National Plan for Bioenergy in Brazil 2006-2011
Just pasting two small but very important passages from the national plan (page 8-10) that might be worthy to discuss in this forum!
"Achieving the overall purpose implies realizing certain specific objectives,
in conformity with Brazilian public policies, in order to meet the expectations
of society and the demands of the clients:
• To increase the share of the renewable sources of energy in the National
Energy Balance (NEB).
• To guarantee the development of the country's hinterlands and regions
through an expansion of energy farming and adding value to the
production chains linked thereto.
• To create opportunities for the expansion of employment and income
generation within the scope of agribusiness, with increased participation
of small farmers.
• To contribute to the fulfillment of the Brazilian commitment to the Kyoto
Protocol and take advantage of the opportunities open to the country in
said agreement in terms of obtaining carbon credits.
• To induce the creation of an international biofuel market and ensure
Brazil's leadership in the sector.
• To optimize the use of areas affected by human action on natural
vegetation (anthropic impact), maximizing the sustainability of the
production systems, discouraging unjustifiable expansions of the
agricultural frontier and encroachment upon sensitive or protected
systems.
. To develop solutions that integrate agroenergy generation and
eliminate health risks to agribusiness."
The sixth goal seems a little dodgy, as the definition of impacted lands is very unclear.
Very interesting to see how this Brazilian governemnt is framing the new biofuel program under newly created agribusiness institutions such as EMBRAPA ENERGIA and with a short 5-year plan, all housed under the Civil House.
Here´s pasting the R&D priorities from the national plan.
"• Agroecological zoning of species important for energy farming in
traditional areas and in agricultural-frontier expansion areas in order to
direct public and private funding and to detect environmental impacts.
• Traditional and biotechnological plant breeding in order to select plants
species for the production of biofuels and improve significantly the
productivity of the species currently used.
• Socio-economic and strategic studies to develop scenarios, strategies
and geopolicies and to serve as input for public policies on energy and
their link to environmental, economic, social, and business topics.
• Competitiveness studies on systems and production costs, market
niches and opportunities, transportation and storage logistics, obstacles
to production chain performance, non-tariff barriers, attracting
investments, strategy, and geopolitics.
• Energy balances of the life cycles of the production chains in Brazilian
agribusiness with a view to replacing fossil carbon sources with
agroenergy sources, as well as progressively reducing the energy
demand of the production systems.
• Topics linked to the Kyoto Protocol, greenhouse gas emissions, the
clean development mechanism, and carbon credit markets and their
relations with breeding programs, good farming practices, impact on
biomass, nutrition management for ruminants in the context of sustainable
development, all of which coordinated with other territorial, regional and
global initiatives."
I think that our work will respond to the socio-economic research priority.
Cheers
Renata
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Friday, February 22, 2008
Different/Greener than business as usual?
Infinity Bioenergy is big new London-listed firm that is working to develop its own distinct export Brazilian biofuels supply chain. Centered in Espírito Santo, they'd ship export biofuels out of Vítoria. Check their website for claims about social and environmental conditions in their supply chain.
http://www.infinitybio.com.br/
http://www.infinitybio.com.br/
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Back of envelope calculations on biofuels logistics
Guys- It costs a lot of money and energy to transport biofuels feedstocks to biorefineries. This limits production efficiency http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2007/03/logistics-problem-of-cellulosic-ethanol.html and it is also an opportunity for regulation. Given the often prohibitive cost of transporting biofuels feedstocks long distances, regulating the siting of biorefineries might be a way to regulate where biofuels crops are grown.
Regulating refinery location may be easier than regulating agricultural production locations. This semester I'm working on a project to examine whether regulating refinery location is one way to limit land conversion caused by biofuels. I'm a little dubious about how useful this can be. Still, I think the exercise will be interesting. How should we quantify the value lost of land converted to farm biofuels feedstocks? What criteria should we consider?
-carbon
-water
-subsistence potential/avoided urbanization
-biodiversity
-water quality
-soils
Regulating refinery location may be easier than regulating agricultural production locations. This semester I'm working on a project to examine whether regulating refinery location is one way to limit land conversion caused by biofuels. I'm a little dubious about how useful this can be. Still, I think the exercise will be interesting. How should we quantify the value lost of land converted to farm biofuels feedstocks? What criteria should we consider?
-carbon
-water
-subsistence potential/avoided urbanization
-biodiversity
-water quality
-soils
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Studies Deem Biofuels a Greenhouse Threat
NY Times
February 8, 2008
By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL
Almost all biofuels used today cause more greenhouse gas emissions than
conventional fuels if the full emissions costs of producing these
"green" fuels are taken into account, two studies being published
Thursday have concluded.
The benefits of biofuels have come under increasing attack in recent
months, as scientists took a closer look at the global environmental
cost of their production. These latest studies, published in the
prestigious journal Science, are likely to add to the controversy.
These studies for the first time take a detailed, comprehensive look at
the emissions effects of the huge amount of natural land that is being
converted to cropland globally to support biofuels development.
The destruction of natural ecosystems --- whether rain forest in the
tropics or grasslands in South America --- not only releases greenhouse
gases into the atmosphere when they are burned and plowed, but also
deprives the planet of natural sponges to absorb carbon emissions.
Cropland also absorbs far less carbon than the rain forests or even
scrubland that it replaces.
Together the two studies offer sweeping conclusions: It does not matter
if it is rain forest or scrubland that is cleared, the greenhouse gas
contribution is significant. More important, they discovered that, taken
globally, the production of almost all biofuels resulted, directly or
indirectly, intentionally or not, in new lands being cleared, either for
food or fuel.
"When you take this into account, most of the biofuel that people are
using or planning to use would probably increase greenhouse gasses
substantially," said Timothy Searchinger, lead author of one of the
studies and a researcher in environment and economics at Princeton
University. "Previously there's been an accounting error: land use
change has been left out of prior analysis."
These plant-based fuels were originally billed as better than fossil
fuels because the carbon released when they were burned was balanced by
the carbon absorbed when the plants grew. But even that equation proved
overly simplistic because the process of turning plants into fuels
causes its own emissions --- for refining and transport, for example.
The clearance of grassland releases 93 times the amount of greenhouse
gas that would be saved by the fuel made annually on that land, said
Joseph Fargione, lead author of the second paper, and a scientist at the
Nature Conservancy
.
"So for the next 93 years you're making climate change
worse, just at the time when we need to be bringing down carbon emissions."
The Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change has said that the world has
to reverse the increase of greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 to avert
disastrous environment consequences.
In the wake of the new studies, a group of 10 of the United States's
most eminent ecologists and environmental biologists today sent a letter
to President Bush and the speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi
,
urging a reform of biofuels policies. "We write to call your attention
to recent research indicating that many anticipated biofuels will
actually exacerbate global warming," the letter said.
The European Union and a number of European countries have recently
tried to address the land use issue with proposals stipulating that
imported biofuels cannot come from land that was previously rain forest.
But even with such restrictions in place, Dr. Searchinger's study shows,
the purchase of biofuels in Europe and the United States leads
indirectly to the destruction of natural habitats far afield.
For instance, if vegetable oil prices go up globally, as they have
because of increased demand for biofuel crops, more new land is
inevitably cleared as farmers in developing countries try to get in on
the profits. So crops from old plantations go to Europe for biofuels,
while new fields are cleared to feed people at home.
Likewise, Dr. Fargione said that the dedication of so much cropland in
the United States to growing corn for bioethanol had caused indirect
land use changes far away. Previously, Midwestern farmers had alternated
corn with soy in their fields, one year to the next. Now many grow only
corn, meaning that soy has to be grown elsewhere.
Increasingly, that elsewhere, Dr. Fargione said, is Brazil, on land that
was previously forest or savanna. "Brazilian farmers are planting more
of the world's soybeans --- and they're deforesting the Amazon to do
it," he said.
International environmental groups, including the United Nations,
responded cautiously to the studies, saying that biofuels could still be
useful. "We don't want a total public backlash that would prevent us
from getting the potential benefits," said Nicholas Nuttall, spokesman
for the United National Energy Program, who said the United Nations had
recently created a new panel to study the evidence.
"There was an unfortunate effort to dress up biofuels as the silver
bullet of climate change," he said. "We fully believe that if biofuels
are to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem, there
urgently needs to be better sustainability criterion."
The European Union has set a target that countries use 5.75 percent
biofuel for transport by the end of 2008. Proposals in the United States
energy package would require that 15 percent of all transport fuels be
made from biofuel by 2022. To reach these goals, biofuels production is
heavily subsidized at many levels on both continents, supporting a
burgeoning global industry.
Syngenta, the Swiss agricultural giant, announced Thursday that its
annual profits had risen 75 percent in the last year, in part because of
rising demand for biofuels.
Industry groups, like the Renewable Fuels Association, immediately
attacked the new studies as "simplistic," failing "to put the issue into
context."
"While it is important to analyze the climate change consequences of
differing energy strategies, we must all remember where we are today,
how world demand for liquid fuels is growing, and what the realistic
alternatives are to meet those growing demands," said Bob Dineen, the
group's director, in a statement following the Science reports' release.
"Biofuels like ethanol are the only tool readily available that can
begin to address the challenges of energy security and environmental
protection," he said.
The European Biodiesel Board says that biodiesel reduces greenhouse
gasses by 50 to 95 percent compared to conventional fuel, and has other
advantages as well, like providing new income for farmers and energy
security for Europe in the face of rising global oil prices and
shrinking supply.
But the papers published Thursday suggested that, if land use is taken
into account, biofuels may not provide all the benefits once anticipated.
Dr. Searchinger said the only possible exception he could see for now
was sugar cane grown in Brazil, which take relatively little energy to
grow and is readily refined into fuel. He added that governments should
quickly turn their attention to developing biofuels that did not require
cropping, such as those from agricultural waste products.
"This land use problem is not just a secondary effect --- it was often
just a footnote in prior papers,". "It is major. The comparison with
fossil fuels is going to be adverse for virtually all biofuels on
cropland."
February 8, 2008
By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL
Almost all biofuels used today cause more greenhouse gas emissions than
conventional fuels if the full emissions costs of producing these
"green" fuels are taken into account, two studies being published
Thursday have concluded.
The benefits of biofuels have come under increasing attack in recent
months, as scientists took a closer look at the global environmental
cost of their production. These latest studies, published in the
prestigious journal Science, are likely to add to the controversy.
These studies for the first time take a detailed, comprehensive look at
the emissions effects of the huge amount of natural land that is being
converted to cropland globally to support biofuels development.
The destruction of natural ecosystems --- whether rain forest in the
tropics or grasslands in South America --- not only releases greenhouse
gases into the atmosphere when they are burned and plowed, but also
deprives the planet of natural sponges to absorb carbon emissions.
Cropland also absorbs far less carbon than the rain forests or even
scrubland that it replaces.
Together the two studies offer sweeping conclusions: It does not matter
if it is rain forest or scrubland that is cleared, the greenhouse gas
contribution is significant. More important, they discovered that, taken
globally, the production of almost all biofuels resulted, directly or
indirectly, intentionally or not, in new lands being cleared, either for
food or fuel.
"When you take this into account, most of the biofuel that people are
using or planning to use would probably increase greenhouse gasses
substantially," said Timothy Searchinger, lead author of one of the
studies and a researcher in environment and economics at Princeton
University. "Previously there's been an accounting error: land use
change has been left out of prior analysis."
These plant-based fuels were originally billed as better than fossil
fuels because the carbon released when they were burned was balanced by
the carbon absorbed when the plants grew. But even that equation proved
overly simplistic because the process of turning plants into fuels
causes its own emissions --- for refining and transport, for example.
The clearance of grassland releases 93 times the amount of greenhouse
gas that would be saved by the fuel made annually on that land, said
Joseph Fargione, lead author of the second paper, and a scientist at the
Nature Conservancy
"So for the next 93 years you're making climate change
worse, just at the time when we need to be bringing down carbon emissions."
The Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change has said that the world has
to reverse the increase of greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 to avert
disastrous environment consequences.
In the wake of the new studies, a group of 10 of the United States's
most eminent ecologists and environmental biologists today sent a letter
to President Bush and the speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi
urging a reform of biofuels policies. "We write to call your attention
to recent research indicating that many anticipated biofuels will
actually exacerbate global warming," the letter said.
The European Union and a number of European countries have recently
tried to address the land use issue with proposals stipulating that
imported biofuels cannot come from land that was previously rain forest.
But even with such restrictions in place, Dr. Searchinger's study shows,
the purchase of biofuels in Europe and the United States leads
indirectly to the destruction of natural habitats far afield.
For instance, if vegetable oil prices go up globally, as they have
because of increased demand for biofuel crops, more new land is
inevitably cleared as farmers in developing countries try to get in on
the profits. So crops from old plantations go to Europe for biofuels,
while new fields are cleared to feed people at home.
Likewise, Dr. Fargione said that the dedication of so much cropland in
the United States to growing corn for bioethanol had caused indirect
land use changes far away. Previously, Midwestern farmers had alternated
corn with soy in their fields, one year to the next. Now many grow only
corn, meaning that soy has to be grown elsewhere.
Increasingly, that elsewhere, Dr. Fargione said, is Brazil, on land that
was previously forest or savanna. "Brazilian farmers are planting more
of the world's soybeans --- and they're deforesting the Amazon to do
it," he said.
International environmental groups, including the United Nations,
responded cautiously to the studies, saying that biofuels could still be
useful. "We don't want a total public backlash that would prevent us
from getting the potential benefits," said Nicholas Nuttall, spokesman
for the United National Energy Program, who said the United Nations had
recently created a new panel to study the evidence.
"There was an unfortunate effort to dress up biofuels as the silver
bullet of climate change," he said. "We fully believe that if biofuels
are to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem, there
urgently needs to be better sustainability criterion."
The European Union has set a target that countries use 5.75 percent
biofuel for transport by the end of 2008. Proposals in the United States
energy package would require that 15 percent of all transport fuels be
made from biofuel by 2022. To reach these goals, biofuels production is
heavily subsidized at many levels on both continents, supporting a
burgeoning global industry.
Syngenta, the Swiss agricultural giant, announced Thursday that its
annual profits had risen 75 percent in the last year, in part because of
rising demand for biofuels.
Industry groups, like the Renewable Fuels Association, immediately
attacked the new studies as "simplistic," failing "to put the issue into
context."
"While it is important to analyze the climate change consequences of
differing energy strategies, we must all remember where we are today,
how world demand for liquid fuels is growing, and what the realistic
alternatives are to meet those growing demands," said Bob Dineen, the
group's director, in a statement following the Science reports' release.
"Biofuels like ethanol are the only tool readily available that can
begin to address the challenges of energy security and environmental
protection," he said.
The European Biodiesel Board says that biodiesel reduces greenhouse
gasses by 50 to 95 percent compared to conventional fuel, and has other
advantages as well, like providing new income for farmers and energy
security for Europe in the face of rising global oil prices and
shrinking supply.
But the papers published Thursday suggested that, if land use is taken
into account, biofuels may not provide all the benefits once anticipated.
Dr. Searchinger said the only possible exception he could see for now
was sugar cane grown in Brazil, which take relatively little energy to
grow and is readily refined into fuel. He added that governments should
quickly turn their attention to developing biofuels that did not require
cropping, such as those from agricultural waste products.
"This land use problem is not just a secondary effect --- it was often
just a footnote in prior papers,". "It is major. The comparison with
fossil fuels is going to be adverse for virtually all biofuels on
cropland."
response to Monbiot's article by Avery Cohn
Monbiot gives a good summary of the new lit., but kind of a scattered column otherwise.
For example, I wonder about his assertion, "There is no way out of this: on a finite planet with tight food supplies you either compete with the hungry or clear new land."
Is this true? Do any of you know of a study that tests this hypothesis? It seems to be the linchpin for Monbiot's argument that biofuels are (and will be) destructive. I'll allow that they presently are competing for land/food, but I think it's important to ask if they always will be doing so or if there is a way to encourage biofuels that are not competing for land and food. Of course these would probably still be competing for water and will likely have other impacts. Monbiot could probably be making a more supportable argument against biofuels.
Also, I think Monbiot is wrong that the goal of biofuels and the regulation of biofuels is to "reduce consumption of transportation fuel". There are many goals, but I sincerely doubt that reduced transportation fuel use ranks at all and certainly not above:
-subsidizing ag.
-improving foreign exchange
-reducing petroleum based transportation fuel use
-and perhaps reducing GHG intensity/quantity of transportation fuels
take care,
Avery
very Cohn | Ph.D. Student
Environmental Science, Policy, and Management
University of California, Berkeley
phone: (510) 410-3731
mail: avery.cohn@gmail.com
web: nature.berkeley.edu/~avery/
For example, I wonder about his assertion, "There is no way out of this: on a finite planet with tight food supplies you either compete with the hungry or clear new land."
Is this true? Do any of you know of a study that tests this hypothesis? It seems to be the linchpin for Monbiot's argument that biofuels are (and will be) destructive. I'll allow that they presently are competing for land/food, but I think it's important to ask if they always will be doing so or if there is a way to encourage biofuels that are not competing for land and food. Of course these would probably still be competing for water and will likely have other impacts. Monbiot could probably be making a more supportable argument against biofuels.
Also, I think Monbiot is wrong that the goal of biofuels and the regulation of biofuels is to "reduce consumption of transportation fuel". There are many goals, but I sincerely doubt that reduced transportation fuel use ranks at all and certainly not above:
-subsidizing ag.
-improving foreign exchange
-reducing petroleum based transportation fuel use
-and perhaps reducing GHG intensity/quantity of transportation fuels
take care,
Avery
very Cohn | Ph.D. Student
Environmental Science, Policy, and Management
University of California, Berkeley
phone: (510) 410-3731
mail: avery.cohn@gmail.com
web: nature.berkeley.edu/~avery/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
