Will Biofuels Growth Require Cutting Down Forests? At Scale, Yes, Report Says

Would dramatically cutting emissions be worthwhile if it meant cutting down the world's forests to do it?

That appears to be the dilemma faced by policymakers when it comes to biofuels.

RELATED: Flex-Fuel Vehicles And E85: Why Ethanol Isn't Making Its Numbers

U.S. and European regulations call for increasing amounts of these fuels to be used in the coming years, but they require massive amounts of land.

Setting aside all of that land and the plants on it for fuel production may not be worthwhile, according to a recent report on the biofuel debate by The New York Times.

Biofuels are already an important part of most strategies to fight climate change.

U.S. regulations call for biofuels to account for roughly 12 percent of transportation fuel by the middle of the next decade, while the European Union wants usage to increase from 2.5 percent today to 10 percent by 2020.

ALSO SEE: EPA Resets Ethanol Rules To Reflect Reality: Cellulosic Sources Don't Exist

The International Energy Agency claims biofuels could represent 27 percent of transportation fuel by the middle of the century.

Vegetation can also be used as fuel for power plants--meaning it could indirectly supply the energy for electric cars as well.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ruled last year that without significant increases in bioenergy use, it would cost on average two-thirds more to prevent Earth's temperature from rising more than 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels--generally seen as the tipping point for climate change.