IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v17y2025i4p1521-d1589552.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Carbon Footprint Comparison of Rapeseed and Palm Oil: Impact of Land Use and Fertilizers

Author

Listed:
  • Suria Tarigan

    (Department of Soil Science and Land Resource Management, Faculty of Agriculture, IPB University, Bogor 16680, Indonesia)

  • Iput Pradiko

    (Agronomy and Soil Science Research Department, Indonesian Oil Palm Research Institute (IOPRI), Medan 20158, Indonesia)

  • Nuzul H. Darlan

    (Agronomy and Soil Science Research Department, Indonesian Oil Palm Research Institute (IOPRI), Medan 20158, Indonesia)

  • Yudha Kristanto

    (Natural Resources and Environmental Management Science, Graduate School, IPB University, Bogor 16129, Indonesia)

Abstract

Palm oil is being criticized as an unsustainable product by the EU due to its association with deforestation and high carbon emissions. However, the producers in Indonesia do not acknowledge the criticisms. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the carbon footprint of a representative EU-produced vegetable oil, rapeseed oil, with Indonesian palm oil. The analysis is divided into two stages, namely (a) land use conversion (LUC) as well as (b) plantation and oil processing. LUC entailed the conversion of native vegetation, such as forest areas and grassland, to vegetable oil crops. The carbon opportunity cost was used to account for the LUC contribution to the carbon footprint. For plantation and oil processing stages, the LCA SIMAPRO was adopted. The results showed that when vegetable oil replaced high-carbon-storage vegetation such as forests, the LUC carbon footprint of rapeseed oil and palm oil production were 2.09 and 1.49 t CO 2 eq t −1 oil, respectively. Replacing low-carbon-storage vegetation, namely shrub/grassland, led to 0.05 and −0.43 t CO 2 eq t −1 of repressed and palm oils, respectively. Based on the LCA SIMAPRO, the carbon footprints of plantation and oil processing stages were 1.05 and 0.88 t CO 2 eq t −1 oil for rapeseed and palm oils, respectively. The cultivation of oil palm in peatland generated a higher total carbon footprint (i.e., combined LUC and plantation and oil processing stages) than rapeseed oil (13.8 to 3.14 t CO 2 eq t −1 oil). However, in non-peatland areas, the total carbon footprint of palm oil was lower than rapeseed oil (2.37 to 3.14 t CO 2 eq t −1 oil) when replacing tropical forest and temperate forest vegetation, respectively. The total footprint was 1.2 to 0.45 t CO 2 eq t −1 oil when both replaced shrub/grassland. The higher productivity of oil palm and lower fertilizer requirement contributed primarily to the lower carbon footprint in non-peatland areas.

Suggested Citation

  • Suria Tarigan & Iput Pradiko & Nuzul H. Darlan & Yudha Kristanto, 2025. "Carbon Footprint Comparison of Rapeseed and Palm Oil: Impact of Land Use and Fertilizers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(4), pages 1-13, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:4:p:1521-:d:1589552
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/4/1521/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/4/1521/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Anda Fridrihsone & Francesco Romagnoli & Ugis Cabulis, 2020. "Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Rapeseed and Rapeseed Oil Produced in Northern Europe: A Latvian Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(14), pages 1-21, July.
    2. Thamsiriroj, T. & Murphy, J.D., 2009. "Is it better to import palm oil from Thailand to produce biodiesel in Ireland than to produce biodiesel from indigenous Irish rape seed?," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 86(5), pages 595-604, May.
    3. Uusitalo, V. & Väisänen, S. & Havukainen, J. & Havukainen, M. & Soukka, R. & Luoranen, M., 2014. "Carbon footprint of renewable diesel from palm oil, jatropha oil and rapeseed oil," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 103-113.
    4. Silalertruksa, Thapat & Gheewala, Shabbir H., 2012. "Environmental sustainability assessment of palm biodiesel production in Thailand," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 306-314.
    5. Malça, João & Coelho, António & Freire, Fausto, 2014. "Environmental life-cycle assessment of rapeseed-based biodiesel: Alternative cultivation systems and locations," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 837-844.
    6. Lourens Poorter & Frans Bongers & T. Mitchell Aide & Angélica M. Almeyda Zambrano & Patricia Balvanera & Justin M. Becknell & Vanessa Boukili & Pedro H. S. Brancalion & Eben N. Broadbent & Robin L. Ch, 2016. "Biomass resilience of Neotropical secondary forests," Nature, Nature, vol. 530(7589), pages 211-214, February.
    7. O'Keeffe, S. & Majer, S. & Drache, C. & Franko, U. & Thrän, D., 2017. "Modelling biodiesel production within a regional context – A comparison with RED Benchmark," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 355-370.
    8. van Duren, Iris & Voinov, Alexey & Arodudu, Oludunsin & Firrisa, Melese Tesfaye, 2015. "Where to produce rapeseed biodiesel and why? Mapping European rapeseed energy efficiency," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 49-59.
    9. Timothy D. Searchinger & Stefan Wirsenius & Tim Beringer & Patrice Dumas, 2018. "Assessing the efficiency of changes in land use for mitigating climate change," Nature, Nature, vol. 564(7735), pages 249-253, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Piotr Bórawski & Lisa Holden & Marek Bartłomiej Bórawski & Bartosz Mickiewicz, 2022. "Perspectives of Biodiesel Development in Poland against the Background of the European Union," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-15, June.
    2. Avinash, A. & Subramaniam, D. & Murugesan, A., 2014. "Bio-diesel—A global scenario," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 517-527.
    3. Manan Bhan & Simone Gingrich & Sarah Matej & Steffen Fritz & Karl-Heinz Erb, 2021. "Land Use Increases the Correlation between Tree Cover and Biomass Carbon Stocks in the Global Tropics," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-15, November.
    4. Ville Uusitalo & Rafael Horn & Stephanie D. Maier, 2022. "Assessing Land Use Efficiencies and Land Quality Impacts of Renewable Transportation Energy Systems for Passenger Cars Using the LANCA ® Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-16, May.
    5. Iriarte, Alfredo & Rieradevall, Joan & Gabarrell, Xavier, 2012. "Transition towards a more environmentally sustainable biodiesel in South America: The case of Chile," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 91(1), pages 263-273.
    6. Zeke Marshall & Paul E. Brockway, 2020. "A Net Energy Analysis of the Global Agriculture, Aquaculture, Fishing and Forestry System," Biophysical Economics and Resource Quality, Springer, vol. 5(2), pages 1-27, June.
    7. Jensen, Henning Tarp & Keogh-Brown, Marcus R. & Shankar, Bhavani & Aekplakorn, Wichai & Basu, Sanjay & Cuevas, Soledad & Dangour, Alan D. & Gheewala, Shabbir H. & Green, Rosemary & Joy, Edward J.M. & , 2019. "Palm oil and dietary change: Application of an integrated macroeconomic, environmental, demographic, and health modelling framework for Thailand," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 92-103.
    8. Henrik B. Møller & Peter Sørensen & Jørgen E. Olesen & Søren O. Petersen & Tavs Nyord & Sven G. Sommer, 2022. "Agricultural Biogas Production—Climate and Environmental Impacts," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(3), pages 1-24, February.
    9. Jiali He & Xiangfei Liu & Xuetong Wang & Xueyang Li & Linger Yu & Beibei Niu, 2024. "Spatiotemporal Evolution of Territorial Spaces and Its Effect on Carbon Emissions in Qingdao City, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-22, October.
    10. Sofia Dahlgren & Jonas Ammenberg, 2021. "Sustainability Assessment of Public Transport, Part II—Applying a Multi-Criteria Assessment Method to Compare Different Bus Technologies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-30, January.
    11. Sophie Saget & Marcela Costa & David Styles & Mike Williams, 2021. "Does Circular Reuse of Chickpea Cooking Water to Produce Vegan Mayonnaise Reduce Environmental Impact Compared with Egg Mayonnaise?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-18, April.
    12. Holmatov, B. & Hoekstra, A.Y. & Krol, M.S., 2019. "Land, water and carbon footprints of circular bioenergy production systems," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 224-235.
    13. Tan, Raymond R. & Aviso, Kathleen B. & Barilea, Ivan U. & Culaba, Alvin B. & Cruz, Jose B., 2012. "A fuzzy multi-regional input–output optimization model for biomass production and trade under resource and footprint constraints," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 90(1), pages 154-160.
    14. Dzikuć Maciej, 2015. "Environmental management with the use of LCA in the Polish energy system," Management, Sciendo, vol. 19(1), pages 89-97, May.
    15. Elena Tamburini & Mattias Gaglio & Giuseppe Castaldelli & Elisa Anna Fano, 2020. "Is Bioenergy Truly Sustainable When Land-Use-Change (LUC) Emissions Are Accounted for? The Case-Study of Biogas from Agricultural Biomass in Emilia-Romagna Region, Italy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-20, April.
    16. Lauri Leppäkoski & Miika P. Marttila & Ville Uusitalo & Jarkko Levänen & Vilma Halonen & Mirja H. Mikkilä, 2021. "Assessing the Carbon Footprint of Biochar from Willow Grown on Marginal Lands in Finland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-19, September.
    17. Maurer, Rainer, 2023. "Comparing the effect of different agricultural land-use systems on biodiversity," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    18. Liudmila Tripolskaja & Asta Kazlauskaite-Jadzevice & Eugenija Baksiene & Almantas Razukas, 2022. "Changes in Organic Carbon in Mineral Topsoil of a Formerly Cultivated Arenosol under Different Land Uses in Lithuania," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-19, March.
    19. Murphy, Fionnuala & Devlin, Ger & Deverell, Rory & McDonnell, Kevin, 2014. "Potential to increase indigenous biodiesel production to help meet 2020 targets – An EU perspective with a focus on Ireland," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 154-170.
    20. Nunes, L.J.R. & Matias, J.C.O. & Catalão, J.P.S., 2016. "Wood pellets as a sustainable energy alternative in Portugal," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 1011-1016.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:4:p:1521-:d:1589552. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.