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

Generated Summary

This report, commissioned by Friends of the Earth United States and the Socially Responsible Agriculture Project, examines the environmental, public health, and economic impacts of manure biogas production in the United States. The research utilizes data from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) AgSTAR database, state permits, and other sources to assess the effects of policies that incentivize biogas production, particularly within the context of concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs). The study employs a multi-faceted approach, combining literature review, analysis of methane emissions modeling, and case studies to evaluate the claims that manure biogas is a viable solution to agricultural methane emissions. The report’s scope includes a review of the lifecycle of manure biogas production, from feedstock to transportation, and identifies several perverse incentives that lead to increased methane production and consolidation within the agricultural sector. The key objective is to determine whether the benefits of manure biogas are overstated and insufficient to meet climate targets, while also considering its effects on environmental justice and public health. The study’s methodology involves modeling changes in methane emissions under different scenarios, including varying herd sizes and manure management practices. The report provides original research and analysis to evaluate the effects of biogas production and related policies.

Key Findings & Statistics

• Methane Emissions: Animal agriculture is a leading source of methane emissions in the U.S., accounting for about one-third of the total. The digestive processes of ruminant animals and manure produced by animals at CAFOs are the primary sources of these emissions.
• Climate Targets: The Biden administration has committed to a 30% reduction in methane emissions by 2030 as part of the Global Methane Pledge.
• Digester Impact: The report suggests that policies rewarding biogas production create perverse incentives, including utilizing inferior manure management practices, increasing herd sizes, and industry consolidation.
• Herd Size Growth: Facilities with digesters saw a 3.7% year-over-year growth in herd sizes, which is 24 times the growth rate of overall dairy herd sizes in the states covered by the dataset. The 73 facilities with dairy digesters in the dataset added nearly 85,000 dairy cows, leading to a significant increase in waste production.
• Waste Production: If dairy populations with digesters continue to grow at their historical rates, each farm will add an average of 177 cows per year, producing approximately 10 million pounds of waste annually.
• Emission Reductions: The study found that the reduction in annual methane emissions from dairy CAFOs with digesters was only 11% from the baseline year to the most recent year, which is almost six times less than the reductions estimated by the EPA.
• Digester Installation Impact: Installing new dairy digesters by 2030 is projected to account for less than a quarter of the reductions needed to reduce agricultural methane emissions by 30%.
• Alternative Strategy Impact: Reducing herd sizes by 20% and implementing feasible alternative manure management strategies on 1,500 large dairies could yield 55% of the reductions needed to slash agricultural methane emissions by 30% by 2030.
• Cost-Effectiveness: Paying dairy farmers to reduce their herd sizes would be nearly three times more cost-effective than subsidizing anaerobic digesters, based on the cost of mitigating one metric ton of CO₂e.
• Data and Funding Issues: There is a lack of emissions monitoring and basic information collection from CAFOs with digesters.
• Manure Management: Dry manure management practices generate fewer methane emissions than wetter practices, with digesters being compatible only with wetter manure systems.
• Pollutant Levels: Compared to fossil gas combustion, biogas processing leads to higher emissions of carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, non-methane volatile organic compounds, and formaldehyde.
• Case Study – White Oak Farms: In North Carolina, a digester experienced a catastrophic failure, resulting in a spill of over 3 million gallons of sludge, causing significant environmental damage.
• Data from EPA: Across all CAFOs in the study, measured CH₄ emissions were 60% higher than the rates reported in the California Air Resources Board (CARB) inventory.

Other Important Findings

• Industrial Animal Agriculture Regulation: Industrial animal agriculture is largely unregulated, with CAFOs exempt from key environmental and safety regulations, leading to environmental and public health risks.
• Impacts on Communities: Manure biogas systems are often located near low-income communities and communities of color, which already face disproportionate pollution burdens. Burning biogas on-site exacerbates poor air quality in these communities.
• Perverse Incentives: Policies that reward biogas production can lead to perverse incentives for CAFOs to maximize methane production and expand herd sizes.
• Alternative Strategies: The report suggests that alternative agricultural methane reduction strategies could be more cost-effective and equitable.
• Policy Recommendations: The report recommends redirecting resources away from manure biogas subsidies towards cost-effective methane reduction solutions and supporting a just transition away from factory farming to regenerative agriculture.
• Economic Implications: There is a correlation between digesters and increased herd sizes.
• California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS): LCFS distorts the market for transportation fuels by incentivizing CAFO operators to generate as much methane as possible.

Limitations Noted in the Document

• Data Set Constraints: The analysis is based on a limited dataset of 73 dairy facilities, potentially limiting the generalizability of the findings.
• Data Availability: Data availability issues, including inconsistent reporting methodologies across states and lack of continuous herd size data, could affect the accuracy of the analysis.
• Data Incompleteness: The AgSTAR database and state NPDES permits may not always be accurate or complete, potentially affecting the reliability of the study’s conclusions.
• Causation: The study’s methodology cannot definitively establish a causal relationship between digesters and increased herd sizes.
• Lack of Information: The study lacks information on manure management strategies and actual methane emissions.
• Emissions Scope: The emissions model used is limited to methane and does not account for increases in other harmful emissions.

Conclusion

The core argument of the report is that the current trajectory of promoting manure biogas production in the United States is misguided and counterproductive to the goals of reducing agricultural methane emissions, achieving environmental justice, and ensuring fair markets for producers. The authors argue that the Biden administration’s focus on manure biogas, while seemingly aligned with climate goals, actually perpetuates and exacerbates the problems associated with industrial animal agriculture. The report contends that the incentives created by subsidizing manure biogas lead to increased methane production through the use of inferior manure management practices and the expansion of CAFOs. The study provides several key takeaways, including that the herd sizes at facilities with digesters are increasing, and the methane reduction benefits of digesters have been overstated by the EPA and industry proponents. The authors highlight that the current policies incentivize emissions-maximizing practices, which undermines the purported goal of reducing emissions. They provide evidence that the focus on manure biogas production crowds out funding for more effective conservation practices, and that the costs of mitigating emissions through digesters are significantly higher compared to alternative strategies such as reducing herd sizes and implementing improved manure management practices. The report emphasizes that current policies incentivize increased herd sizes, which contribute to increased waste production and environmental harm, and that these expansions exacerbate pollution in already overburdened communities. The research concludes that a focus on manure biogas risks locking the U.S. into the factory farming and fossil fuel systems for decades. The report advocates for a shift away from supporting manure biogas and instead recommends a redirecting of resources to more cost-effective methane reduction solutions, such as supporting a just transition away from factory farming to regenerative agriculture. The document also proposes specific policy recommendations including the establishment of specific methane reduction targets for the agricultural sector, improved methane monitoring and reporting from livestock operations, and the prioritization of agricultural methane reduction strategies that support environmental justice. The report concludes by reiterating the incongruity between the administration’s commitments to fighting climate change, achieving environmental justice, and ensuring fair markets for producers, and its support for manure biogas, instead calling for a revisit to alternative policies that would realize a vision for a just, healthy, and sustainable food system. The authors suggest that the current approach will not only fail to meet climate goals but will also worsen environmental and social inequities. The report calls for a reevaluation of the strategies employed to reduce methane emissions from agriculture, emphasizing the need for policies that prioritize environmental justice and support a just transition to more sustainable agricultural practices.