Frankly dear, I give a damn

Borneo is disappearing for biofuels 10

Rhett Butler (of Mongabay) has returned from his recent travels. This photo of a poison dart frog is from that trip. Go here to see a slide show of Panama (highly recommended). One of his first posts tells us:

China has agreed to invest in a $5.5 billion biofuels project on the islands of New Guinea and Borneo ... According to The Wall Street Journal, one million hectares [3,861 square miles, which would take 4 hours to drive around at 60 MPH] have been reserved for the eight-year plan, which would convert tropical forest for oil palm, sugar, and cassava plantations.

The article goes on to say that these governments have promised to spare 84,000 square miles of mountainous rainforest in the center of Borneo (to get the environmentalists off their back). Go to this WWF site for a graphic demonstration of how fast Borneo is being consumed.

While you are there, note that the article associated with the graphic makes no mention of biofuels. It is worried about palm oil being used for food. A biodiesel or ethanol powered car will eat an order of magnitude (or two) more oil or sugar than its driver will in a year. Palm oil and sugarcane are far, far more prolific producers than soy or even cellulose.

This is insanity. The destruction appears incremental on a human time scale but put it to time lapse graphics and understand that if each increment isn't stopped, it never will be. This is what is behind the fight to spare the Arctic National Refuge. A line has been drawn.

We need a lot more lines. If demand continues to grow, and it will if consumers continue to support these fuels, there will be nothing left of the carbon sinks of Borneo, promises to the contrary be damned.

Go to Mongabay for several more interesting articles.

My real name is Russ Finley. I live in Seattle, married with children. Suffice it to say that although I am trained and educated as an engineer, my passion is nature. I very much want my grandchildren to live on a planet where lions, tigers, and bears have not joined the long and growing list of creatures that used to be. In an attempt to minimize the workload on Grist editors responsible for turning my submissions into intelligible articles, I will also be posting on a seperate blog called Biodiversivist, which will contain articles in addition to those submitted to Grist.

Advertisement
Advertisement

  1. mcar2185 Posted 10:03 am
    25 Jan 2007

    It's a shameWhat a beautiful frog. It is horrible that all of these rainforests will probably be destroyed because some people are unwilling to find ways to keep this from happening. It's preventable, and yet many people won't make the effort to prevent it. Really sad, and hopefully more people will make the effort to stop the destruction from happening.
    -mcar2185 at http://www.eco-cide.com

    Permalink

  2. amazingdrx Posted 3:47 pm
    25 Jan 2007

    4000 square milesAbout the same area of natural prairie, if restored, would sequester all US CO2 emissions.  
    How much fuel will that land they are destroying provide per year?  Enough to fuel the US oil addiction for a day?  A week?
    Kind of puts the tragic stupidity of fuel farming in perspective.

    http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

    Permalink

  3. Jason D Scorse's avatar

    Jason D Scorse Posted 3:52 pm
    25 Jan 2007

    and remember....many environmentalists are calling for massive biofuels subsidies- it's better to burn oil and coal than to destroy pristine forest for biofuel- it's insanity- but expect a lot of it in the next Farm Bill- and unfortunately, many Grist members to favor such a misguided policy

    J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at http://www.voicesofreason.info.

    Permalink

  4. amazingdrx Posted 3:59 pm
    25 Jan 2007

    False dilemna fallacy"it's better to burn oil and coal than to destroy pristine forest for biofuel"
    Can't you all at least use a few other fallacies?  This one is getting tired.
    Nukes or coal.  Oil or fuel farming.

    http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

    Permalink

  5. bookerly Posted 4:41 pm
    25 Jan 2007

    Borneo   If we want other countries to NOT use their land and natural resources to enrich themselves, then we need to be prepared to pay.  Otherwise, it will happen.
       Imagine if we took the several hundred billion dollars a year we spend trashing Iraq, and gave the world free solar and wind power.
       THAT would solve the problem.
    patrick

    Permalink

  6. caniscandida Posted 10:16 pm
    25 Jan 2007

    poison dart frogThank God for people such as MCar, who recognize the beauty of these small creatures.
    Thank God also for the John-Lennonish imagination of friends such as Patrick a Beijing:

    <<

      Imagine if we took the several hundred billion dollars a year we spend trashing Iraq, and gave the world free solar and wind power.
       THAT would solve the problem.
    >>
    And thank God for the vision of Amazing, in the northern Plains.  My understanding is, the Lakota are already thinking along ways that Amazing wants government to think.

    Chickens are our cousins!

    So are other sensitive animals!

    Enough is enough!

    No more factory farms!

    Permalink

  7. mihan's avatar

    mihan Posted 11:14 pm
    25 Jan 2007

    HyperboleOh, Patrick, come now... we're not spending several hundred billion dollars a year in Iraq. Just one or two. We could only afford to give almost all of the world free solar power.
    Sigh.

    Permalink

  8. kmp Posted 11:40 pm
    25 Jan 2007

    WowRarely have bugs and frogs looked so amazing.  I'm especially partial to the little blue one.
    On the subject of Bornea, I agreed with Patrick before I even read his post.  I was thinking "Of course, it's tragic, it's heartbreaking to think of losing all that tropical forest and all the magical creatures within.  But if I were trying to feed a family on $0.17 a day in Borneo, I probably wouldn't give a damn about the frogs."
    Nothing is easy - but I do wish we understand what we are doing.  No one would burn a Picasso as firewood, now would they?

    Permalink

  9. Biodiversivist's avatar

    Biodiversivist Posted 1:25 am
    26 Jan 2007

    True that, JasonIf we are trying to stop global heating to save our biosphere, what sense does it make to destroy our biosphere to stop global heating? And you can't blame them for doing it, but you can blame those who use the fuels driving the destruction. I just read an article describing how excited some people in Brazil are after the SOTU, still hoping to export ethanol here. As long as they can grow cane, they don't need cellulose technology. That technology is needed by us to compete with their cane. Go biofuels!
    DrX,
    Your prairie idea is a good one. In fact, it just gave me an idea.



    In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

    Permalink

  10. bookerly Posted 7:29 pm
    26 Jan 2007

    Iraq

       Mihan,
            Your sarcasm matches my own mood!!
            Actually, I am not exaggerating when all the costs are calculated.  The hundred billion or so that Bush asks for is direct expenditures.  There are also the indirect costs of replacing military equipment, and money being spent in states on replacing National Guard equipment.  
            If we include the money spent on care for the wounded (physically and mentally), and on rebuilding our armed forces (hmmm, do we need to do this?? (smile)).  I believe we get closer to a true cost of several hundred billion a year, ummm, okay, I may need to throw in Afghanistan to get there (grin).
            But even if I am guilty of hyperbole (who me??? me??? is that me singing 'pretty boy' about to be posted on YouTube?  You'll never find it!),

    the basic idea is that the money we spend on invading only ONE or TWO countries could go a long ways towards solving global warming.
           Seriously, I get the sarcasm in your post, and second your sigh... Sigh..
           Kaela,  I remember the scene in Day After Tomorrow where they burn the rare books in the library for heat.  It really chilled me deep in my soul (in a wealthier existence, one of my sins, er habits, er addictions, was collecting beautiful books).  Would a poor person burn a Picasso for heat?  Would they eat the last turtle for food?  As you apoke it, of course they would.  The sad thing is that they may have to!!
          I was watching an American prof on TV here trying to explain the madness that is Iraq, and he looked so frustrated, I thought his head was going to explode!!
          I get those feelings often... (boom!).
          Hopefully a way can be found to save those lovely little frogs.  They could come live with me, but it gets cold here.  Sigh.
          We can only try!!
    patrick

           

    Permalink

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Viewed
More
Commented
More
Advertisement