Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T22:43:45.394Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Global benefits, local burdens? The paradox of governing biofuels production in Kansas and Iowa

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 March 2010

Theresa Selfa
Theresa Selfa*
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology, Anthropology and Social Work, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS66506, USA.
*
*Corresponding author: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Recent sociological analysis of the expansion of the biofuels industry internationally has noted the paradox between the purported global environmental benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by replacing fossil fuels with biofuels, and the potential for distinctly negative environmental impacts experienced at local sites of biofuels production. The state, in both the USA and the EU, has played a prominent role in promoting the development and expansion of biofuels production through government mandates and incentives, but the state's role in governing the potentially (negative) economic, social or environmental impacts of biofuels production on local communities has been much more limited in scope. We review the environmental sociological literature to frame analysis of how the state is governing the benefits and burdens brought by the ethanol industry to rural communities in Kansas and Iowa. Drawing on data from community surveys, focus group and individual interviews and analysis of environmental violations, the paper examines the local impacts of biofuels production in three case-study communities. Findings suggest that local residents do not express many concerns about environmental impacts and that the state has played a modest role in governing the negative local environmental impacts. We argue that this lack of concern is related to the histories of these rural communities, which have long depended on resource extractive industries and currently are desperate for economic growth. We find that criticisms of negative environmental impacts are muted in relation to purported economic benefits and to other comparable industries. These community case studies illustrate some of the challenges, both at the practical and theoretical levels, of governing biofuels production.

Keywords

biofuelsenvironmental sustainabilitycommunity impactssocial dimensions
Type
Research Papers
Information
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , Volume 25 , Special Issue 2: “Sustainable Agriculture Systems in a Resource Limited Future” , June 2010 , pp. 129 - 142
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

0011Mol, A. 2007. Boundless biofuels: between environmental sustainability and vulnerability. Sociologia Ruralis 47(4):297–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
0022Searchinger, T., Heimlich, R., Houghton, R.A., Dong, F., Elobeid, A., Fabiosa, J., Tokgoz, S., Hayes, D., and Yu, T.-H. 2008. Use of U.S. croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions from land-use change. Science 319:1238–1240.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
0033Fargione, J., Hill, J., Tilman, D., Polasky, S., and Hawthorne, P. 2008. Land clearing and the biofuel carbon debt. Science 319:1235–1238.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
0044Searchinger, T., Hamburg, S., Melillo, J., Chaneiides, W., Havlik, P., Kammen, D., Likens, G., Lubowski, R., Obersteiner, M., Oppenheimer, M., Robertson, G.P., Schlesinger, W., and Tilman, G.D. 2009. Fixing a critical climate accounting error. Science 326:527–528.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
0055Liska, A.J., Yang, H.S., Bremer, V.R., Klopfenstein, T.J., Walters, D.T., Erickson, G.E., and Cassman, K.G. 2009. Improvements in life cycle energy efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions of corn-ethanol. Journal of Industrial Ecology 13:58–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
0066RFA (Renewable Fuels Agency). 2008. The Gallagher Review of the indirect effects of biofuels production. Available at Web site http://www.renewablefuelsagency.gov.uk/reportsandpublications/reviewoftheindirecteffectsofbiofuels.cfm (accessed 10 December 2009).Google Scholar
0077EISA (Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007). Available at Web site http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:h6enr.txt.pdf (accessed 10 December 2009).Google Scholar
0088Searchinger, T. 2009. Government policies and drivers of world biofuels, sustainability criteria, certification proposals and their limitations. In Howarth, R.W. and Bringezu, S. (eds). Biofuels: Environmental Consequences and Interactions with Changing Land Use. Proceedings of the Scientific Committee on the Problems of the Environment (SCOPE) International Biofuels Project Rapid Assessment, 22–25 September 2008, Gummersbach, Germany. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA. p. 37–52. Available at Web site http://cip.cornell.edu/biofuels/ (accessed 14 March 2010).Google Scholar
0099United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. 2008. Making Certification Work for Sustainable Development: The Case of Biofuels. United Nations, New York and Geneva.Google Scholar
01010Catton, W. and Dunlap, R. 1978. Environmental sociology: a new paradigm. American Sociologist 13:41–49.Google Scholar
01111Catton, W. and Dunlap, R. 1980. A new ecological paradigm for post-exuberant sociology. American Behavioral Scientist 24(1):15–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
01212Dunlap, R.E. and Catton, W.R. Jr. 1994. Struggling with human exemptionalism: the rise, decline and revitalization of environmental sociology. American Sociologist 25:5–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
01313York, R., Rosa, E., and Dietz, T. 2002. Footprints on the earth: the environmental consequences of modernity. American Sociological Review 68:279–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
01414Schnaiberg, A., Pellow, D., and Weinberg, A. 2002. The treadmill of production and the environmental state. In Mol, A. and Buttel, F. (eds). The Environmental State under Pressure, Research in Social Problems and Public Policy, Volume 10. JAI, Oxford. p. 15–32.Google Scholar
01515Schnaiberg, A. 1980. The Environment: From Surplus to Scarcity. Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
01616Mol, A. and Spaargaren, G. 2005. From additions and withdrawls to environmental flows: reframing debates in the environmental social sciences. Organization and Environment 18(1):91–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
01717Bunker, S. 2005. How ecologically uneven developments put the spin on the treadmill of production. Organization and Environment 18(1):38–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
01818Mol, A. and Spaargaren, G. 2000. Ecological modernization theory in debate: a review. Environmental Politics 9(1):17–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
01919Buttel, F. 2000. Ecological modernization as social theory. Geoforum 31:57–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
02020Carolan, M. 2004. Ecological modernization theory: what about consumption? SNR 17:247–260.Google Scholar
02121York, R. and Rosa, E. 2003. Key challenges to ecological modernization theory: institutional efficacy, case study evidence, units of analysis, and the pace of eco-efficiency. Organization and Environment 16(3):273–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
02222Sonnenfeld, D. and Mol, A. 2006. Environmental reform in Asia: comparison, challenges, next steps. Journal of Environment and Development 15(2):112–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
02323Spaargaren, G., Mol, A., and Buttel, F.H. (eds).2006. Governing Environmental Flows: Global Challenges to Social Theory. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
02424Glasbergen, P., Biermann, F., and Mol, A. (eds).2007. Partnerships, Governance and Sustainable Development: Reflections on Theory and Practice. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
02525Mol, A. 2007. Bringing the environmental state back in: partnerships in perspective. In Glasbergen, P., Biermann, F., and Mol, A. (eds). Partnerships, Governance and Sustainable Development: Reflections on Theory and Practice. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham. p. 214–236.Google Scholar
02626FAO. 2007. A Review of the Current State of Bioenergy Development in G8 +5 Countries, Global Bioenergy Partnership. Available at Web site http://www.fao.org/NR/ben/abst/ben_071201_en.htm (accessed 10 February 2010).Google Scholar
02727Worldwatch Institute. 2006. Biofuels for Transportation: Global Potential and Implications for Sustainable Agriculture and Energy in the 21st Century. Available at Web site http://www.worldwatch.org/system/files/EBF038.pdf (accessed 14 March 2010).Google Scholar
02828Johnson, K. and Rathge, R. 2006. Agricultural dependence and changing population in the great plains. In Brown, D. and Kandel, W. (eds). Population Change and Rural Society. Springer, Berlin. p. 197–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
02929Rathge, R. and Highman, P. 1996. Population change in the great plains: a history of prolonged decline. Rural Development Perspectives 13(1):19–26.Google Scholar
03030Broadway, M.J. and Stuhl, D.D. 2006. Meat processing and Garden City, KS: boom and bust. Journal of Rural Studies 22(1):55–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
03131Fink, D. 1988. Cutting into the Meatpacking Line: Workers and Change in the Rural Midwest. UNC Press, Chapel Hill.Google Scholar
03232Bloom, S. 2000. Postville: A Clash of Cultures in Heartland America. Hartcourt Press, Orlando, FL.Google Scholar
03333Renewable Fuels Association. 2009. Available at Web site http://www.ethanolrfa.org/industry/locations (accessed 10 December 2009).Google Scholar
03434Kansas Energy Information Network. Available at Web site http://www.kansasenergy.org/documents/Biofuels_Map_12_09.pdf (accessed 10 December 2009).Google Scholar
03535US Census Bureau. 2003. Census 2000 Summary File 4—(Iowa, Kansas). Prepared by the U.S. Census Bureau, 2003.Google Scholar
03636Dillman, D. 2000. Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. John Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
03737Selfa, T., Kulcsar, L., Bain, C., Goe, R., and Middendorf, G. 2010. Biofuels bonanza? Exploring community perceptions of the promises and perils of biofuels production. Biomass and Bionergy, in press.Google Scholar
03838Kansas Department of Health and Environment. 2009. Copies of violations can be obtained from the author.Google Scholar
03939Des Moines Register. 2009. Available at Web site http://data.desmoinesregister.com/ethanol2/index.php (accessed 10 December 2009).Google Scholar
04040US Department of Justice. 2005. United States Settles with Kansas Ethanol Company. Available at Web site http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2005/January/05_enrd_007.htm (accessed 10 February 2010).Google Scholar
04141Iaroi, A., Middendorf, G., and Selfa, T. 2009. Conflicting Environmental Claims: Analysis of the Media Discourse Surrounding Biofuels Development. Poster Presentation at 6th Capitol Research Summit, Topeka, Kansas, 12 March 2009. Available at Web site http://www.k-state.edu/sasw/kpc/biofuels/index.html (accessed 10 February 2010).Google Scholar
04242Demmel, L. 2008. State Policies in the North Central Region Promotion Ethanol. Available at Web site http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&context=ageconundergrad (accessed 10 February 2010).Google Scholar
04343Mol, A. 2010. Environmental authorities and biofuels controversies. Environmental Politics 19(1):61–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar