Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2009 Aug 26;4(8):e6802.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0006802.

Energy sprawl or energy efficiency: climate policy impacts on natural habitat for the United States of America

Affiliations

Energy sprawl or energy efficiency: climate policy impacts on natural habitat for the United States of America

Robert I McDonald et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

Concern over climate change has led the U.S. to consider a cap-and-trade system to regulate emissions. Here we illustrate the land-use impact to U.S. habitat types of new energy development resulting from different U.S. energy policies. We estimated the total new land area needed by 2030 to produce energy, under current law and under various cap-and-trade policies, and then partitioned the area impacted among habitat types with geospatial data on the feasibility of production. The land-use intensity of different energy production techniques varies over three orders of magnitude, from 1.9-2.8 km(2)/TW hr/yr for nuclear power to 788-1000 km(2)/TW hr/yr for biodiesel from soy. In all scenarios, temperate deciduous forests and temperate grasslands will be most impacted by future energy development, although the magnitude of impact by wind, biomass, and coal to different habitat types is policy-specific. Regardless of the existence or structure of a cap-and-trade bill, at least 206,000 km(2) will be impacted without substantial increases in energy efficiency, which saves at least 7.6 km(2) per TW hr of electricity conserved annually and 27.5 km(2) per TW hr of liquid fuels conserved annually. Climate policy that reduces carbon dioxide emissions may increase the areal impact of energy, although the magnitude of this potential side effect may be substantially mitigated by increases in energy efficiency. The possibility of widespread energy sprawl increases the need for energy conservation, appropriate siting, sustainable production practices, and compensatory mitigation offsets.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. U.S. energy consumption and total new area impacted.
(A) U.S. energy consumption in 2006 and under four EIA scenarios. Energy conservation of liquid fuels and electricity, calculated relative to the Reference scenario, are shown as negative since they reduce consumption. (B) The total new area impacted because of development between 2006 and 2030. The new area impacted, or energy sprawl, is a product of consumption and the land-use intensity values in Figure 3. Energy conservation is calculated based on a scenario-specific weighted-average of the energy mix.
Figure 2
Figure 2. Major habitat types used to analyze the land-use implications of EIA scenarios.
Within each major habitat type, there are a variety of land-uses, from relatively wild places to agricultural and urban systems. Our analysis estimates the new area needed for energy development within each major habitat type, without specifying where within each major habitat type this energy development might occur.
Figure 3
Figure 3. Land-use intensity for energy production/conservation techniques.
Value shown is for 2030, as measured in km2 of impacted area in 2030 per terawatt-hour produced/conserved in that year. Error bars show the most-compact and least-compact estimates of plausible current and future levels of land-use intensity. Numbers provided are the midpoint between the high and low estimates for different techniques. For liquid fuels, energy loss from internal combustion engines is not included in this calculation.
Figure 4
Figure 4. Greenhouse gas emissions and total new area impacted with a cap-and-trade system.
Arrows depict the difference between the Reference Scenario, with no cap-and-trade system, and three other scenarios where a cap-and-trade system is implemented. Greenhouse gas emissions measured in million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent.

References

    1. Tyner WE. The US ethanol and biofuels boom: Its origins, current status, and future prospects. Bioscience. 2008;58:646–653.
    1. Pimentel D, Herz M, Glickstein M, Zimmerman M, Allen R, et al. Renewable energy: current and potential issues. In: Pimentel D, Pimentel M, editors. Food, Energy, and Society. London: CRC Press; 2007.
    1. Spitzley DV, Keoleian GA. Ann Arbor, MI: Center for Sustainable Systems, University of Michigan; 2004. Life cycle environmental and economic assessment of willow biomass electricity: A comparison with other renewable and non-renewable sources.
    1. Koh LP, Wilcove DS. Is oil palm agriculture really destroying tropical biodiversity? Conservation Letters. 2008;1:60–64.
    1. Groom MJ, Gray EM, Townsend PA. Biofuels and biodiversity: Principles for creating better policies for biofuel production. Conservation Biology. 2008;22:602–609. - PubMed

Publication types