A fifth of the Amazon rainforest -- the world's biggest carbon sponge -- has disappeared since the 1970s. The Brazilian government has succeeded in recent years in slowing the deforestation rate, but its efforts have recently been faltering.
In the last four months, 2300 square miles of rainforest got leveled, Reuters reports. In the year before that, the forest surrendered 3700 square miles. If the current rate holds over a full year, that would mean a 9200-square-mile loss -- an alarming acceleration and the first rise in four years.
What's driving the trend? Traditional factors like demand for timber and land for cattle grazing remain in place, but the real culprit appears to desire for cropland. Rising prices of crops, fueled by the biofuel boom, is inspiring people to clear trees.
And the trend could intensify.
[A government scientist] also warned that continued high world oil prices were likely to result in a surge in demand for Amazon land to produce ethanol, the alternative transport fuel for which global demand is already booming.
"If oil prices keep increasing there will be an explosion of biofuel production in the Amazon, contrary to Brazilian government policy," Nobre said.
There's a bitter irony here. Many governments -- including our own -- have mandated steep rises in biofuel use as a green alternative to crude oil. But if meeting those mandates means amputating the "world's lungs," the cure could prove worse than the disease.
As Reuters puts it:
Destruction of forests produces about 20 percent of man-made carbon dioxide emissions, making conservation of the Amazon crucial to limiting rises in global temperatures.
Environmental education in Guinea Bissau
City preps and countries posture ahead of Copenhagen talks
Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change
Comments
View as Flat
sindark Posted 4:12 am
18 Jan 2008
As a result of both land use change and forest burning, the World Resource Institute estimates that deforestation represents about 18.3% of all human greenhouse gas emissions. As such, tackling it is a priority.
Sources:
Papdopol, C.S. "Impacts of climate warming on forests in Ontario: options for adaptation and mitigation." Forestry Chronicle. 76(1): 139-149 (2000).
Livingston, Nigel and G. Cornelis van Kooten. "Terrestrial Carbon Sinks and Climate Change Mitigation." in Coward, Harold and Andrew Weaver eds. Hard Choices: Climate Change in Canada.
a sibilant intake of breath
Permalink
sindark Posted 4:13 am
18 Jan 2008
a sibilant intake of breath
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 4:19 am
18 Jan 2008
I wonder how that compares to man-made transportation emissions.
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 4:30 am
18 Jan 2008
Seems the reason may be that much of their source material is "waste" fats from CAFO chicken operations. Your biodiesel truck may be running on the trashed body parts of tortured and abused birds.
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
lamarguerite Posted 4:42 am
18 Jan 2008
http://lamarguerite.wordpress.com
marguerite manteau-rao
http://lamarguerite.wordpress.com
'It's All About Green Psychology'
Permalink
Patrick Mazza Posted 4:57 am
18 Jan 2008
Thus, biofuels critics need to move beyond simplistic positions such as "biofuels kill," and start to make distinctions. Moving beyond volume-based policy standards to metrics such as low-carbon fuel standards with full lifecycle accounting is central. And yes, the trickiest and most difficult part of making such standards meaningful is land use changes - How do you measure effects on the whole global agricultural system? Not easy, but much modeling work going on.
Another step of even greater importance is to create a global market for biological carbon sequestration that offers competitive returns with other agricultural products. Otherwise we will lose all kinds of ecosystems to growing demand for all kinds of products, food, fiber, feed and fuels.
Patrick Mazza
Permalink
Erik Hoffner Posted 5:18 am
18 Jan 2008
The Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels is the main effort:
http://cgse.epfl.ch/page65660-en.html
The Bioenergy Wiki has a roundup of all the efforts here:
http://www.bioenergywiki.net/index.php/Sustainability_sta ...
Erik
The Orion Grassroots Network: 1,100+ grassroots groups working for conservation & more
Permalink
ngreene Posted 5:47 am
18 Jan 2008
Permalink
sindark Posted 5:47 am
18 Jan 2008
Road - 9.9%
Air - 1.6%
Other - 2.3%
Total - 13.5%
Source: World Resources Institute.
a sibilant intake of breath
Permalink
btbrown Posted 7:38 am
18 Jan 2008
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070305/weisberg
As the global marketplace for carbon sequestration grows, it will be necessary to ensure that these carbon credits are not only offering competitive returns, but are accessible to small family farms.
Take a look at Brazil's Social Fuel Stamp. This seems like a useful legal approach to encourage a more equitable biodiesel industry.
http://www.biodiesel.gov.br/docs/Folder_biodiesel_ingles_ ...
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 8:52 am
18 Jan 2008
Which most likely means that the Europeans will do it first, and then the Americans will copy it later, starting with California.
Just like with Electronics Recycling, and Toxics.
_
Since as it is now, the US Government Corn, Soy and Palm Oil are wonderful!
Where as the EU Government is considering banning them. (Which largely might not even be a serious effort, but more of a trade barrier to protect domestic production)
http://nytimes.com/2008/01/15/business/worldbusiness/15bi ...
http://royalsociety.org/document.asp?latest=1&id=7366 ...
http://news.mongabay.com/2008/0103-biofuels.html
http://atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/7/11191/2007/acpd-7-11 ...
_
The real hitch to all that is if California can get their EPA head guy to sign off on the damn waiver form.
Permalink
kimberleywoelich Posted 12:45 pm
18 Jan 2008
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 5:56 pm
18 Jan 2008
According to the U.N. Food and Agricultural Organization's (FAO) international commodity price reporter, the international price of crude palm oil (CPO) has more than doubled since January 2006, and now stands at $950 per metric ton. The latest prices for soya oil and rapeseed (canola) oil are, respectively, $1,164 and $1,386. Translating these prices into volumetric terms (at a specific density of around 0.88), we have the following:
Feedstock $/litre $/gallon
Palm oil ... 0.84 3.16
Soya oil ... 1.02 3.88
Rape oil ... 1.22 4.62
That is the price of feedstocks before processing into biodiesel, which step adds around 20% to costs.
Lets compare those prices with the latest spot price for crude petroleum (Brent): around $90 per barrel, or $2.14 per gallon ($0.57 per litre). That crude has to be processed also to turn it into diesel. Heating oil (which is similar to diesel fuel) futures are currently trading at $2.50, which is a 17% mark-up on the price of crude. So let's round that up to 20% so that we can make it simple and compare one feedstock (vegetable oil) with another (crude petroleum).*
At current international prices, the main feedstocks for biodiesel are 48% to 115% higher ($1.73/gallon higher in the case of soya oil, the main feedstock in the United States) on a volumetric basis than crude petroleum. But biodiesel has only about 92% of the energy density of petroleum diesel, so on an energy-equivalent basis they are around 60% to 135% higher than petroleum diesel ($2.07/gallon of diesel equivalent higher in the case of soya oil). Assuming a petroleum price of $100/barrel would only drop those numbers to 44% to 111% higher ($1.83/gallon of diesel equivalent higher in the case of soya oil).
So, if producing biodiesel from pure virgin vegetable oils is so expensive, why is it being produced at all?
The answer, in two words: subsidies and mandates.
From Brazil to the EU, from Indonesia to several states in the United States, governments have mandated minimum blending ratios (typically 2% to 5%) for biodiesel. Some (like Indonesia) enlist state-owned petroleum companies to sell it (in Indonesia at a substantial loss in revenues), and many others provide substantial subsidies.
In the United States, the federal excise tax credit for biodiesel made from virgin agricultural products is $1.00 per gallon. Many states top that up with producer payments, blenders' credits, reduced fuel taxes, and even reduced sales taxes. Kentucky, for example, adds their own $1.00 per gallon subsidy to the federal subsidy, bringing the total subsidy for a producer in that state to $2.00 per gallon ($2.17 per gallon of diesel equivalent). Nowadays, that just barely covers the difference between the cost of the feedstock and the (before tax) market price for diesel-like fuels.
So please, people, when you make an assertion that oil prices are driving this market, look at the other factors (feedstock prices, subsidies, mandates) as well.
There is no way, at current feedstock prices and crude petroleum prices, that biodiesel production would be viable were it not for the mandates and subsidies.
Eliminate those, and all the hand-wringing about how to make biodiesel production sustainable would become moot.
-------------------
*Industry experts will no doubt point out that biodiesel manufacturing yields a byproduct, glycerin, the sale of which can help offset some of the high cost of producing biodiesel. But the global rise in biodiesel production has created a glut of crude glycerin, sending the price of that commodity into free fall. For the purposes of this exercise we can ignore it.
Permalink
JMG Posted 6:23 pm
18 Jan 2008
About as useful (and quite similar in effect, in fact) as bleeding the patient to cure ailments, but Americans are not known for rational responses to any sort of warning sign that ecological limits exist and cannot be evaded.
Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.
Permalink
trock Posted 11:20 pm
18 Jan 2008
Permalink
stopgreenpath Posted 2:19 am
19 Jan 2008
desert is not "failed" forest. it is uniquely important to the global ecosytem and cannot be sacrificed at the altar of utility company profits, like so may coal-rich mountains before it. this is why we all need to STRENUOUSLY OBJECT to any so-called "renewable" energy programs which destroy hundreds of thousands of acres of desert wilderness.
bulldozing, dynamiting, poisoning and dehydrating wilderness is NOT "green," any more than biofuel grown at the expense of rainforest, yet many environmentalists are greenwashing these killing fields because they think it's "better than coal." well, it's not, and we need to SUPPORT massive programs to bring PV/wind and thermal only to PREVIOUSLY DEVELOPED areas.
I cannot name one person who would not be delighted to have a program that really, truly, made a home system affordable, and a LOT of folks in construction need work right now, so the economy will also benefit from a GREEN COLLAR boost.
the greenest energy is that which you needn't ever produce.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 2:44 am
19 Jan 2008
One thing we will most likely see a lot more of with Global Warming is Deserts.
Permalink
Patrick Mazza Posted 11:46 am
19 Jan 2008
Patrick Mazza
Permalink
JMG Posted 4:13 pm
19 Jan 2008
Bottom line--is Climate Solutions jumping on the biofuels bandwagon?
Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 5:22 pm
19 Jan 2008
I agree with him that the situation for ethanol is different, but only in a matter of degree. Brazil can produce ethanol from sugar cane rather cheaply, at current international sugar prices (around 10 U.S. cents per pound). But if petroleum prices slump, and sugar prices rise to what they were at the beginning of 2006 (around 18.5 U.S. cents per pound), Brazilian producers may once again (rationally) decide it makes more sense to turn more of their production to sugar and less to ethanol. Of course, that does not refute the main point of this string: either way, an incentive is created to expand production of sugar cane.
As regards ethanol made from temperate crops, however, subsidies and mandates do matter, especially given the volatility -- and generally upward trend -- we have witnessed over the last two years in feedstock-crop prices. Since December, corn has been trading at a price 10% higher than its previous price peak, in January 2007. Wheat (an ethanol feedstock in western Canada and some countries of the EU), having traded at under $210 per tonne until May 2007, has been trading at above $300 per tonne since August 2007 and now stands at about $340 per tonne.
DTN Ethanol Center, a (free) on-line newsletter, publishes a frequent assessment of a hypothetical (but representative) ethanol plant located in the South Dakota. Its latest assessment begins thus:
After a couple of months of profitability, recovery for the hypothetical 50-million-gallon Neeley Biofuels Inc. ethanol plant in South Dakota, profits returned to negative territory January 14 as corn prices continued to move closer to the $5 mark. [My emphasis.]
Net profitability has dropped from about 5 cents on January 8 to nearly minus 6 cents January 14.
Note: In determining its profits and losses, Neeley Biofuels takes into account the $0.51/gallon federal volumetric ethanol excise tax credit (VEETC). That is to say, even with the VEETC, the plant moves frequently between profit and loss. Without the subsidy, it would be operating in the red a lot more often.
These are only my personal opinions.
Permalink
Pompey Road Posted 9:02 am
20 Jan 2008
The eons of time and nature was good to us down here. It was not until we become civilized that destroying our habitat become fathomable or fashionable.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 10:25 am
20 Jan 2008
...the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee is likely to call tomorrow for the schemes to be delayed because of fears that biofuels can have negative consequences. Criticisms include claims that producing some biofuels emits more greenhouse gases than fossil fuels and that habitats such as tropical rainforests are being destroyed to plant the new crops. The report, 'Are Biofuels Sustainable?', is also thought to predict that rising food prices pushed up by competition for land could restrict growth in the industry.
John A. Bailo
Inhofe 400 Wannabe
My Log
Permalink
Tom Philpott Posted 5:29 am
23 Jan 2008
And biofuels and "clean coal" coat that brutal logic with a shiny "green" tint.
Victual Reality
Permalink
cmello Posted 3:05 am
29 Jan 2008
But concern about the Amazon rain forest is more than just chic-ness or PC.
I think that plowing up the Amazon rain forest will eventually lead to another devastated area much bigger than the Appalachias and with greater permanent loss of species of flora and fauna that exist only there. Look where it is located...once deforested, it is ripe for becoming a desert when the rain stops falling there. Then there will not even be a few crops to offset the loss of the rain forest.
E.g.: The Sahara desert in Africa extends farther south each year due to farming and removal of trees, etc on its southern margins.
I think that something could be done to reclaim devastated Appalachian areas. I doubt if anything will be doable to reclaim the Amazon rain forest once it is gone and turns into a desert.
cmello
Permalink