PAUL B. THOMPSONTHE AGRICULTURAL ETHICS OF BIOFUELS: A FIRST LOOK(Accepted in revised form July 24, 2007)ABSTRACT. A noticeable push toward using agricultural crops for ethanol pro-duction and for undertaking research to expand the range of possible biofuels beganto dominate discussions of agricultural science and policy in the United Statesaround 2005. This paper proposes two complementary philosophical approaches toexamining the philosophical questions that should be posed in connection with thisturn of events. One stresses a critique of underlying epistemological commitments inthe scientific models being developed to determine the feasibility of various biofuelsproposals. The second begins with a broader set of questions about the philosophicalgoals of agriculture, then queries the place that a turn to biofuels might have withinthe philosophy of agriculture. Both are portrayed as viable and important. The paperitself is a preliminary stage-setting reflection on the need for these two types ofphilosophical inquiry.KEY WORDS: energy, bioenergy, ethanol, agrarianism, philosophy of technologyWhat can philosophy contribute to the push toward biofuels? This paperwill provide a provisional answer to this question by first arguing for abroad way of framing the discussion and then identifying two angles ofapproach to biofuels that highlight assumptions , questions, or value judg-ments that are inherently philosophical in nature. The first way hones in onepistemological assumptions and methodological issues implicit in theemerging literature on how and whether renewable resourc es should con-tribute to the supply of combustible fuels . The second line of thought probesthe way that a push toward biofuels fits into broader questions in the phi-losophy of agriculture. My question is not intended to be rhetorical. I amtruly interested in the contribution that philosophy and philosophers mightmake to the various scientific, industrial, an d political efforts now underwayin connection with biofuels.The answer offered herein is only a ‘‘first look’’ in that I make absolutelyno pretensions toward either completeness or finality. There are undoubt-edly a number of other ways to approach biofuels philosophically, andnothing discussed below is covered in sufficient depth, in any case. I amfurthermore early enough in my own thinking that I am far from clear in myJournal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics (2008) 21:183–198DOI 10.1007/s10806-007-9073-6 Ó Springer 2007own mind what to think. The original manuscript for this paper elicitedseven anonymous reviews, all returned within 60 days of my originalsubmission to JAgEE. While all were thoughtful and have been extremelyhelpful in making revisions and improvements to the paper, the com-ments ranged over an extraordinarily broad array of issues and concerns,and expressed a number of apparently incompatible perspectives onbiofuels, on philosophyÕs possible contributions to understanding anddebating biofuels, and, indeed, on the usefulness of the remarks thatfollow. It would have been impossible to respond to all of these reviewerswithout producing a highly convoluted (and probably self-contradictory)argument, so perhaps some of them will be moved to turn theirthoughtful reactions into commentary articles that can be shared with theworld at large. This suggests that the greatest value in this prelimina ryevaluation may lie in presenting a target for others to aim at in mountingsubsequent critical and clarificatory arguments. There will, one suspects,be some philosophical debate over the agricultural ethic s of biofuels, andthis preliminary statement may be most useful as a document that iscriticized by subsequent authors. It is thus with genuine humility that Iproceed.1. BIOFUELS: SOME ‘‘DEFINITIONS’’ AND FRAMINGJUDGMENTSA cluster of term s including ‘‘biofuels,’’ ‘‘bio-economy,’’ ‘‘grain-ethanol,’’‘‘cellulosic ethanol,’’ and ‘‘bio-diesel’’ have begun to appear widely inAmerican newspapers, the farm press and in political discourse. They areoccasionally linked to very broadly described enabling technologiesincluding biotechnology, genetic engineering, and nanotechnology, as wellas to large-scale production methods for current crops such as maize orsugar cane and possible future crops such as sawgrass. There is also a lesswell-publicized discourse of biofuels that stresses small-scale production orcapture of fuels derived from methane or vegetable oils. People who thinkthat they understand what the term ‘‘biofuels’’ means based on a techni calor scientific vocabulary have almost certainly made a number of simplifyingassumptions or contextual specifications that narrows this range to a con-siderable degree. But the vagueness and ambiguity of the terminology willalmost certainly play an extremely important role in the way that our cur-rent push toward biofuels matures and develops. As such, instead of defi-nitions in the usual sense, what I will offer is a brief and impressionisticnarrative that is intended to set the context for the philosophical remarksthat follow.PAUL B. THOMPSON184What I am here calling ‘‘the push toward biofuels’’ is primarily a NorthAmerican phenomenon, despite the fact that the possibilities for biofueldevelopment are global in scope. And of course it is Brazil that has had thegreatest success in making biofuels into a real source of energy (though thesustainability of their approach is debatable). There are other ‘‘pushestoward biofuels’’ elsewhere, but for the purposes of this paper, the focus ison American culture and politics. Two of the anonymous reviews objectedto this stipu lation, despite the fact that it was strongly qualified even in theoriginal manuscript. These objections are well made, for most of thephilosophical points argued in sketching two alternati ve ways of addressingbiofuels are hardly unique to the North American situation. Yet the qual-ification is necessa ry if only because this preliminary study has not under-taken any serious attempt to examine the technical and political debatesover biofuels beyond the United States and Canada. There is also a moresubstantive point to be made in connection with my reliance on ‘‘brief andimpressionistic narrative’’ as opposed to technically explicit definitions. Myaim is to build a prudential and ethical argume nt against the standardscientific practice