their relations with broader transformations in production, commercial, and even governance practices around the world. We investigate the political and economic interests driving biofuel policies, and how these set the terms in which state interventions and policies are conceived and implemented. We find that these are not developed and implemented according to environmental or inclusive pro-poor development purposes, but according to state interests in energy security and its intersection with a tense alliance between corporate sectors, rendering many policy mechanisms ineffective or even outright counterproductive to effectively facilitate more socially and environmentally sustainable energy production and agricultural practices.

The development of an economically viable biofuel industry rests on strong state subsidies for production and processing, creation of markets through government procurement, fuel-blending mandates, price controls, as well as foreign trade tariffs and quotas, and multiple interventions in agricultural, ecological, and other regulations. We use an approach grounded in agrarian political economy to critically analyze the literature on how biofuel policies interact with broader production, trade, and agro-ecological processes. We focus on policies involving the most prominent crops in the places where biofuel production has advanced the most (i.e. USA, Brazil, and the EU), but also extend analysis to their relations with broader transformations in production, commercial, and even governance practices around the world. We investigate the political and economic interests driving biofuel policies, and how these set the terms in which state interventions and policies are conceived and implemented. We find that these are not developed and implemented according to environmental or inclusive pro-poor development purposes, but according to state interests in energy security and its intersection with a tense alliance between corporate sectors, rendering many policy mechanisms ineffective or even outright counterproductive to effectively facilitate more socially and environmentally sustainable energy production and agricultural practices.