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.
Copenhagen climate summit (part 1): the expectations
‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science
Environmental education in Guinea Bissau
Comments
View as Flat
tico89 Posted 1:57 pm
31 Jul 2007
If I share initials with 'Global Warming', is that a sign?
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 3:05 pm
31 Jul 2007
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
Drastically reduce the value of biofuels by cutting programs
Invest more dollars in maintaining peat forrests than could be gained by biofuel.
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 4:11 pm
31 Jul 2007
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:23 am
01 Aug 2007
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
"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
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
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
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
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.
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:
First, the Bad News
Most experts believe that commercial-scale, cellulosic ethanol processing plants will not come on line for five years or more. Until then, the demand for corn ethanol is expected to increase dramatically. Regrettably, when it comes to breeding ducks, it is hard to find a silver lining in a forecast for more corn acres. In fact, the demand for more corn is likely to throw a big wrench into the gears of the duck factory.
Typical of any supply-and-demand relationship, when the demand for corn is high, so is its price. If corn growers receive a high price for their product, they can then afford to invest more in land and land rental. Farmers who grow less profitable crops get squeezed out. Simple supply-and-demand economics force those currently receiving a low return on their land investment to reconsider how their land can best be used to generate revenue.
An obvious concern associated with increased corn production is the fate of land enrolled in CRP, a program that was created in the 1985 Farm Bill to idle highly erodible land by restoring it to grassland. As the many other conservation benefits of CRP emerged--including the addition of 2.1 million ducks each year to the fall flight--the program became recognized as the most significant and successful conservation initiative ever implemented by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Now, those in search of more corn ground are viewing CRP land as up for grabs. The USDA evidently agrees. Last February, it announced that no new CRP signups would be held in 2007 and 2008, and that it is considering allowing landowners currently enrolled in CRP to terminate their contracts early--all for the stated purpose of providing more acreage to meet the demand for corn. But cornfields do not provide suitable nesting habitat for ducks. And depending on how many acres of CRP are lost in the PPR, some portion of those 2.1 million ducks will not be flying south each autumn.
The demand for corn will also put pressure on the 22.3 million acres of remaining native prairie grassland in the U.S. Prairie Pothole Region. Newly broken prairie will not grow much corn. In general, the soils are too poor, and the climate is often unsuitable for corn. But some newly broken prairie may be suitable for wheat and other crops that will be displaced by corn on existing cropland. And even if the native grasslands remain intact, the demand for corn and cropland in general is driving up the cost of all land dramatically. These increased land values also affect the region's other producers--cattle ranchers. ... The livestock industry is native prairie's "reason for being," at least in an economic sense.
But, Dr. Ringelman sees a bright side ... sort of:
The (Hopefully) Good News
If ducks can weather the corn ethanol storm, good news may be on the horizon. The cellulosic ethanol industry, if implemented in a duck-friendly way, could be an asset to waterfowl production. The key lies in the nature of the feedstock, what land uses it displaces, and how it is harvested. ...
If switchgrass is planted on cropland that used to be cultivated every year, the net effect on ducks will almost always be positive. Annually tilled crops (except for winter wheat) provide poor nesting habitat for ducks. But if switchgrass replaces CRP or native prairie, duck production will be negatively affected. Grassland left completely undisturbed (in the case of CRP) or grazed (in the case of native prairie) is generally more productive for ducks than grassland that is harvested every year, even if harvest occurs during the fall. [My emphasis]
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
"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
Don't need to wait for global laws to enforce sustainability. Unsustainable will very likely become synonymous with unprofitable.
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
"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
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.
Folks who feel strongly about this ought to be talking to ... reps in Congress, ...
We are.
What's IISD doing to pressure their NGO peers on the topic?
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
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
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:
I'm fine with zeroing subsidies. Count me in. Fuels ought to compete on their merits. ... . And it would help mightily if the subsidies for oil would go, too.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 11:04 am
01 Aug 2007
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
"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
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
Permalink