Friday, May 30, 2008
Food Report Criticizes Biofuel Policies
Monday, May 26, 2008
Sunday, May 25, 2008
more info on teh Conferencia Internacional de Biocombustíveis
Conferência Internacional de Biocombustíveis |
O governo federal irá realizar em novembro, na cidade de São Paulo, aConferência Internacional de Biocombustíveis. Serão cinco dias de debate com a participação de representantes de 190 países, entre eles Estados Unidos, China, Índia e Austrália. A organização da Conferência Internacional de Biocombustíveis elegeu na segunda-feira (7), a coordenação-geral do evento que será exercida por um Grupo de Trabalho Interministerial (GTI), composto pela Casa Civil, ministérios das Relações Exteriores, de Minas e Energia, do Meio Ambiente, da Agricultura, Pecuária e Abastecimento, da Ciência e Tecnologia, do Desenvolvimento Agrário, BNDES, Apex e Secom. |
biodiesel and environmental and social impacts In Brasil report
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
New Trend in Biofuels Has New Risks
Mexico's flood survivors blackmailed into biofuels
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Switchboard, from NRDC › Nathanael Greene's Blog › In hand wringing over biofuels mandate, safeguards at risk
Always?
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
a very useful blog we shall add to ours... on biofuel... just amazing
biofuels international
Goldman Sachs invests in Brazilian biofuels
2nd August, 2007
US investment bank Goldman Sachs is set to invest 400 million reais (€156 million) into Brazil’s second largest sugar and ethanol producer Santelisa Vale.
Santelisa Vale will process 18 million tonnes of sugarcane this year. The company also has plans for six new sugar mills, with a capacity to crush 2.5 million tonnes of cane each – a total of 15 million tonnes.
It also has a 72% stake in Crystalsev, a company involved in the commercialisation of sugar, ethanol, and electricity, with investment in a specialised ethanol terminal.
"Goldman Sachs brings the necessary expertise for us to leverage our growth plans in the coming years," Santelisa Vale CEO Anselmo Lopes Rodrigues, says.
Santelisa Vale has five mills in Brazil. Four of the new mills will be built in partnership with private equity funds in Companhia Nacional de Açúcar e Àlcool (CNAA), three of which will be located in Minas Gerais and one in Goiás. The other two new mills are Santa Vitória (in Minas Gerais), in which the company holds a 72% stake, and Tropical (in Goiás), with a 50% stake.
Santelisa Vale was formed as the result of a merger in July between Vale do Rosário and Usina Santa Elisa.
biofuels, indirect land use change
August 20, 2007
Science: Regular Oil Cleaner Than Biofuels
Posted by Glenn Hurowitz at 12:58 PM
A new study in the journal Science ($ub req'd) by Renton Rieghelato and Dominick V. Spracklen validates what many have been saying all along: that biofuels, especially those from the tropics, are far worse for the planet than regular old crude oil.
The study finds that we could reduce global warming pollution two to nine times more by conserving or restoring forests and grasslands rather than razing them and turning them into biofuels plantations - even if we continue to use fossil fuels as our main source of energy. That's because those forests and grasslands act as the lungs of the planet - their dense vegetation sucks up far more carbon dioxide and breathes out far more oxygen than any biofuel crop ever could.
When you destroy that wilderness, much of the carbon stored in its living matter is either burned or otherwise oxidized - which is why the destruction of tropical forests accounts for more than 20 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions (more than China produces). Meanwhile, we'd be saving all the creatures that rely on those wildlands for life. The scale is huge: replacing even 10 percent of our gas with biofuels would require 43 percent of U.S. arable land.
Are you listening George Soros? What about you, Center for American Progress? And you, Barack Obama?
If you don't have access to Science, here's the free write-up from The New Scientist (take action on this issue here).
August 06, 2007
George Soros vs. The Planet
Posted by Glenn Hurowitz at 08:47 AM
Well, that whole beating George Bush thing in 2004 didn't work out, so now billionaire financier/Democratic fundraiser/democracy spreader George Soros is back to his first love: making money - apparently even when it comes at the expense of the planet.
Sabrina Valle of The Washington Post is reporting that Soros is one of the biggest investors in growing sugarcane for ethanol in the Brazilian cerrado, "a vast plateau where temperatures range from freezing to steaming hot and bushes and grasslands alternate with forests and the richest variety of flora of all the world's savannas."
That could soon come to an end. In the past four decades, more than half of the Cerrado has been transformed by the encroachment of cattle ranchers and soybean farmers. And now another demand is quickly eating into the landscape: sugarcane, the raw material for Brazilian ethanol."Deforestation in the Cerrado is actually happening at a higher rate than it has in the Amazon," said John Buchanan, senior director of business practices for Conservation International in Arlington. "If the actual deforestation rates continue, all the remaining vegetation in the Cerrado could be lost by the year 2030. That would be a huge loss of biodiversity."
The roots of this transformation lie in the worldwide demand for ethanol, recently boosted by a U.S. Senate bill that would mandate the use of 36 billion gallons of ethanol by 2022, more than six times the capacity of the United States' 115 ethanol refineries. President Bush, who proposed a similar increase in his State of the Union address, visited Brazil and negotiated a deal in March to promote ethanol production in Latin America and the Caribbean.
Now Soros (as well as Goldman Sachs and the Carlyle Group) have joined longtime Big Ag environmental villains Cargill and Archer Daniels Midland in investing in sugarcane expansion on formerly wild land, fueling the loss of 7.4 million acres per year of pristine land. This would ordinarily violate sustainability principles adopted by Goldman Sachs and others (Goldman Sachs's policy, for instance, says that the company "will not
finance any project or initiate loans where the specified use of proceeds would
significantly convert or degrade a critical natural habitat.")
So, they claim they're not contributing to the extinction of the jaguars, blue macaws, and giant armadillos that roam(ed) the savannah because they're growing on fallow land, but that's just a big greenwashing cover.
But environmental groups argue that as soy and sugarcane displace cattle and less lucrative crops, ranchers are moving farther into the unspoiled areas of the Cerrado."There are ranchers substituting sugarcane for cattle in the Sao Paulo area, for instance, and displacing cattle to the state of Bahia, both in the Cerrado. So what is the point?" asks Ricardo Machado, author of a study about the Cerrado for Conservation International.
It's a widely documented phenomenon fueling deforestation in Indonesia, West Africa and elsewhere: increased demand for land fuels higher commodity prices and expansion into pristine forests.
It's particularly ironic that Soros is working hand in hand with the Bush family by investing $1 billion in growing sugarcane in Brazil. Jeb Bush formed the Interamerican Ethanol Commission in December to promote increased ethanol exports from Latin America, leading, perhaps not coincidentally to President Bush's March deal with Brazilian President Luis Lula Ignacio da Silva.
What really frustrates me more than anything is that these rogue billionaires are destroying these tropical forests for a relatively tiny amount of money, compared to the potential financial value of protecting these lands as carbon sinks. The value of agricultural land on the cerrado ranges from as little as $140 to as high (in areas with the richest land) to $3000. But protecting these areas as carbon sinks could give them a value of up to $6000 per hectare, based on current prices of carbon dioxide that exceed $20 per ton on European markets.
Of course, that would require governments to come together to allow countries and polluters to get greenhouse gas reduction credit for protecting intact ecosystems as carbon sinks, as I recently outlined with Bill Powers in a New York Times op-ed. But there's increasing support for the idea, and as these financiers destroy the forests to create agriculture, they're also destroying much greater potential returns for themselves.
I guess being a rogue billionaire doesn't make you a smart billionaire.
P.S. I've set up an action alert on my website where you can contact George Soros and ask him to withdraw from this project and invest instead in conservation; click here to send him a note. Soros has actually done a tremendous amount of good in his long career, from fighting Soviet tyranny to fighting George Bush, so I think a bit of media scrutiny combined with a grassroots outcry could convince him to align his business practices with his principles and history of good work.
That could soon come to an end. In the past four decades, more than half of the Cerrado has been transformed by the encroachment of cattle ranchers and soybean farmers. And now another demand is quickly eating into the landscape: sugarcane, the raw material for Brazilian ethanol."Deforestation in the Cerrado is actually happening at a higher rate than it has in the Amazon," said John Buchanan, senior director of business practices for Conservation International in Arlington. "If the actual deforestation rates continue, all the remaining vegetation in the Cerrado could be lost by the year 2030. That would be a huge loss of biodiversity."
The roots of this transformation lie in the worldwide demand for ethanol, recently boosted by a U.S. Senate bill that would mandate the use of 36 billion gallons of ethanol by 2022, more than six times the capacity of the United States' 115 ethanol refineries. President Bush, who proposed a similar increase in his State of the Union address, visited Brazil and negotiated a deal in March to promote ethanol production in Latin America and the Caribbean.
Now Soros (as well as Goldman Sachs and the Carlyle Group) have joined longtime Big Ag environmental villains Cargill and Archer Daniels Midland in investing in sugarcane expansion on formerly wild land, fueling the loss of 7.4 million acres per year of pristine land. This would ordinarily violate sustainability principles adopted by Goldman Sachs and others (Goldman Sachs's policy, for instance, says that the company "will not
finance any project or initiate loans where the specified use of proceeds would
significantly convert or degrade a critical natural habitat.")
So, they claim they're not contributing to the extinction of the jaguars, blue macaws, and giant armadillos that roam(ed) the savannah because they're growing on fallow land, but that's just a big greenwashing cover.
But environmental groups argue that as soy and sugarcane displace cattle and less lucrative crops, ranchers are moving farther into the unspoiled areas of the Cerrado."There are ranchers substituting sugarcane for cattle in the Sao Paulo area, for instance, and displacing cattle to the state of Bahia, both in the Cerrado. So what is the point?" asks Ricardo Machado, author of a study about the Cerrado for Conservation International.
It's a widely documented phenomenon fueling deforestation in Indonesia, West Africa and elsewhere: increased demand for land fuels higher commodity prices and expansion into pristine forests.
It's particularly ironic that Soros is working hand in hand with the Bush family by investing $1 billion in growing sugarcane in Brazil. Jeb Bush formed the Interamerican Ethanol Commission in December to promote increased ethanol exports from Latin America, leading, perhaps not coincidentally to President Bush's March deal with Brazilian President Luis Lula Ignacio da Silva.
What really frustrates me more than anything is that these rogue billionaires are destroying these tropical forests for a relatively tiny amount of money, compared to the potential financial value of protecting these lands as carbon sinks. The value of agricultural land on the cerrado ranges from as little as $140 to as high (in areas with the richest land) to $3000. But protecting these areas as carbon sinks could give them a value of up to $6000 per hectare, based on current prices of carbon dioxide that exceed $20 per ton on European markets.
Of course, that would require governments to come together to allow countries and polluters to get greenhouse gas reduction credit for protecting intact ecosystems as carbon sinks, as I recently outlined with Bill Powers in a New York Times op-ed. But there's increasing support for the idea, and as these financiers destroy the forests to create agriculture, they're also destroying much greater potential returns for themselves.
I guess being a rogue billionaire doesn't make you a smart billionaire.
P.S. I've set up an action alert on my website where you can contact George Soros and ask him to withdraw from this project and invest instead in conservation; click here to send him a note. Soros has actually done a tremendous amount of good in his long career, from fighting Soviet tyranny to fighting George Bush, so I think a bit of media scrutiny combined with a grassroots outcry could convince him to align his business practices with his principles and history of good work.
Goldman - July 06 biofuels to increase crop prices
Rising Biofuel Use to Drive Up Crop Prices - Goldman
"The major concern here is land availability," Goldman added.
Currently biofuels account for a little under two percent of fuel transport needs.
Goldman Sachs anticipated significant investment in biofuels, particularly from food processors.
But it said the main constraint on biofuel growth would be the availability of land and crops.
Back to Top
Back to Headlines
See yesterday's headlines
All Contents
© Reuters News Service 2008
The Biofuels Backlash - WSJ.com
The Biofuels Backlash
May 7, 2008; Page A18
St. Jude is the patron saint of lost causes, and for 30 years we invoked his name as we opposed ethanol subsidies. So imagine our great, pleasant surprise to see that the world is suddenly awakening to the folly of subsidized biofuels.
All it took was a mere global 'food crisis.' Last week chief economist Joseph Glauber of the USDA, which has been among Big Ethanol's best friends in Washington, blamed biofuels for increasing prices on corn and soybeans. Mr. Glauber also predicted that corn prices will continue their historic rise because of demand from 'expanding use for ethanol.'
Even the environmental left, which pushed ethanol for decades as an alternative to gasoline, is coming clean. Lester Brown, one of the original eco-Apostles, wrote in the Washington Post that 'it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that food-to-fuel mandates have failed.' We knew for sure the tide had turned when Time magazine's recent cover story, 'The Clean Energy Myth,' described how turning crops into fuel increases both food prices and atmospheric CO2. No one captures elite green wisdom better than Time's Manhattan editors. Can Vanity Fair be far behind?
All we can say is, welcome aboard. Corn ethanol can now join the scare over silicone breast implants and the pesticide Alar as among the greatest scams of the age. But before we move on to the next green miracle cure, it's worth recounting how much damage this ethanol political machine is doing.
To create just one gallon of fuel, ethanol slurps up 1,700 gallons of water, according to Cornell's David Pimentel, and 51 cents of tax credits. And it still can't compete against oil without a protective 54-cents-per-gallon tariff on imports and a federal mandate that forces it into our gas tanks. The record 30 million acres the U.S. will devote to ethanol production this year will consume almost a third of America's corn crop while yielding fuel amounting to less than 3% of petroleum consumption.
In December the Congressional Research Service warned that even devoting every last ear of American-grown corn to ethanol would not create enough "renewable fuel" to meet federal mandates. According to a 2007 OECD report, fossil-fuel production is up to 10,000 times as efficient as biofuel, measured by energy produced per unit of land.
Now scientists are showing that ethanol will exacerbate greenhouse gas emissions. A February report in the journal Science found that "corn-based ethanol, instead of producing a 20% savings, nearly doubles greenhouse emissions over 30 years . . . Biofuels from switchgrass, if grown on U.S. corn lands, increase emissions by 50%." Princeton's Timothy Searchinger and colleagues at Iowa State, of all places, found that markets for biofuel encourage farmers to level forests and convert wilderness into cropland. This is to replace the land diverted from food to fuel.
As usual, Congress is the last to know, but maybe even it is catching on. Credit goes to John McCain, the first presidential candidate in recent memory who has refused to bow before King Ethanol. Onetime ethanol opponent Hillary Clinton announced her support in 2006, as the Iowa caucuses beckoned. In 2006 Barack Obama proposed mandating a staggering 65 billion gallons a year of alternative fuel by 2025, but by this Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press" he was suggesting that maybe helping "people get something to eat" was a higher priority than biofuels.
Mr. McCain and 24 other Senators are now urging EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson to consider using his broad waiver authority to eliminate looming biofuel mandates. Otherwise, the law will force us to consume roughly four times the current requirement by 2022. In fact, with some concerned state governments submitting helpful petitions, Mr. Johnson could largely knock out the ethanol mandate regime, at least temporarily.
Over the longer term, however, this shouldn't be entrusted to unelected bureaucrats. The best policy would repeal the biofuel mandates and subsidies enacted in the 2005 and 2007 energy bills. We say repeal because there will be intense lobbying to keep the subsidies, or transfer them from projects that have failed to those that have not yet failed.
Like Suzanne Somers in "American Graffiti," the perfect biofuel is always just out of reach, only a few more billion dollars in subsidies away from commercial viability. But sometimes even massive government aid can't turn science projects into products. The industry's hope continues for cellulosic ethanol, but there's no getting around the fact that biofuels require vegetation to make fuel. Even cellulosic ethanol, while more efficient than corn, will require countless acres of fuel if it is ever going to replace oil. Perhaps some future technology will efficiently extract energy from useless corn stalks and fallen trees. But until that day, Congress's ethanol subsidies are merely force-feeding an industry that is doing far more harm than good.
The results include distorted investment decisions, higher carbon emissions, higher food prices for Americans, and an emerging humanitarian crisis in the developing world. The last thing the poor of Africa and the taxpayers of America need is another scheme to conjure gasoline out of corn and tax credits.
Monday, May 5, 2008
All of Inflation’s Little Parts - The New York Times
All of Inflation’s Little Parts - The New York Times
Excellent NYT graphic depicting components of inflation.
"Sources: Bureau of Labor Statistics; Michael Balzer, University of Konstanz (Germany)
Amanda Cox/The New York Times"
Record Sugar cane and ethanol production fr 2008
terça-feira, 29 de abril de 2008, 14:56 | Online
Governo estima produção recorde de cana em 2008
Demanda crescente por etanol levará País a produzir até 631,5 milhões de toneladas de cana neste ano
Gustavo Porto, da Agência Estado Tamanho do texto? A A A A
RIBEIRÃO PRETO, SP - A forte demanda pelo álcool combustível fará com que o Brasil produza entre 607,8 milhões de toneladas e 631,5 milhões de toneladas e processe de 558,1 milhões de toneladas a 579,8 milhões de toneladas de cana-de-açúcar em 2008, um recorde, de acordo com a primeira estimativa do governo, divulgada nesta terça-feira, 29, pela Companhia Nacional de Abastecimento (Conab), em Ribeirão Preto (SP). O crescimento na colheita sobre 2007 deve variar de 8,8% a 13,1% e o aumento na moagem para a produção de álcool e açúcar deve ser de 11,3% a 15,6% sobre as 501,5 milhões de toneladas processadas em 2007.
A Conab prevê que 55,5% da cana moída pela indústria sucroalcooleira, ou seja, entre 309,8 mi de t e 321,9 mi de t, terão como destino à produção de álcool e 44,5% (entre 248,3 mi de t e 257,9 mi de t) serão destinados ao açúcar. A cana colhida deve gerar ainda entre 49,68 mi de t e 51,75 mi de t para outros fins, como a produção de sementes, mudas, cachaça, rapadura e alimentação animal. A área total de cana no País deve aumentar, entre 2007 e 2008, 11,43%, de 7 milhões de hectares para 7,8 milhões de hectares.
Álcool
A produção brasileira de álcool em 2008 será, de acordo com a Conab, de 26,45 bilhões de litros a 27,49 bilhões de litros, aumento de 14,97% a 19,46% sobre os 23 bilhões de litros de 2007. Com 90% do processamento, o Centro-Sul do Brasil deve produzir entre 24,1 bilhões e 25 bilhões de litros de álcool, e o Nordeste, com os 10% restantes, vai gerar entre 2,4 bilhões e 2,5 bilhões de litros.
A disparada na demanda no mercado interno, com o uso do etanol nos veículos flex, cuja frota já ultrapassa 5 milhões de unidades, fará com que a produção de álcool hidratado tenha a maior variação no crescimento entre todos os dados divulgados pela Conab. De acordo com a estatal, a produção de hidratado no Brasil em 2008 será de 16,9 bilhões de litros a 17,5 bilhões de litros, altas de, respectivamente, 17,5% e 22%.
A produção de álcool anidro, usado na mistura em 25% à gasolina, vai crescer entre 10,9% e 15,2%, de acordo com a Conab, para entre 9,6 bilhões de litros e 10 bilhões de litros. O Brasil deve exportar ainda 4,2 bilhões de litros e álcool em 2008, a maioria deste volume (2,5 bilhões de litros) para os Estados Unidos.
Açúcar
Já a produção brasileira de açúcar vai crescer entre 8,27% e 12,41% em relação a 2007, de acordo com a Conab, e irá variar entre 33,87 milhões de t e 35,16 milhões de t. O Centro-Sul vai produzir entre 28,8 milhões de t e 29,9 milhões de t. Já a produção do Nordeste deve ser de 5 milhões de t a 5,2 milhões de t.
De acordo com a Conab, os principais motivos para o aumento na produção de cana são o clima favorável, os investimentos em tecnologia nas unidades sucroalcooleiras e o cultivo de variedades mais produtivas.
O levantamento foi realizado por 49 técnicos da companhia entre 31 de março e 11 de abril, com a visita em 361 unidades produtoras, além de sindicatos, entidades de assistência técnica e extensão rural, o Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística (IBGE) e outros órgãos governamentais.
Área
A área de cana-de-açúcar para a indústria sucroalcooleira no Brasil cresceu 653,72 mil hectares entre 2007 e 2008, e 64,7% dessa ampliação, ou 423,12 mil hectares, ocorreu sobre pastagens, de acordo com o estudo "Perfil do Setor do Açúcar e do Álcool no Brasil", divulgado pela Conab. Os dados apontam que as lavouras de soja cederam 110,44 mil hectares, ou 16,9% do total da área ampliada em cana no País. Milho e laranja cederam, respectivamente, 32,21 mil e 30,79 mil hectares para a cana-de-açúcar entre as duas safras, de acordo com o estudo da Conab.
A maior parte do avanço da cultura canavieira ocorreu na região Centro-Sul, com 617,01 mil hectares de crescimento, seguido do Norte e Nordeste, com 36,7 mil hectares.
Tags: Biocombustíveis, Conab, Cana O que são TAGS?