So Europeans are buying Indonesian palm oil as a "sustainable" biofuel,
but it isn't sustainable, as we've noted before. The tragedy continues:
Palm oil companies are burning peat forests to clear land for plantations in Indonesia's Riau province, despite government pledges to end forest fires ... Blazes have started flaring again since the end of June with the start of the dry season.
How a big deal is this? As The New York Times put it earlier this year, "Considering these emissions, Indonesia had quickly become the world's third-leading producer of carbon emissions that scientists believe are responsible for global warming." [Note to NYT: you can drop the "scientists believe" crap. Carbon emissions cause global warming -- deal with it, MSM!]
The emissions from the 1997 fires alone are staggering, as Nature reported in 2002 (sub. req'd):
... we estimate that between 0.81 and 2.57 Gt of carbon were released to the atmosphere in 1997 as a result of burning peat and vegetation in Indonesia. This is equivalent to 13-40% of the mean annual global carbon emissions from fossil fuels, and contributed greatly to the largest annual increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration detected since records began in 1957.
In that article, several scientists warned five years ago:
The extensive fire damage caused in 1997 has accelerated changes already being caused in tropical peatlands by forest clearance and drainage. We found, by assessing logging activity in Landsat images for our 2.5-Mha study area for 1997 and 2000, that logging had increased by 44% during this period, thus making the remaining forests more susceptible to fire in the future. This is a matter of concern because natural, undamaged PSF [peat swamp forest] is essential to maintain high water levels, protect the peat carbon store and facilitate future carbon sequestration from the atmosphere. If more PSF is destroyed by logging, development and fire, there will be a continued release of carbon through decomposition of the exposed peat surfaces that, in turn, will place this large carbon store at further risk. Tropical peatlands will make a significant contribution to global carbon emissions for some time to come unless major mitigation, restoration and rehabilitation programmes are undertaken.
The warning has, tragically, gone unheeded.
This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
EPA affirms California’s right to set tougher automobile emissions standards
MoveOn asks members whether it should launch major campaign to strengthen climate bill
Comments View as Flat
tico89 Posted 1:57 pm
31 Jul 2007
Talking of fires...
How about the wildfires raging through Europe, places from Greece to the Canary Islands. As a result of an uncommonly large heat-wave. Surely that's releasing plenty of carbon emissions. And if the planet gets warmer, does this mean this is yet another feedback that will spiral out of control?
If I share initials with 'Global Warming', is that a sign?
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 3:05 pm
31 Jul 2007
And yet
And yet we still have many environmentalists who support biofuels, even though they are obviously counter productive.
No ammount of "doing biofuels sustainably" in one location is going to remove the market incentive to do biofuels in a way which is most economically advantagous. (i.e. ecologically disastrous)
When you include all biofuels together, including this peat burning and other tropical destruction.
BioFuels undoubtably have a net harmful effect on global warming.
The only two ways to stop this madness are to either
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 4:11 pm
31 Jul 2007
Just one caveat
While much of the peat land in Indonesia has been deforested in the name of developing new oil-palm plantations, actually a large amount of the affected area has not been planted to oil-palm trees. Peat soils are not ideal for oil palm. In many cases what the owners of these permits were primarily after was the timber, not the establishment of new plantations.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:23 am
01 Aug 2007
Drought
How long until we see massive fire storms from drought? Then mother nature will use the ultimate fire extinguisher. A year without summer as the atmosphere blocks the sun.
Will that frighten the human infestation into action on GHG disaster?
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Erik Hoffner Posted 2:45 am
01 Aug 2007
practicality
Grey,
"Drastically reduce the value of biofuels by cutting programs"
Whatcha mean?
You keep beating that drum on biofuels, but you're not living in the real world. Our only choice right now is to advocate for biofuels from non-palm/non-corn/more sustainable feedstocks. (And before I get into trouble here, "more sustainable" does not mean "sustainable." Just closer to it.)
Until biofuels are outlawed, which looks like a long way away indeed, you can't just wish a massive, and growing, industry away. You can, however, organize to change its practices. Ask the folks who took on Home Depot over tropical lumber about that.
The Orion Grassroots Network: 1000+ grassroots groups working for conservation & more
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 3:03 am
01 Aug 2007
Nobody's talking about outlawing biofuels
Except you, Erik, in the case of biodiesel derived from palm oil. From all palm-oil plantations, even old ones that are sustainably managed? (I've visited one that uses owls to control rats, plants to control insect pests, and recycles its wastewater for fertilizer.)
Ah, but do I hear you protesting: diverting even sustainably produced palm-oil to biodiesel means that other palm-oil, still used for food and cosmetics, might need to be produced elsewhere, perhaps less sustainably.
And that is the whole point. Now substitute soy, or rapeseed or tallow for palm oil, because that is exactly what happens in the global market for oils and fats.
Maybe somebody will come up with a cheap way to make biodiesel from, say, municipal sludge. In that case, all power to them.
But in the mean time, first-generation biofuels are what are being subsidized -- BIG TIME. We may not be able to outlaw first-generation biofuels, but it is within the power of governments to stop subsidizing them!!!
(Jeez, I feel like a broken record ...)
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 4:03 am
01 Aug 2007
People don't understand fungibility!!!
Well, lets start with the assumption that corn is sustainable. (It's not but anyways)
So then we have massive plantings of corn in the US, and we feel all happy and shiny about all the sustainable corn we planted.
Then of course, the Corn we planted displaced the Soy and Cotton we didn't plant.
Then that Soy and Cotton ends up inside freshly cut and burned rainforrest.
_
No amount of sustainable biofuel is going to counteract that.
And we aren't able to make global laws that would enforce that ONLY sustainable fuel/crops be grown.
_
As Ron mentioned, there's no reason we should be subsidizing over half the sale price of biofuels.
You cut the subsidies, and the fake "emerging market" goes away.
Permalink
Erik Hoffner Posted 6:30 am
01 Aug 2007
RE: People don't understand fungibility!!!
Fungibility, eh. What can I say, I went to a state school.
Sure, this happens all the time. But with an informed public, and with a world of pressured governments, we wouldn't have crops displaced to areas that ought not be cultivated.
Don't need to wait for global laws to enforce sustainability. Unsustainable will very likely become synonymous with unprofitable.
Erik
The Orion Grassroots Network: 1000+ grassroots groups working for conservation & more
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 7:03 am
01 Aug 2007
On land use
Erik, you say:
Yeah. And if wishes had wings.
Where is the public outcry, Erik? Show us these pressured governments that are calling a halt to subsidies and mandates for corn-ethanol and soy-biodiesel.
Already we're seeing prairie land being put to the plow, which is bad news for ducks. As Jim Ringelman writes in this extended essay for Ducks Unlimited:
But, Dr. Ringelman sees a bright side ... sort of:
In short: the good news about switchgrass is that it would be better for ducks than corn, but not as good as what the ducks had to begin with, before the biofuels boom.
Until you advocate ending all subsidies and mandates benefitting first-generation biofuels (with the possible exception of biodiesel made from used cooking oil), you are allowing a runaway cart (first-generation biofuels) to drag a hobbled horse (sustainability).
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 7:05 am
01 Aug 2007
Erik,
Those are not the most defensible arguments I've ever seen.
"But with an informed public, and with a world of pressured governments, we wouldn't have crops displaced to areas that ought not be cultivated."
Exactly. These crops that should not be cultivated are called biofuels. And personally I am trying to pressure government by writing about it. And who is better informed, Willy Nelson or Geroge Monbiot?
"Don't need to wait for global laws to enforce sustainability. Unsustainable will very likely become synonymous with unprofitable."
Your choice of fuel is not only no more sustainable than fossil fuels, but it also usurps food crops, land, and biodiversity. I wouldn't put soy based biodiesel in my tank if you paid me (although, essentially, anyone using it is getting paid at about 51 cents a gallon).
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 7:17 am
01 Aug 2007
BioD
Of course I agree with you, and thanks for making a point I missed. Erik writes,
What meaning does "unprofitable" have when the federal government subsidizes biodiesel at $1.00 per gallon (not 51 cents), plus 10 cents per gallon for the first 15 million gallons produced by "small" (< 60 million gallon per year) plants, and several states top that up with subsidies of their own?
Permalink
Erik Hoffner Posted 7:19 am
01 Aug 2007
no idea
Ah. Ron,
"Where is the public outcry, Erik? Show us these pressured governments that are calling a halt to subsidies and mandates for corn-ethanol and soy-biodiesel."
Look, that's what I'm saying. The outcry about biofuels at Grist sounds odd when there's no concurrent action going on. I don't KNOW where the action is. Folks who feel strongly about this ought to be talking to their reps in Congress, and especially to all the enviro groups they send checks to each year which all seem to be lined up behind biofuels. What's IISD doing to pressure their NGO peers on the topic? Center for a New American Dream is promoting ethanol, I just read elsewhere in this blog. Are they not reading Gristmill or what?
BioD: what's defensible and what isn't? Is continuing to burn gasoline in your car truly defensible?
The Orion Grassroots Network: 1000+ grassroots groups working for conservation & more
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 7:41 am
01 Aug 2007
I don't understand
There are plenty -- more and more -- people raising hard questions about biofuels. There is no coherently organized and well-funded single group leading the skeptics, however.
We are.
Well, this is one example, no? We also attend international conferences where biofuels are discussed.
Permalink
Erik Hoffner Posted 9:07 am
01 Aug 2007
re: I don't understand
So Ron, you asked "Where's the public outcry?" And I said I don't know. So you reply with examples of public outcry? I thought YOU were the one that didn't know. So why ask?
Anyhoo, don't nobody label me a biodiesel industry apologist. I keep saying that it's already here getting huge on the public teat, you can't just unbuild it, so let's make it as good as it can be until we don't need it anymore b/c we've got a better idea than internal combustion and liquid fuels.
I'm fine with zeroing subsidies. Count me in. Fuels ought to compete on their merits. Biodiesel is a premium liquid fuel which is as good for an engine as it is for the air, so it should do fine on the market. And it would help mightily if the subsidies for oil would go, too.
The kind I force-feed my Jetta is at least 50% recycled. Show me dino-fuel that can claim that.
The Orion Grassroots Network: 1000+ grassroots groups working for conservation & more
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 9:33 am
01 Aug 2007
Erik,
There isn't yet a general public outcry. What we are seeing is criticism of current policies expressed by academics, libertarians, some people in environmental NGOs, and an increasing number of editorial writers. But the people that matter, the policy makers, are still bowing at the alter of ethanol.
Maybe politicians can't unbuild the existing biofuel infrastructure, but they can certainly stop funding its expansion.
You keep asserting that biofuels are better than petroleum fuels. That is debatable, especially for corn ethanol distilled in plants fueled by coal, but also for some biodiesel. So I do not accept the argument that we should keep indiscriminately supporting all 1st-generation biofuel production "because at least it's better than petroleum products".
I have no problem with biodiesel made from recycled cooking oil. (Nor would I have a problem with lipodiesel.) Yet it receives half the subsidy of biodiesel made from virgin agricultural oils or fats. Don't you find that perverse?
Happily we can agree on this:
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 11:04 am
01 Aug 2007
Actually.
Actually it's closer to $2 a gallon.
Or roughly half the sale price.
http://greyfalcon.net/biotaxes.png
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 3:06 pm
01 Aug 2007
My bad...
51 cents was for another biofuel. In any case, I'm with Ron, this debate is starting to sound like a broken record. Using biodiesel made from soy increases your ecological footprint about 50%. If you manage to find a source that mixes 50% recycled then your footprint increases 25%, which is still huge. We are talking about personally usurping six or seven acres of a valuable food commodity to propel your car annually. Not sustainable by any stretch of the imagination. Go to http://www.biodieselrealitycheck.com and look at check number 2 in particular.
"BioD: what's defensible and what isn't? Is continuing to burn gasoline in your car truly defensible?
Truly? Defensible? I've presented well-defended arguments that fossil fuels are less environmentally destructive than burning food crop biodiesel. So, yeah, if my arguments turn out to be more defensible than yours are then burning gasoline in my car is more defensible than burning food crop biodiesel.
And your burning of it is not helping to usher in a better fuel. It is creating an incentive for profit seekers to provide you more of it while maximizing their profit. There is a whole hell of a lot of Amazonian rainforest and Cerrado ready to supply you.
Eric, this is not about your stereotypical Mano-a mano pissing match where two guys argue about what is better, Chevy or Ford, Prius or Jetta. I gave the issue a tremendous amount of thought before I chose a hybrid. Most people burning biodiesel in Jettas did not and they are understandably very resistant to the idea that their choice is actually worse for the environment "overall" than a burning regular diesel. Sure there are fewer pollutants at the tail pipe than regular diesel (but not gasoline)and less CO2 emitted on a life cycle basis, but again, visit http://www.biodieselrealitycheck.com to see how bad it blows other parameters.
Greyfalcon,
That is stunning...
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 4:32 pm
01 Aug 2007
Postscript
Seeing Greyfalcon's link, I had to chuckle. Erik asked about what we (the Global Subsidies Initiative of the IISD) were doing to communicate our concerns about biofuels, or at least the poor targeting and low cost-effectiveness of subsidies to biofuels. Our most important effort has, of course, been the study that we commissioned from Doug Koplow last year. Between Doug's website and ours, we've counted around 200,000 downloads of the report since last October -- not bad for a densely written analysis of 100 pages, with no glossy photos or graphs. And that is not counting the information from the report that Greyfalcon has kindly provided as a public service on his website. (Thank you, Greyfalcon!)
The report continues to be cited in the press (and by other researchers), most recently in Jeff Goodell's hard-hitting article for Rolling Stone, "Ethanol Scam: Ethanol Hurts the Environment And Is One of America's Biggest Political Boondoggles".
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 2:55 am
02 Aug 2007
To tell the truth
I got that from the Executive Summary ;D
Permalink