Biogas Or Bull****? The Deceptive Promise Of Manure Biogas As A Methane Solution

Generated Summary

This report, based on research conducted by Friends of the Earth United States and the Socially Responsible Agriculture Project, examines the practice of using manure biogas as a solution to reduce methane emissions in the agriculture sector. The study employs a mixed-methods approach, combining a literature review with original research to assess the impacts of manure biogas production. The core methodology involves analyzing data from the U.S. EPA AgSTAR Livestock Anaerobic Digester Database, supplemented by state-level permit information to evaluate herd size changes and methane emissions. The scope of the research focuses on large concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) and the incentives created by policies rewarding biogas production. The findings are compared against the backdrop of President Biden’s methane reduction goals and the Global Methane Pledge, offering an analysis of the potential for manure biogas to meet climate targets and the implications for environmental justice.

Key Findings & Statistics

• The report estimates that the annual year-over-year herd size increase at facilities with digesters is 3.7%, which is 24 times the growth rate for overall dairy herd sizes in the states covered in the dataset.
• The 73 dairy facilities with digesters in the data set added nearly 85,000 dairy cows in total. If these dairy populations continued to grow at their historical rates, each farm would add an average of 177 cows per year, resulting in 10 million pounds of waste per year, enough to fill more than 1,000 semi-trucks.
• Accounting for herd size changes and measuring the emissions reductions from a baseline of feasible alternative manure management strategies, the dairy CAFOs in the dataset reduced their annual methane emissions by only 11% from the baseline year to the most recent year for which herd size data is available. This is nearly six times less than the reductions estimated using EPA’s assumptions, which assume no changes in herd sizes.
• Assuming 500 new dairy digesters were installed by 2030 and those digesters yielded emissions reductions comparable to those in the dataset, their associated methane emissions reductions would account for less than a quarter of the reductions needed to reduce agricultural methane emissions by 30%.
• Reducing herd sizes by 20% and implementing feasible alternative manure management strategies on 1,500 large dairies could yield 55% of the reductions that are needed to slash agricultural methane emissions by 30% in 2030.
• Paying dairy farmers to reduce their herd sizes would be nearly three times more cost-effective than subsidizing anaerobic digesters. The cost of mitigating one metric ton of CO₂e would be less than $10 total, nearly three times less than the cost of mitigating one metric ton of CO₂e by installing digesters.
• The Biden administration’s plan for reducing agricultural emissions does not come close to the level of ambition needed to meet the Global Methane Pledge, with voluntary adoption of digesters aspiring to reduce methane emissions by only 9% by 2030.
• The report provides some of the first quantitative evidence that CAFOs with digesters are more likely to increase their herd sizes relative to statewide populations.
• The report details that manure biogas systems are typically feasible only at the largest concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), or factory farms.
• In the U.S., animal agriculture is a leading source of methane emissions, accounting for around one-third of both global and U.S. methane emissions.
• The U.S. has joined more than 150 countries in signing the Global Methane Pledge to reduce methane emissions by 30% from 2020 levels by 2030.
• The report indicates that a dairy cow’s manure was worth about half as much as that cow’s milk.
• The EPA’s plan states that “the Administration has proposed funding that, cumulatively, would enable methane emissions reductions from manure, rice, and enteric sources by as much as 26 million metric tons [in CO₂e] in 2030” and that “reducing methane emissions from manure management systems at these levels is the equivalent of 500 farms installing anaerobic digesters; 1,200 farms installing lagoon covers with flares; and 250 farms installing solids separators.

Other Important Findings

• The study identifies that policies rewarding biogas production create perverse incentives for CAFO operators and biogas producers, including utilizing inferior manure management practices, increasing herd sizes, and increasing consolidation.
• The research indicates that the promotion of manure biogas is a greenwashing measure that actively undermines the Biden administration’s commitments to achieving environmental justice and ensuring fair markets for producers.
• The report argues that federal and state policies reward industrial-scale agriculture polluters through incentives that encourage the expansion of manure biogas under the guise of climate change mitigation.
• The analysis reveals that the largest and most polluting CAFOs are best positioned to capture the benefits of taxpayer-funded subsidies and other policy incentives for producing manure biogas.
• The study provides evidence that methane reductions from manure biogas systems are overstated and insufficiently tracked by the U.S. government, and even these overstated reductions are insufficient to curb agricultural methane emissions in line with the Global Methane Pledge.
• The report highlights the environmental and public health impacts of manure biogas production, including the clearing of land, air and water pollution, and the increased production of ammonia during anaerobic digestion.
• The study suggests that there are alternative agricultural methane reduction strategies that are both cost-effective and equitable.
• The report offers a case study on the Pixley Biogas Anaerobic Digester in Tulare County, California, which benefited from multiple government programs, and a case study on the explosion from White Oak Farms digester in Fremont, North Carolina.
• The study highlights that with a narrowing timeframe to stave off the worst impacts of climate change, aggressive action is needed to reduce methane from the country’s largest source, the animal agriculture sector, not voluntary measures that marginally reduce methane emissions.

Limitations Noted in the Document

• The study’s strength of analysis is limited due to suboptimal data quality and limited data pertaining to herd sizes and manure management practices.
• The analysis is limited by the small size of the data set, which included 187 projects in the AgSTAR database.
• The study faced limitations due to the lack of NPDES permit data for every digester project.
• The AgSTAR database’s reporting methodology was not always consistent with that used in state NPDES permits.
• The study also noted that the digester and the CAFO may have different owners and/or are managed/permitted separately.
• The analysis was unable to determine causation using this method. Even if they could determine causation, they still could not determine whether increases in herd sizes are being driven by consolidation or a net increase in animal production.
• The study lacked information on manure management strategies during the baseline year and the most recent year.
• The emissions model was restricted to methane and did not account for increases in nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide emissions.

Conclusion

This report, “Biogas or Bull****? The Deceptive Promise of Manure Biogas as a Methane Solution,” presents a critical analysis of the manure biogas industry, arguing that the widespread promotion of biogas as a climate solution is misleading and counterproductive. The central argument is that policies incentivizing manure biogas production create perverse incentives for CAFOs, leading to environmentally harmful practices and undermining the goals of environmental justice and climate mitigation. The report’s key findings highlight that the methane reduction benefits of manure biogas are overstated by the U.S. government and that these reductions are insufficient to meet the goals of the Global Methane Pledge. Instead, the study posits that the focus should be on a just transition away from factory farming and fossil fuels and toward regenerative agriculture. The research underscores the need to redirect resources from supporting manure biogas to more cost-effective methane reduction solutions that do not exacerbate environmental injustice and industry consolidation. The report emphasizes that the current approach of incentivizing manure biogas through subsidies and tax credits is diverting funds from truly clean, renewable energy sources like wind and solar and from farmers and ranchers who employ agricultural conservation practices. Furthermore, the study points out that manure biogas production is often associated with the most polluting CAFOs, which disproportionately affect low-income communities and communities of color. The production of biogas creates additional environmental and public health risks, including air pollution and increased ammonia emissions, while the industry relies on the existence and perpetuation of CAFOs. The report’s conclusion is that the pursuit of a sustainable food system requires a shift away from factory farming and towards a regenerative agriculture and truly renewable energy sources. This requires an active rejection of manure biogas as a climate strategy due to its impacts, entrenchment of current harmful practices, and limited impact on climate change goals. The report advocates for policies that reduce emissions, center the communities harmed by factory farm pollution, and support a just transition to a healthy, fair, and sustainable food system.