Biochar; part of the solution to climate change?

According to a growing, vocal and very well-connected group of scientists, entrepreneurs and lobbyists, the best if not the only way of humanity surviving climate change and solving the food and energy crisis is to plough billions of tonnes of charcoal into the soil every year. They call charcoal used in this way “biochar” and claim that it will lock up carbon for thousands of years, provide energy through the same process which produces the charcoal, greatly increase plant yields and stop deforestation (caused, according to many of them, mainly by small farmers who slash and burn forests because they cannot keep their soil fertile). However bizarre and unfounded these claims may be, they are being taken very seriously in high-level policy circles.

A keynote speaker at the 2008 conference of the International Biochar Initiative (IBI), which is the main biochar lobbying forum, was the Australian Tim Flannery. He chairs the Copenhagen Climate Council which is organising the World Business Summit on Climate Change in May, ’09, which will put forward business and pro-business leaders’ ‘recommendations’ to UNFCCC. Many IBI members and supporters are similarly well-connected and able to influence high-level policy decisions.

The IBI achieved major successes at the Poznan UNFCCC Conference: Following a UNCCD submission in Poznan, biochar has been included into the “dialogue for the post 2012 climate regime”. 1 Furthermore, the government of Micronesia proposed that biochar should play a vital role in mitigating climate change. Post-2012 CDM credits for biochar could be formally approved at Copenhagen.

If it is endorsed then a statement made by Flannery about “biochar” might well prove correct: “With the appropriate …promotion and adoption, it will change our world forever”, though, there is every reason to reach the opposite conclusion regarding the second part of his sentence: “and very much for the better”.2

Fine-grained charcoal is a by-product from biomass pyrolysis, a form of bioenergy production which yields two types of fuel; bio-oil and syngas as well as the charcoal. Both can be used for heat and power and they can also be further refined into second-generation agrofuels, i.e. into fuel for cars and potentially planes. It thus fits in perfectly with the push for biorefineries and tree plantations to fuel cars, but it does not depend on those. Pyrolysis for heat and power could be rapidly scaled up, provided that ‘market hurdles’ can be overcome. If pyrolysis companies could earn money from turning the biochar into patented fertilisers (with plantation expansion guaranteeing high profits from fertilisers), and if, on top of that they could attract carbon credits, the industry could take off very quickly. For companies such as Best Energies, Eprida, Dynamotive and Biomass Energy and Carbon, getting biochar included into carbon trading could make the difference between possible bankruptcy or, as Best Energies put it “win[ning] the current land grab in next-generation fuels”3.

IBI lobbyists promote an image of a future industry which primarily benefit small farmers and other villagers, through small pyrolysis units and charcoal-making cooking stoves, yet many of their spokespeople call for “biochar” ‘carbon sequestration’ targets which would make half a billion hectares of biochar plantations sound conservative.

“Biochar” thus fits in with other false climate solutions based on large-scale plantations and land-grabbing, from agrofuels to ‘carbon sink’ tree plantations and GE trees. The scientific rationale for “biochar” is even shakier than for many other false solutions: Agrofuels, however harmful, can at least power cars. Applying charcoal to soils, on the other hand has not been shown to reliably sequester carbon or make soil more fertile on its own. The ‘evidence’ for the claims is based primarily on terra preta, ancient soils in Central Amazonia, formed hundreds or even thousands of years ago. Terra preta was created by small farmers who, over many generations, mixed charcoal as well as compost, animal and fish bones, river sediments, manure and diverse biomass residues into the soil. There is no evidence that carbon-rich, fertile soils can be recreated simply – or quickly – by applying large quantities of charcoal to fields.

So far only one “biochar” field study has been published in peer-reviewed journals. Researchers found that, charcoal additions to soil made synthetic nitrogen fertilisers work better. Yields for plants grown with char and fertilisers were still considerably lower than for plants grown solely with chicken manure. Using nothing but charcoal, however, resulted in zero plant growth after two harvests. This is why a lot of the ‘biochar research’ actually involves an ammonium bicarbonate fertiliser, of which char is only one component. At least during this short-term study, most of the carbon remained in the soil, but other studies indicate that even this is not guaranteed.

A study in Kenya showed that over the first 20-30 years after biomass burning, soils lost 72% of the carbon contained in charcoal.(4) Initial results of a Colombian field study show that plots with charcoal had higher yields but lost 60% more soil carbon than control plots over two years.5 This makes claims about biochar having the potential to sequester carbon on a geo-engineeering scale little more than hot air.

The push for “”biochar today can be compared with that for agrofuels around 2002: Unfounded promises to solve the climate crisis and poverty with one stroke, while, behind the scenes, a massive lobbying effort is paving the way for artificial markets through state support. By the end of this year, the biochar lobby could well succeed in getting “biochar” into the CDM and other carbon trading schemes from 2012, possibly with ‘double credits’, as well as gaining other state support. Once this is in place, major industry investment and plantation expansion will follow. Several Indonesian pulp and paper companies, the executive director of the Indonesian palm oil association, Embrapa in Brazil, the Bolivian agribusiness firm DESA in Santa Cruz and Shell are amongst those already promoting the idea. The question is whether civil society groups and movements will be able to organise quickly enough and succeed in stopping the push for industrial biochar and, above all, carbon trading in charcoal as a soil amendment(“biochar”). If we fail this year then we could soon find ourselves fighting against another wave of land-grabbing and forest and other ecosystem destruction.

By Almuth Ernsting, Biofuelwatch, http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk, e-mail: info at biofuelwatch dot org dot uk

References:

For fuller information see in particular Section 4 of “Climate Geo-engineering with ‘Carbon Negative’ Bioenergy”, www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/docs/cnbe/cnbe.html

1. http://www.biochar-international.org/timflannery.html
2. http://www.bestenergies.com/aboutus.html
3. http://www.springerlink.com/content/0h15324rrg7k5061/
4. http://www.biochar-international.org/images/J_Major_biogeochem.pdf

Source: WRM Bulletin, Nr. 138 (Januar 2009)
www.wrm.org.uy

For a briefing paper on biochar, please see 'Biochar for Climate Change Mitigation: Fact or Fiction?' by Almuth Ernsting and Rachel Smolker, www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/docs/biocharbriefing.pdf . For a detailed report about the different proposals for climate geo-engineering with biomass, including biochar, see 'Climate Geo-engineering with 'carbno negative' bioenergy: Climate saviour or climate endgame' by Almuth Ernsting and Deepak Rughani, www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/docs/cnbe/cnbe.html

Home del.icio.us Digg This!

Action Against Agrofuels

On Thursday 16th October, activists frorm Action Against Agrofuel disrupted the European Biofuels Expo and Conference 2008, the largest agrofuels expo in Europe. A group of activists disguised as delegates entered the expo hall, climbed the wall and dropped banners on the main entrance, The aim of the protest was to highlight the link between agrofuels expansion and deforestation and world hunger. As well as making exascerbating climate change through rainforest destruction, population displacement and associated human right abuses. The expansion of agrofuels has a led to a major increase in the price of the world main staple foods such as maize, rice and wheat.



For futher information on the pitfalls of agrofuels take a look at the biofuelwatch website.

Also, check bellow for a warning from the IMF about the dangers of biofuels.



And check out this guy explaing that the biggest problem he is experiancing in aid work is the biofuel drive price escalation of grain prices.

Home del.icio.us Digg This!

Paddling in deep waters.

Here is a an excellent article by Johann Hari in the Grauniad.

Meanwhile- China's neaveau riche are perplexed at the high price of filling up their new cars, American farmers are angry that their grain fed, BSE riddled cattle are not welcome once they've travelled half way 'round the world to South Korea, Israel practices bombing runs for Gearge's farewell bash and the Big Oil Giants return to Iraq after 35 years lusting on the sidelines.



But on the other hand - Good news for a future on two wheels as history's third-best-ever invention gets some much needed support.

Home del.icio.us Digg This!

Global Food Crisis

10 suprising implications of high food prices.

"In 1798, Thomas Malthus famously and grimly predicted that population growth would be perennially held in “check” by inherent limits to food production. While the following 200 years have certainly witnessed their fair share of famines and food crises, the supply of food generally kept pace with demand, and life went on. Over the last decade, however, the demand for food has risen faster than supply, causing food prices to climb faster than the rate of inflation. The World Bank noted that since the year 2000, food prices have risen 75%, a figure which conceals even more dramatic increases, such as a 200% increase in the price of wheat and a 250% increase in the price of rice."

Continued...

Home del.icio.us Digg This!

Global Food Crisis: Review (podcasts, songs, reports, articles)

The story of the year has to be rising food prices. The details are complex, so beware anyone who gives you a simple explanation. There are both demand and supply side factors--both of which are explained by Lester Brown in this interview (mp3). On the demand side a rapidly growing middle class is moving from grains to the more typical diet of the affluent; meat and vegetables complimented by grains. If you eat any of the various kinds of grain you get a large amount of energy from your food; to get the same amount of energy by eating meat, you have to feed the animal that provides that meat with a larger amount of grain. For example to get one calorie from a cow you need to feed it 6 calories in the form of grain. A second major demand side force is an ever growing global population. Thirdly, the rapid expansion of biofuels, perticularly for US and European markets is an emerging source of demand. The worlds few hundered million motorists are being pitted against the world billion of poor.

"From 1990 through 2005 the growth in grain consumption was around
20'000'000 tones a year, in the last two years...it has jumped to
around 50'000'000 tonnes a year, the difference being roughly 30'000'000 tonnes
per year of additional grain being used to produce ethanol...stated otherwise,
the growth in world demand for grain these last two years from US ethanol
destileries exceedes the world growth in demand from all other
sources"

Lester Brown, Earth Policy Institute

On the supply side there are both short term issues such as bad weather in some parts of thw world, and long term issues such as loss of soil qaulity, water table depletion, crop damage due to climate change and shifitng agricultural regions also due to climate change. The relative importance of these factors, now and into the future is very difficult to predict although it is likely that they are all leading in one direction; towards agricultural stress.

The impact of increasing food prices is significant even in the developed world where inflation is not fully reflecting the increasing cost of living for the poor. As staple foods are not optional purchases, rises in these costs are therefore perticularly important for the the most vulnerable in society. In the developing world things are very tough, there have been reports of 'rice rustling' (Thailand), grain truck hijacking (Darfur), strikes over wage stagnation (Bangladesh); and riots in many countries around the world including Egypt, Yemen, Cameroon, Mexico and others. Many of these countries are poor but developing, the problems are even more extreme for refugees and those being fed by the World Food Program which has a limited budget.

"The doubling of world wheat, rice, and corn prices has sharply reduced the
availability of food aid, putting the 37 countries that depend on the WFP’s
emergency food assistance at risk. In March, the WFP issued an urgent appeal for
$500 million of additional funds."

Celsias

Thankfully, as is apparent from the above, we have plenty of food. If we are currentl deciding to burn large qauntities of it as fuel then we have a nother option, which is highly complex and involves not being complete bastards i.e stop burning food. The other major way that we can solve the problem is by eating less meat; from an environmental point of view the whole topic of vegetarianism is more problematic than helpful. Vegetarianism seems to have its own culture; we dont need people to accept an ethos to solve this problem, mearly to encourage healthier diets with a lower proportion of meat. It is also worth noting that whilst such a move is worthwhile, in general markets do respond well to price signals, and currently meet production is hugely subsidised in the US and Europe (hence 'cash cow'). Perhaps damaging ethanol and meet subsdies should be removed as a first step to resolving this problem. For less obvious and more detailed solutions check out this IIASTD report or briefing.

Related Audio:

1. Lester Brown on the food crisis.


2. The Guardian on the 'perfect storm'.
   
3. The Bugle comedy podcast on escalating food prices.

Home del.icio.us Digg This!

Price of Rice on the Rise

There are many reasons for the price of rice going up. Of course all grain prices are linked to varying degrees so this is part of a wider problem in agricultural production. The most often quoted drivers of increasing prices are the rise of asia up the economic scale, leading to more meat consumption, and more grain required to feed the animals grown for food; the rise of bofuels, perticularly of corn ethanol in the US is also a significant factor.

Other factors such as soil degredation, decline of water qaulity and the effects of climate change on global agriculture through shifting weather patterns and drought, are all likely to add to these pressures in the medium to long term.

If you live in the US then you will be aware of the pressure being exerted on China to unpin its currency. One of the main reasons they dont do this is that they need to subsidise food for the hundereds of millions of extremely impoverished Chineese who are not currently bennefiting from national accension.

• Past article on climate change and rice.

Home del.icio.us Digg This!

Food prices on the rise.

This is inconvenient for us in the developed world but a serious source of concern for those who spend a large fraction of their income on food. Increasing food prices are to be expected with the acension of China, the role of huge corn subsides is also signifiant.  The real question is are these the only sources to this trend or is food production being stressed by physical limits
such as water availability, soil qaulity etc.,

Limits to Growth and Plan B 2.0 are two books that i would reccomend as a backgrond to this issue.

Home del.icio.us Digg This!

Global food crisis looms as climate change and fuel shortages bite

A very interesting article was published in the Guardian today. This took my a while to find online as it is a climate change story that has moved out of the Environment section and into the World News section. That, i am sure, is going to be the way that things go.

The key claim of the article is that food prices are spiraling due to biofuels and climate change and that these effects are already politically significant in a large number of countries.

"India, Yemen, Mexico, Burkina Faso and several other countries have had, or been close to, food riots in the last year, something not seen in decades of low global food commodity prices. Meanwhile, there are shortages of beef, chicken and milk in Venezuela and other countries as governments try to keep a lid on food price inflation."

The situation was summed up best by Lester Brown:

"Lester Brown, president of the Washington-based Worldwatch Institute thinktank, said: "The competition for grain between the world's 800 million motorists, who want to maintain their mobility, and its 2 billion poorest people, who are simply trying to survive, is emerging as an epic issue."

According to a Worldwatch Institute article entitled "Climate Change: The Unseen Force Behind Rising Food Prices?":

"Climate change has been attributed to greater inconsistencies in agricultural conditions, ranging from more-erratic flood and drought cycles to longer growing seasons in typically colder climates. While the increase in Earth’s temperature is making some places wetter, it is also drying out already arid farming regions close to the Equator. This year’s Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment report states that “increases in the frequency of droughts and floods are projected to affect local production negatively, especially in subsistence sectors at low latitudes.” The decline in production in the face of growing demand can drive up prices in markets that may lack the technology to fight environmental hazards to overall production."

Home del.icio.us Digg This!

Climate Change and Rice

Rice is the staple diet for 40% of the worlds population. Effects of climate change on rice are therefore of great significance.

As with all outcomes from climate models when we are looking at precipitation, temperature, and other factors, along with non-climatic factors the conclusions are not definitive or precise. However, the heterogeneity of the situation is significant of itself, and indeed is perhaps the most important aspect of the models. With more than 2-3 degrees warming all the trends are negative and the yields of many crops in many areas are declining, before that point there are a lot of areas making gains, and a lot loosing out. This is not a situation that farmers are going to easily adapt to and large scale migrations from one area to another will be significant without the yield necessarily decreasing.

Unfortuntely areas of Africa are amongst the hardest hit in Tyndall Centre projections:

• Between 0.9 and 1.4°C above 1990, poor farmers income declines globally (Hare 2003). This information may not show in model results for countries whose farmers have a range of incomes.
  
• 
  
• Even if there are no overall impacts on the yield of a crop within a country as a whole, this picture can mask a large amount of local variation. For example, in Venezuela where a global temperature rise of 1.4-1.7°C has been predicted to decrease maize yields by 10-15%, 15% decrease maize yield (Gitay . 2001); adaptation could offset 10% of this but it hides huge local variation (Jones &Thornton 2003.
  

The results are more mixed in China.


Relevant Documents:
Introduction to Rice and Climate Change (effects on rice and contribution by rice farming)
Climate Change and Impacts on Grain in China
Feeding Billions, A Grain at a Time (WSJ, Article)
Least Developed Countries and Climate Change.(IIED)
*Understanding the Regional Effects of Climate Change (Tyndall Centre)

Home del.icio.us Digg This!

Climate Change: Latin and South America

I thought i`d take a look at Latin America and climate change. I havent written on this before so it makes a nice change, an i`m intending to write an article for Temas on this topic.




It's remarkably difficult to find information about the region that dosent originate from outwith. This information is perfectly valid but it's difficult to be sure that it reflects the concerns of the people who live in the region and face the local manifestations of climate change.


Climate change as an issue has several angles: Causes; Environmental and Human Impacts, and Solutions. These are not seperate by any means but worthy of individaul aswell as join inspection.



Background on Latin America can be found here, a list of the main relavent climate change issues can be found here. My previous relavent content can be found under the southamerica label.

A few resources that are relavent to this area.

• Latin America's (natural and human) contribution to climate change.

1. Fosil Fuel Usage C2,C4,C5,
2. Deforestation and Fires C1,C2,C3,C6,C7

• Environmental and Human impacts of climate change in Latin America. (Map:which nationshave assesed this?)

1. Impact on farming. I1,I5,I8,A3
2. Impact on health. I1,I8,A3
3. Impact on economy. I2,I5,I6,I7,A3
4. Impact on environment. I1,A3
5. Impact of rising sea levels. I3,A3
6. Impact of migration. I4,A3

• Some possible ways to mitigate climate change contributions and adapt to inevitable impacts.

1. Protecting forests. M1,M2
2. Alternatives to Oil, Coal and Gas.M2,M3
3. Adaptation of climate change.A1,A2,A3,

Some good sites with more information.

1. Amazon Watch
2. Carribean Environmental Health Institute
3. The Panos Institute of the Carribean
4. Adaptation days at COP 11

Home del.icio.us Digg This!

In the Philippines El Nino Means Drought and Huge Carbon Release

According to Columbia University's International Research Institute for Climate and Society (IRI) El Nino cycles are associated with drought in the Philippines.

"Droughts are not generally associated with the Philippines, a country known for its steamy tropical marine climate. But during El Niño cycles, much of the country experiences moderate-to-severe dry periods that can last for a season or more."

This causes a range of problems, both social and environmental.

"[In] Manila, home to more than 10 million people, it is drought — not typhoons — that has led to rising tensions between urban dwellers and farmers who work just outside the city."

"According to the IRI, during El Niño, the water inflows into the Angat reservoir are often significantly decreased, placing substantial duress on the domestic water supply and irrigation needs of farmers."

Whilst the verdict is still open on how the El Nino effect will be altered by climate change, the prevailing view seems to be that the base state of the atmosphere--the normal mode--will become more El Nino like. According to RealClimate there is still much uncertainty as to how this will effect the events themselves, will the fluctuations remain the same (which would lead to more extreme floods and droughts if the atmosphere is already El Nino like) or will the events be tempered (leading to similar levels of extreme events)?

One very recent paper in the journal Nature suggests that extreme droughts and floods will indeed become more prevalent. According to RedBolivia:

Climate experts say new evidence suggests Indonesia's seasonal rains will diminish as global temperatures continue to rise.

That could mean a devastating blow to the country's tropical agriculture and spark more haze-producing wildfires each year.

A new study used samples of coral to track rainfall patterns from more than 6,000 years ago. The study was published a few days ago in the journal Nature.

Study co-author Nerilie Abram says the new data suggest an unexpected link between monsoons and droughts in countries surrounding the Indian Ocean.

"And so the implication is that with monsoon strengthening we expect that parts of Asia and India, where you receive monsoon rainfall, are likely to get wetter. But the knock-on effect is that parts of Indonesia and Australia are likely to get dryer," said Abram.

This year's drought in Indonesia is caused partly by a natural cycle of cooling in the Indian Ocean much like the El Nino phenomenon in the Pacific Ocean.

Despite this latest piece of science leading us to suspect a link between climate change and ever stronger droughts in Indonesia the media are by and large continuing there miserable failure to connect the dots. The International Herald Tribune writes that inflation is up in Indonesia but completely fails to mention any possible link between climate change and this economic effect! Another issue where there is no definitive evidence of a climatic cause but where this link is extremely likely and where key drivers are certainly environmental rather than political is the situation in Dar fur, but this is miraculously under reported.



Drought in Indonesia is, however, not simply worrying for the farmers and the nations economy but for the global community. Thanks to rampant deforestation of old growth rain forest and the expansion of agriculture--particularly palm oil plantations into the heart of Indonesia--the number of forest fires has increased dramatically. These fires are not, however limited to the dessicated fringes of rain forest but in many cases have led to the burning of the peat substrate on which the rain forests and newly planted crops reside. Palm oil production in particular is having disastrous effects on the global carbon cycle, high carbon bogs have to be drained in order to create palm oil plantations. Greenhouse gas emissions from this process across Indonesia have insured that in times of extreme drought due to strong El Nino Indonesia has--according to many estimates--supplanted the US for a time as the worlds largest contributor to climate change. Palm oil is, ironically, being used more and more as a source of that green fuel Biodiesil!

Further Reading:

Palm Oil and Peat Fires in Indonesia: Biofuelwatch
Indonesia, Peat Fires and Climate Change: New Scientist
Dar fur and Climate Change: Climate Change News

Home del.icio.us Digg This!

Guest Post by Almuth Ernsting: The Global Blueprint for A Biomass Economy

THE GLOBAL BLUEPRINT FOR A BIOMASS ECONOMY

A year ago, my MEP sent me a curious statement which said that growing biofuels could not just reduce carbon emissions, but would actually cool the planet. I believed that he had been misinformed, perhaps by proponents of the biofuel industry. I was wrong. Those claims, improbable as they are, pervade top scientific institutions.¹

First, let us think back to early in 2005, when catastrophic global warming hit the news as the biggest climate science conference opened in Exeter.² Frightening evidence of climate change impacts and possible disastrous feedback mechanisms were published. Most studies presented forecast a decline in grain yields, an expansion of deserts and a shrinking of the arable and habitable parts of the planet even at levels of warming which are probably now inevitable. The collapse of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice shelves, of the Amazon rainforest, and perhaps even of the Thermohaline ocean circulation were shown to be real risks if greenhouse gas levels could not be stabilised quickly.

Whilst the media widely reported on the scary findings presented by climate scientists, the second part of the conference had a much lower profile: Recommending pathways which would help to stabilise the climate. This is the remit of Working Group 3 of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Perhaps the most important paper submitted in this context was Pascala and Socolow’s proposal for ‘stabilisation wedges’.³ Pascala and Socolow argue that we need to choose from a range of technologies which we must employ on a large-enough scale so that together they reduce emissions enough to stabilise greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. Whilst most people would agree with the approach in general, the choice of technologies and the claims made for them are more problematic: One of the ‘wedges’ consists of having two billion 60mpg cars running on 100% biofuels, produced by 250 million hectares of high-yield crops, equivalent to one-sixth of the world’s cropland. It is interesting to read the authors’ definition of ‘sustainable’ biofuels: “A sustainable biofuel is one obtained from plants that are replaced by new plants at the same rate as they are used”. That’s it.

Another ‘wedge’ consists of ending deforestation and reforesting 250 million hectares in the tropics or 400 million hectares in the temperate zones.⁴ How this is compatible with the land requirements for biofuels in a world of falling grain yields and shrinking arable land, I do not know.

Yet Pascala and Socolow did not actually suggest that biofuels would cool the planet. That idea came from two other contributors to the same conference, who appear to have a high profile within the IPCC Working Group 3: Peter Read and Jonathan Lermit. They believe that biofuels are carbon neutral because they only release the carbon which they take out of the atmosphere whilst they grow. If we burn them and capture and sequester that carbon in the process, then we will be extracting carbon from the atmosphere and, if we do it on a large-enough scale, we will be cooling the planet. A large-enough scale, according to Read and Lermit, means using 40% of all arable land for bioenergy crops. How can we squeeze so much more production out of the land? We do so by intensifying agriculture across the developing world, farming all of Africa as intensively as Holland is farmed⁵. The promised result? A world where “the More Gas You Guzzle the Greener You Are”.

Putting hundreds of millions of hectares of land under energy crop monocultures and intensifying agriculture across the developing world is quickly being endorsed as a model for saving us from catastrophic climate change. Detailed studies have been carried out for the IEA as to how this plan can be put into action. Perhaps the most important one is the ‘Quickscan of Global Bioenergy Potentials by 2050’⁶, published by the International Energy Authority. This provides a blueprint for increasing the global production of food, animal feeds and growing vast amounts of energy crops without increasing the global area under agriculture. Those ‘sustainable biofuels’ must be produced essentially by eliminating traditional grazing and pasture economies and low-intensive and subsistence farming across the global South, and particularly across Africa. It is up to national governments to decide whether rural communities should have a share of the profits.

Northern NGOs, governments and scientific advisers working hard to translate the global blue-print into feasibility studies and policies for the global South: Maps or countries and continents are divided into ‘zones’ of different monoculture plantations for which they are deemed to be ‘suitable’.⁷ Whilst ancient forests maybe spared on paper, grasslands and low-impact agriculture and vast numbers of species which depend on them are dispensable, sacrificed for the greater good of efficiency and fuel production. Experts have little regard for ‘social factors’ – such as the inconvenient fact of that land being home to millions of people. It is hardly surprising that many southern NGOs speak of colonialism: The maps bear an eerie resemblance to those drawn up in Europe during the ‘Scramble for Africa’ of the 1880s.

With scientific endorsement, support from governments, many NGOs and the UN, new partnerships are being formed between the biotech industry, oil companies and big agri-business. They are investing billions of dollars in the firm belief that their access to land and control of the supply chain are secure.

Those who defend the global bioenergy blueprint unfortunately ignore the nature of the ecological disaster now threatening human civilization, the reality of today’s world and, worst of all, the certain reality of tomorrow’s world.

Bad science?

All of the optimistic bioenergy scenarios assume that food production is not just secure but going to increase, without eating further into ancient forests and conservation areas. As Eduardo Pereira de Carvalho, president of Unica, the union of cane-growers in Sao Paulo states: “As for conflict between food and energy, the fantastic increase in productivity has made all these Malthusian arguments completely nonsense, and we have hundreds of millions of hectares of idle land”⁸. This optimism defies reality: Satellite images confirm advancing deserts across vast regions including north-central China (where two large deserts are about to merge and have already destroyed 24,000 villages in what was once fertile land), Kazakhstan (which has abandoned half its crop land since 1980 due to desertification), Afghanistan (where agriculture is being squeezed out by sand dunes and 100 villages have been lost), northern Africa (with Algeria now abandoning grain production in parts of the country), Mexico, and north-east Brazil.⁹ The biologically productive area of the planet is clearly shrinking, long before global warming inundates vast stretches of land. The Millennium Ecosystems Report, published in 2005 was compiled by thousands of scientists and concluded, amongst other things, that 60% of all ‘ecosystem services’ have been degraded, 25% of the land surface is cultivated, and species extinction rates are 100-1000 times above the background rate. It warned of an accelerating destruction of ecosystem services – even without fully taking climate change projections into account, nor without looking at a possible shift to large-scale biofuel monocultures. Global warming, more frequent and severe heat waves, droughts and floods are a certainty for the coming decades – yet the ‘Quickscan’ report ⁶ states that it works on the premise that the climate will not change. This should invalidate the entire report. The Hadley Centre, a leading British climate research institute, predict that, ‘business as usual’ will lead to half of the planet suffering from drought and one-third turning to desert in coming decades.¹⁰ Over the last three years, Europe’s per hectare rapeseed yields have been falling due to ‘extreme weather events’¹¹. Global grain production has not reached the 2004 levels in either of the past two years, and world grain reserves are being drawn down as a result, raising the cost of staple food¹². A 2006 study of 700 experts, published by the International Water Management Institute and backed by the United Nations found that one third of the world’s population are now affected by water scarcity. It predicted that, based on forecasts for population and food demand growth, water use would increase by 80% by 2050, and that growing biofuel crops will put further stress on ever scarcer water resources.¹³ On current and predicted climate trends, it is very difficult to see how people’s water needs can be met in future even without biofuels.

Claims about ever-rising yields and the availability of vast areas of agricultural land no longer needed for food production sound like wishful thinking rather than good science. If the blueprint can’t work without great harm in today’s world, it certanly won’t work in tomorrow’s world.

Surprisingly, I have been unable to find a single peer-reviewed paper which suggests that the main biofuel feedstocks – palm oil, soya, sugar cane and jatropha actually have lower life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions than fossil fuels at all. There is simply no evidence to show that they are climate friendly. Lots of studies exist about emissions linked to biofuels produced in Europe and the United States: We know, for example, that biofuels from rapeseed oil and sugar beet are linked to lower emissions than diesel or petrol, provided that no new, natural land is put under the plough - but also that thy can only replace a fraction of our energy use. Germany uses 12% of its cultivated land for biofuel crops and can’t get beyond 2% of transport fuels without imports. So why is there no peer-reviewed evidence on whether the tropical crops so widely promoted for biofuels are actually good for the climate?¹⁴ Could it conceivably be because a truly independent study on their life-cycle emissions might demolish the case for using them once and for all?

At last, one study which looks at the overall emissions from biodiesel made from palm oil grown in South-east Asian peatlands will soon be published in a journal.¹⁵ This study uses very conservative figures: It counts emissions from peat drainage, but not from the vast annual fires set by plantation owners. From those conservative figures, it finds that a tonne of palm oil used for biodiesel from peatlands in that region is linked to the emission of 10-30 tonnes of CO2. This is 3.6 to 10.9 times as much CO2 as would be emitted from burning the same amount of diesel. This is the only independent study on life-cycle emissions for a tropical biofuel feedstock which I have ever seen.

The sustainability promise:

I have seen no scientific paper nor pro-large-scale biofuel institution which agrees with destroying rainforests to make way for energy crops – virtually all the organisations and papers which call for massive expansion of energy crops insist that this need not and must not happen. Yet, unfortunately, biofuels are being introduced into a world run largely on neo-liberal principles – or, to be more specific, within trade rules which have a strong bias against regulation and any ‘trade restrictions’ to protect the environment, the climate or communities. Where crops are grown is, by and large, determined by the market – not by scientists and NGOs drafting maps and plans. The market favours those biofuels which are cheapest. Generally that means those with the highest yields, which are tropical starchy and oily plants such as palm oil and sugar cane. Lower-yield crops can capture the market if costs are kept low and governments guarantee an unlimited supply of new land and perhaps even subsidies – soy biodiesel being a prime example. Rainforests, biodiversity, healthy soil and clean water and greenhouse gas emissions remain ‘externalities’ in the accounts, which will inevitably be sacrificed for real quick profits. Take the Indonesian example: Although sustainable oil palm monocultures may be an oxymoron, Indonesia could at least tell its plantations companies that they should plant on the 12 million hectares of rainforest land which they already clear-cut and then abandoned, rather than granting them ever more concessions for new forest land. But plantation companies make far more profits by selling timber than by growing palm oil alone – and they are powerful enough to stop policies which would cut into those profits.

So here is what we are witnessing just now:

Governments, institutions, NGOs and scientists are writing studies, many of them with dodgy claims, which show that biofuels could be grown without destroying any more rainforests, wetlands, peatlands, or biodiversity hotspots. As a result, new markets are created which dramatically up the world market prices of palm oil, soy and sugar cane. On the ground, plantation owners respond by growing more of those crops in the Amazon, in Uganda’s rainforests or in Colombia’s ancient forests and grasslands – unimpeded by regulations and unimpressed by those who tell them that they could be growing them somewhere else. Trade rules, meantime, do not allow for discrimination on goods because of the way they have been produced. Even if Europe might get away with a ban on deforestation diesel, they don’t even want to try. Instead, there is a growing push to use biofuel expansion as a tool for pushing through further trade liberalisation and further barriers to regulation and environmental safeguards in the World Trade Organisation.¹⁶

Meantime, companies, like Wilmar International, sign up to the principles of the Roundtable for Sustainable Palm Oil (perhaps safe in the knowledge that they won’t be translated into action probably for years to come), then apply to destroy one of Uganda’s largest rainforsests for a new oil palm plantation and still manage to get World Bank funding.¹⁷ In the absence of regulation, certification might at best tell consumers that the particular palm oil they are using comes from rainforest which was chopped down before 2005 whereas less scrupulous customers can get that from more recently destroyed forests. Yet, wherever the particular palm oil delivery came from, burning it will drive up the world market price and boost the profits of the worst and the less bad plantation owners alike.

Biofuels, not climate justice

One of Britain’s leading carbon capitalists and biofuel advocates is James Cameron, founder of Climate Change Capital. He is a long-standing opponent of equal rights to the atmosphere, and an influential supporter of the Kyoto Protocol and its inequitable carbon market. This is how he sets out his dire vision for Africa’s future: “The Africans are in a perilous position. They will not be rescued by 20 years of debate about C&C. Nor will they be rescued by the Carbon Market [or] beneficiaries of [it]. They’re going to have to really look to the possibilities that do exist in altering their economies to cope with very high fossil fuel prices and Climate Change at the same time . . . some combination of looking at land use and land use change issues; of coping more effectively with the water resources which are there; of growing biocrops; of ensuring that renewable energy technology is made available at low cost.”

This is a frank admission by one of the architects and profiteers of the carbon market. He continues to advocate an extension of the present-day unsuccessful and inequitable carbon trading, knowing full well that it will not save Africa from being devastated by climate change, and that the carbon trade will not benefit its people. It does, however, benefit him: Having helped to put the current emissions trading in place, he is now Chief Executive of a very successful merchant banking group which has just raised $380 million under Europe’s Emissions Trading Scheme, money which they will invest in ‘low carbon’ projects primarily in developing nations. Climate Change Capital will be speaking at the Bioenergy Europe Conference in February 2007, a conference which will outline “the latest EU legislation and incentive schemes that aim to produce a dramatic increase in the use of biomass and biofuels across the 25 member states.”¹⁸ Clearly, biofuels are a profitable investment opportunity. The above quote about Africa’s future was published by Aubrey Meyer, founder of the Global Commons Institute, who comments: “Cameron adds Africa to the growing pile of discards that the C3 scenario [i.e. the Kyoto Protocol] inevitably causes and the economics of genocide inevitably requires.”¹⁹

Where should we stand?

Many European environmentalists have had high hopes for sustainable local biomass from waste or community forestry. We can hold on to those ideals and many small co-operatives are trying to put them into practice. In poorer, low-energy societies, even a small amount bioenergy, from waste or intercropping, could make a real difference to people’s lives – provided that they are able to use it for their benefit, not export it to the richer nations.²⁰

We must remember, though, that biomass from waste will only meet a tiny proportion of our energy demand – there is little chance of it having any measurable impact on our greenhouse gas emissions. Above all, we must remember that the EU Biofuel Directive, UN policies, bilateral biofuel agreements, etc. have nothing whatsoever to do with this ‘green’ idea. They are putting a global blueprint into action which is threatening local communities, biodiversity, water supplies, rainforest and the climate across the globe. If people think that they can sit at stakeholder forums and make this blueprint sustainable then they should take some time out for reading: I would recomment those papers listed above which set out the global biofuel vision, the Millennium Ecosystem Report, and some good summary of climate change impacts.

As one UN Agency, international institution and government after another adopts this global blueprint, or adjusts its policies accordingly, we need to study the plans, and unite for the rights of the hundreds of millions of people who live on land conveniently classed as ‘degraded wastelands’ which are up for grabs. We need to stop the web of biodiversity being destroyed by monocultures grown in the name of climate change mitigation. And we need to speak out against anybody, no matter their scientific degree or qualification, who claims that monocultures can stabilize the climate. There can be no sustainable energy system based on monocultures. Today’s bioenergy revolution is already destroying some of the planet’s vital climate sinks and threatens to greatly accelerate the pace of global warming. Accelerated global warming threatens all our future. We have the evidence. What we now need is a strong global opposition.

1. See, for example, the editorial in Nature, one of the two most prestigious scientific journals, 7^th December 2006
2. http://www.stabilisation2005.com/outcomes.html
3. http://www-g.eng.cam.ac.uk/impee/topics/stabilisationwedges/files/Stabilisation%20Wedge%20v1%20PDF%20WITH%20NOTES.pdf
4. To find out more about the reality of ‘reforestation’, see www.sinkswatch.org/ .
5. http://www.iaee.org/documents/p03read.pdf
6. http://www.bioenergytrade.org/otherreportspublications/fairbiotradeproject20012004/quickscanofglobalbioenergypotentialsto2050/index.html
7. For an example of a bioenergy ‘zoning’ map of Africa, see http://biopact.com/2006/06/sneak-preview-of-biofuels-atlas-great_18.html
8. “Drink the best and drive the rest”, Nature, 7^th December 2006
9. http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/2006/Update61.htm
10. http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article1786829.ece
11. http://www.pecad.fas.usda.gov/highlights/2006/06/europe_20_june_2006/
12. http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000365/index.html
13. http://www.iwmi.cgiar.org/press/coverage/Food%20biofuels%20could%20worsen%20water%20shortages_Reuters.com.pdf
14. There are studies which look the energy efficiency of tropical biofuels, particularly sugar cane, and there is information about carbon savings from fossil fuel replacement, but no full life-cycle study, which would need to include land-use change emissions.
15. http://www.wetlands.org/news.aspx?ID=804eddfb-4492-4749-85a9-5db67c2f1bb8 Please note that we have derived at the comparison with diesel by using conversion tables found here http://bioenergy.ornl.gov/papers/misc/energy_conv.html .
16. http://www.bbj.hu/latestnews/news_21130_biofuel%2Bdemand%2Bwill%2Bmake%2Bwto%2Baccord%2Bpossible.html
17. http://www.wrm.org.uy/bulletin/100/Uganda.html
18. http://www.climatechangecapital.com/index.asp (see events for details of the conference)
19. http://lists.topica.com/lists/GCN@igc.topica.com/read/message.html?sort=t&mid=1720498412
20. see: http://www.cures-network.org/docs/pos_2006_biofules_brochure.pdf

January 2007

Almuth Ernsting

Biofuelwatch

www.biofuelwatch.org.uk

info [At] biofuelwatch.org.uk

Home del.icio.us Digg This!

Report of the Week: Livestock's Long Shadow

This week's report of the week (large pdf) focuses on the role of livestock in key environmental challenges. The production of beef is found to be one of the most nutrient and carbon intensive industries on the planet aswell as being a significant driver of deforestation.

"Overall, livestock activities contribute to an estimated 18% of total anthropogenic greenhouse gas emmissions from five major sectors of greenhouse gas reporting:energy, industry, waste, landuse change and forestry (LULUCF) and agriculture."

By far the largest numbers are due to LULUCF activities such as deforestation to expand ranchland.

Report summary:

"This report aims to assess the full impact of the livestock sector on environmental problems, along with potential technical and policy approaches to mitigation. The assessment is based on the most recent and complete data available, taking into account direct impacts, along with the impacts of feed crop agriculture required for livestock production.

The livestock sector emerges as one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global. The findings of this report suggest that it should be a major policy focus when dealing with problems of land degradation, climate change and air pollution, water shortage and water pollution, and loss of biodiversity.

Livestock’s contribution to environmental problems is on a massive scale and its potential contribution to their solution is equally large. The impact is so significant that it needs to be addressed with urgency. Major reductions in impact could be achieved at reasonable cost."

Home del.icio.us Digg This!