Biofuels boom could fuel rainforest destruction, Stanford researcher warns

Farmers across the tropics might raze forests to plant biofuel crops, according to new research by Holly Gibbs, a postdoctoral researcher at Stanford's Woods Institute for the Environment.

"If we run our cars on biofuels produced in the tropics, chances will be good that we are effectively burning rainforests in our gas tanks," she warned.

Policies favoring biofuel crop production may inadvertently contribute to, not slow, the process of climate change, Gibbs said. Such an environmental disaster could be "just around the corner without more thoughtful energy policies that consider potential ripple effects on tropical forests," she added.

Gibbs' predictions are based on her new study, in which she analyzed detailed satellite images collected between 1980 and 2000. The study is the first to do such a detailed characterization of the pathways of agricultural expansion throughout the entire tropical region. Gibbs hopes that this new knowledge will contribute to making prudent decisions about future biofuel policies and subsidies.

Gibbs will present her findings in Chicago on Saturday, Feb. 14, during a symposium that begins at 1:30 p.m. CT at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. The symposium is titled "Biofuels, Tropical Deforestation, and Climate Policy: Key Challenges and Opportunities." She will participate in a press conference at 12 p.m. CT on the same day.

With climates ideal for growing biofuel crops and an abundance of arable land, tropical countries such as Brazil, Indonesia and Malaysia have already responded to growing demand for food, feed and fuel from crops such sugarcane, soy and oil palm by increasing their production, Gibbs said.

For example, the area of cropland dedicated to soybean production in Brazil has increased at a rate of nearly 15 percent per year since 1990, and Indonesia's oil palm production tripled during the 1990's and then doubled again from 2000 to 2007, said Gibbs.

These increases are due in part to soaring global demand for food and feed. However, scientists have reason to suspect that biofuels also are playing a significant role in recent cropland expansion. "Biofuels have caused alarm because of how quickly production has been growing: Global ethanol production increased by four times and biodiesel by 10 times between 2000 and 2007," Gibbs said. "Moreover, agricultural subsidies in Indonesia and in the United States are providing added incentives to increase production of these crops."

"The crops that are most prized as current-generation biofuels, such as oil palm and sugarcane, also are those crops most suited to tropical countries," she added.

Land expansion controversy

Before Gibbs' study, few had focused on the question of the origin of new croplands—a question that has been a source of heated debate among scientists and policymakers alike over the past few years.

"Biofuel producers typically indicate that they are establishing new soy fields or oil palm plantations on degraded or already cleared lands," Gibbs said, "while environmental groups and some scientists point to Amazonian rainforests or Southeast Asian peat swamps as the land sources."

Gibbs was one of the first to approach the question by quantifying the types of land—pristine forest, disturbed forest, woody savannas, grasslands, plantations or agricultural land—that are being cleared to make space for the new cropland.

"If biofuels are grown in place of forests, we're actually going to end up emitting a huge amount of carbon. When trees are cut down to make room for new farmland, they are usually burned, sending their stored carbon to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide. That creates what's called a carbon debt," Gibbs said. "This is because the carbon lost from deforestation is much greater than the carbon saved from using the current-generation biofuels."

Indeed, tropical forests are the world's most efficient storehouses for carbon, harboring more than 340 billion tons, according to Gibbs' research. This is equivalent to more than 40 years worth of global carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels.

Gibbs' previous findings asserted that the carbon debt incurred from cutting down a tropical forest could take several centuries or even millennia to repay through carbon savings produced from the resultant biofuels.

On the other hand, planting biofuel croplands on degraded land—land that has been previously cultivated but is now providing very low productivity due to salinity, soil erosion, nutrient leaching, etc.—could have an overall positive environmental impact, Gibbs said.

"In a sense that would be restoring the land to a higher potential to provide environmental services for people," she added.

Both Brazil and Indonesia contain significant areas of degraded land—in Brazil, the total area may be as large as California—that could be replanted with crops, thereby decreasing the burden on forested land. "But this is challenging without new policies or economic incentives to encourage establishing crops on these lands," Gibbs said.

This is because farmers who convert degraded land to cropland must shoulder the costs of fertilizer and learn improved soil management practices to make the lands productive, whereas farmers who clear forested land often avoid these burdens.

"Government subsidies, environmental certification schemes or carbon markets could provide incentives to grow crops on degraded rather than forest lands," Gibbs said.

However, in some cases, allowing the degraded land to be returned to its natural, forested state might be the wisest use of the land, absorbing more carbon and providing ecological services such as flood mitigation, rainwater recycling and habitat for endangered species, Gibbs said.

"There are tradeoffs in all these decisions that need to be made on a case-by-case basis," she said. "We need to keep in mind that more cropland will be needed to meet the global demands for food, feed and fuel, so the best options will likely vary by circumstance."

Analyzing changing lands

The United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) maintains a database of detailed satellite images taken over the last 20 years through the Global Forest Resources Assessment, an initiative that dates back to 1946. The FAO releases a new global assessment every 10 years.

Working closely with the FAO, Gibbs analyzed satellite data for more than 100 randomly selected sites across the tropics. By comparing satellite images taken of each specific site in 1980, 1990 and 2000, Gibbs was able to clearly see whether croplands were expanding, and if so, what they were replacing.

She examined more than 600 satellite images from the FAO and other organizations, and noticed a clear trend: "What we found was that indeed forests were the primary source for new croplands as they expanded across the tropics during the 1980s and 1990s. So cropland expansion, whether it's for fuel, feed or food, has undoubtedly led to more deforestation, and evidence is mounting that this trend will continue."

For example, Gibbs' data show that between 1980 and 2000, more than half of new cropland came from intact rainforests and another 30 percent from disturbed forests, "This is contrary to what some biofuel proponents have suggested is occurring today," she said.

"This is a major concern for the global environment," Gibbs said. "As we look toward biofuels to help reduce climate change we must consider the rainforests and savannas that may lie in the pathway of expanding biofuel cropland."

The FAO is in the process of collecting and interpreting the data for the current decade. "This will be important to provide more recent information about expansion of croplands occurring in the midst of the biofuels boom," Gibbs said.

Although Gibbs recognizes that biofuels have certain drawbacks, including those documented in her study, she is not opposed to their regulated use. "I think that biofuels may have a critical place in our future energy plan," she said. "But the way that we're currently going about producing biofuels could have a lot of unintended consequences."

"The new administration should carefully consider the full consequences of any energy plan to make sure we protect the carbon stored in rainforests as well as reduce our fossil fuel emissions," she said.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-02/su-bbc021309.php

Biofuels and the Global Food Crisis - Who Is to Blame?

U.S.-Brazil tension, a relatively recent development, resurfaced during the UN World Food Summit in Rome on June 3-5, encouraging the booming Brazilian sugar-based ethanol market to increase its new development projects. This rift represents a de facto counter move against the far less-efficient U.S. model predicated on corn-based ethanol production. Following the summit, Brazilian officials began a weeklong tour, stopping in Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia, during which they discussed a set of commercial agreements that will boost multilateral cooperation with several African countries. The trade agreements, projected to begin in 2009, include an expansion in ethanol investment, urbanism, air and sea transport, and cooperation in professional training between the two regions.

In a statement that appeared in Brazzil magazine, Brazilian Secretary of Development Ivan Ramalho remarked that he hoped the meetings would enhance trade with other countries in order to diminish Brazil’s over-reliance on the U.S. market. Brazil’s recent trade initiatives with other developing countries have emerged largely due to the reluctance of some developed nations to lower trade subsidies. This impedes Brazil’s ability to trade, adding significantly to the current debate over rising food prices. In an official statement released after the first set of meetings, Michel Alaby, Secretary General of the Arab Brazilian Chamber of Commerce, called for solidarity among countries suffering from rising food prices and demanded that developed countries, especially the U.S. and Europe, eliminate international trade barriers in the agricultural sector (Brazzil Magazine). With the emerging agreements, Brazilian officials hope to call attention to the U.S.’ highly inefficient corn-based ethanol production at the height of a snowballing food crisis. The government aspires to be a strong actor in the midst of the food crisis and plans to show the rest of the world the benefits of Brazil’s efficient sugar ethanol market, while it professes to be executing projects stalling the destruction of the Amazon rainforest.

The Ramifications of American Subsidies and the Growing World Food Crisis

On June 16, following petitions from the Brazilian government, the World Trade Organization (WTO) condemned the U.S. for its agricultural subsidies that unfairly favor domestic producers. The WTO largely blamed Washington’s practices for the world food crisis that may leave an additional 100 million people hungry by the end of 2008. The WTO criticized U.S. actions as “an attempt to disrespect international commercial regulation with subsidies that drastically reduced domestic prices and could have been seriously damaging for developing nations like Brazil” (New York Times).

During the Food Summit, which was hosted by the UN Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), U.S. representatives argued in favor of their protectionist policies, claiming that biofuels are environmentally safer than petroleum, and also benefit farmers, entrepreneurs, and consumers. Under pressure from formidable agricultural lobby groups, the U.S. Congress recently placed a 54-cent per gallon tariff on sugar-based ethanol, hoping to encourage domestic ethanol production. As a result of the tariff, U.S. ethanol production increases and Brazilian ethanol exports fell significantly in 2007. Efforts to remove the tariffs have faced strong resistance from both corn and sugar lobbyists, impeding any kind of remedial actions on surging grain prices. As economist C. Ford Runge, a commodity and trade specialist at the Center for International Food and Agricultural Policy, confirms, “If you want to take some of the pressure off the U.S. market, the obvious thing to do is lower that tariff and let some Brazilian ethanol come in.” Supporters of this policy believe that increasing Brazilian ethanol production would push down overall energy costs.

Since the Summit, the UN has called on the international community to increase its assistance to developing countries severely affected by the current food crisis. UN officials have planned visits to several African countries to discuss possible food security solutions. In addition, the FAO published several reports criticizing the U.S. and Europe for unnecessarily subsidizing crops and inadvertently driving up food prices while shifting food production in less-developed countries where small farmers cannot effectively compete. The Guardian noted from the reports that the U.S. government is currently spending $7 billion annually on subsidies, while the European Union spends around ∈43 billion ($67.5 billion) (BBC News). A striking example can be seen in France, where the average French cow receives more financial support than half the world’s population earns daily. With rich countries dominating global trade that greatly affects ethanol, FAO General Director Jacques Diouf says that funding for agricultural programs in developing countries increasingly suffers with agricultural aid to poor countries having dropped 56 percent from 1980 to 2005. “Now more than ever private decisions being made about food production into ethanol are affecting all parts of the globe, with little response from the leaders that could do the most,” Diouf observed.

One main concern over how biofuel policy disrupts the market is the current excessive power that interest groups have in the debate on subsidies in developed nations (Runge). Instead of catering to special interests, U.S. politicians would be well advised to cooperate with other countries. While the UN works diligently to halt the growing food shortage, world leaders refuse to amend restrictions on food exports. This negligence is inexcusable on both economic and humanitarian grounds.

Not All Ethanol is The Same

In defense of sugar-based ethanol, President Lula stated that the U.S. misguidedly produces corn for ethanol instead of other agricultural products, while keeping subsidies high to benefit U.S. multinational companies. Lula argues that this is another case where the U.S. keeps developing countries from playing an influential role in the world economy. He claimed, “I am sorry to see that many of those who blame ethanol, including from sugarcane, for the high price of food are the same ones who for decades have maintained protectionist policies to the detriment of farmers in poor countries and of consumers in the entire world.”

In comparison with corn-based ethanol, sugar-based ethanol is more efficient, cheaper to produce, and uses less valuable land. According to the World Bank’s, Biofuels: the Promises and the Risks, the U.S. ethanol industry currently uses 10 million hectares, while Brazil only uses 3.6 million of such terrain and produces eight to ten times more energy than that produced from corn. Brazil does not subsidize sugar, which helps sustain global sugar prices. Whereas corn prices have surged 65 percent in the last five years, which many argue is the result of U.S. subsidies. Brazilian ethanol also yields 8.3 times more energy than the fossil fuels used to produce it, while corn ethanol yields only 1.5 times the energy it consumes.

Environmental Concerns and Lula’s Response

Further ethanol controversy surrounds environmentalist concerns that Brazil’s sugar industry is permanently destroying large areas of the Amazon rainforest. The industry has forced small farmers to sell their land at low prices and work for large multi-national companies, under poor conditions and scant pay. In addition, Brazil’s ethanol production has pushed soybean cultivation and cattle ranching into the Amazon area, making room for sugarcane production in the southeastern part of the country. This region, once home to coffee and fruit plantations, was originally part of the Southeastern portion of the Amazon rainforest, of which only 7 percent remains today. Another environmental concern regarding sugar cane cultivation involves the burning of the old cane to get rid of dry leaves and dispensable biomass. This hazardous practice creates health problems for local populations, and spreads the fires into some of the remaining Amazon rainforests.

President Lula has increasingly displayed support to protect the Amazon from ongoing destruction. On June 19, the government extended its two-year ban on the sale of soy from the deforested land in Amazonia until July 2009. Additionally, officials from the Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources have already begun bans on beef and timber from illegal Amazon lands (Mercopress). This recent commitment could signify the government’s sincerity regarding prevention of deforestation and “its commitment to a policy of environmental registration and licensing for land in Amazonia (Brazzil Magazine). New policies also present Brazil as environmentally conscious to international groups such as Greenpeace, who have in the past heavily criticized the country’s lack of effort in sustaining the Amazon’s integrity. Greenpeace director Paulo Adario applauded Lula, stating, “Today’s decision is important because it proves that it’s possible to guarantee food production without cutting down one more hectare of Amazon forest.” Also, in an attempt to speed the recovery of Amazonian pastures and degraded soils, the government will offer soft loans, ample credit for small farmers, and an insurance system designed to reduce the risks of climate change. With the appointment of strong conservationists such as the Minister of Environment, Carlos Minc, a UN awarded defender of the environment, the Lula administration is taking urgent steps to enhance agricultural production and increase Amazonian protection. If action indeed follows such rhetoric, Brazilian planners could be on the verge of helping the country become a world player in trade while it attempts to keep domestic prices low.

The Future of Brazilian Ethanol

Currently, Brazil produces 5.8 billion gallons of ethanol annually, but exports only 960 million gallons. Yet the energy giant is capable of providing the world with 52 billion gallons a year if, through new foreign investment, the government can put in an additional $9.5 billion for financing pipelines, terminals and new plants, offsetting the international dependence on OPEC (U.S. Energy Information Administration). As ethanol increasingly becomes a fixture in the global energy debate, these new steps could mark significant progress in fighting the global food crisis, while drawing increasing international scrutiny to the irresponsible, self-interested subsidy initiatives stealthily exhibited by the U.S., Europe, and Japan.

http://www.coha.org/2008/07/biofuels-and-the-global-food-crisis-who-is-to-blame/

Brazil draws biofuel battlelines

The Brazilian president yesterday rejected criticism of the country's booming biofuel industry, claiming attacks on the sector were driven by economic and political factors.

Speaking at a conference of the UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) in Brasilia, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva said those arguing that demand for biofuel is driving up food prices are guilty of ignoring the role of rising oil prices and increased demand for food from China and India.

"Do not tell me, for the love of God, that food is expensive because of biodiesel," he told reporters. "Food is expensive because the world was not prepared to see millions of Chinese, Indians, Africans, Brazilians and Latin Americans eat. We want to discuss this not with passion but rationality and not from the European point of view."

He added that far from being a "villain" biofuels can "pull countries out of energy dependency without affecting foods".

The president also hit back at recent accusations from Jean Ziegler, the UN's special rapporteur for the right to food, that using crops for fuel instead of food represent a "crime against humanity".

"The real crime against humanity is to discredit biofuels a priori and condemn food-starved and energy-starved countries to dependence and insecurity, " Lula said.

The president's counter attack comes as criticism of biofuels reached something of a crescendo this week following a series of protests around the world highlighting biofuels' impact on food prices and the environment.

Speaking earlier this week, UK chancellor Alistair Darling said that an urgent review of global biofuel policy was required to help address food shortages, adding that he had asked the World Bank to compile a report on the topic ahead of June's meeting of G7 leaders.

His comments were followed by a fresh commitment from the EU's environmental chief, Stavros Dimas, that biofuels imported into the EU to meet its targets of ensuring 10 per cent of transport fuels come from renewable sources, would have to meet strict environmental standards that ensure energy crops are not grown on plantations that have contributed to deforestation.

Critics claim that the increased need for agricultural land caused by growing demand for energy crops is resulting in deforestation that more than cancel out any environmental benefits the fuel is supposed to deliver.

The Brazilian government has countered that it has enough unused land to meet demand for biofuels without clearing rainforest areas and insists higher oil prices and increased demand for food from the emerging middle classes of China and India are having a far greater impact on food prices.

In related news, reports emerged that the Brazilian government is planning to launch a $200m (£100m) fund to help avoid further deforestation in the Amazon.

http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/news/2214538/brazil-draws-biofuel

Daniel Howden: Brazil's experience testifies to the downside of this energy revolution

The apostles of biofuels would have us believe that the congested streets of Sao Paulo offer a glimpse of a better future. There, traffic jams are made of flex-fuel cars that run off a growing menu of bio and fossil fuel mixtures and all filling stations offer "alcohol" and "gas" at the pump.

It was the city that George Bush visited last year to unveil a package of incentives to developing nations designed to spur the creation of a cartel of biofuel producers soon dubbed the "Opec for ethanol".

Biofuels are almost irresistible to politicians ruled by concerns over energy security and eager to look busy on climate change without calling on voters to change their consumption habits.

Brazil is the model to which the EU, the US and the UK have looked in deciding to mandate minimum percentages of biofuels into our fuel mix. So the dark side to this revolution is, instructive as it reveals the limits that so-called green fuels can usefully play in filling the developed world's fuel tank.

The real story of ethanol in Brazil is one of energy security, not climate-change mitigation. The original boom came after the oil crisis of 1973 spurred the military dictatorship to lessen the country's reliance on foreign imports of fossil fuels. The generals poured public subsidies and incentives into the sugar industry to produce ethanol in much the way the West is now doing.

Unlike the US, where government money has thrown billions of dollars into the pointless pursuit of converting corn into ethanol – a process that releases more CO2 per gallon than simply burning conventional fuels – Brazil's tropical climate allows it to source alcohol from its sugar crop. The process is as carbon efficient as any in the world, with even the distilleries run on a biofuel called bagasse, itself a by-product of sugar cane.

Now touted as a next-generation energy giant with an eager eye on emerging export markets, Brazil's biofuel industry has also been linked with air and water pollution on an epic scale, deforestation in the Amazon and Atlantic rainforests, and the wholesale destruction of Latin America's unique savannah land.

The consequences of the modest reduction in transport emissions in Brazil's crowded cities can be traced in the gigantic geometrical scars of soy plantations that cut into the Amazon rainforest and the choking black clouds from burning cane fields that engulf the capital for weeks every year.

The net effect on climate-change emissions is negative. Despite modest levels of industrialisation across Latin America's largest nation, Brazil has risen through the ranks to become the world's fourth leading producer of greenhouse gases. That explosion of carbon into the atmosphere has been driven by rampant deforestation, a phenomenon that now directly tracks the rising price of agricultural commodities.

As the prices for the raw plant materials made into biofuels have spiked in the past 18 months, rates of deforestation have broken all records. Just as the world is waking up to the threat of climate change, perverse incentives are being put in place that drive an assault on the planet's lungs.

Fabio Feldman, a leading Brazilian environmentalist and former member of Congress who helped to pass the law mandating a 23 per cent mix of ethanol to be added to all petroleum supplies in the country, is now concerned by the legacy of that decision. "Some cane plantations are the size of European states – these vast monocultures have replaced important ecosystems," he said.

The same arguments now made over the fallow agricultural land in Africa, Asia and Europe that can grow us fuel instead of food have been well-rehearsed in Brazil. Unfortunately, they are spurious. To save us from difficult decisions about our consumption, we are told that a transition is possible in which we grow the fuel we need, rather than drill for it. The reason this sounds too good to be true is because it is.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/daniel-howden-brazils-experience-testifies-to-the-downside-of-this-energy-revolution-808958.html

Cash payoffs pitched as way to help preserve trees

For decades, a flood of aid and an army of conservationists couldn't save Indonesia's rain forests from illegal loggers, land-hungry peasants and the spread of giant plantations. Now the world is looking at a simpler approach: up-front cash.

Whether it was arming forest police or backing schemes to certify legal logs, no tactic could silence the chain saws or douse the intentional fires that each day destroy 52 square kilometres more of Indonesia's rain forests and an estimated 285 square kilometres elsewhere in the world's tropics.

The problem was pure economics. Neither local authorities nor the rural poor, in Indonesia and elsewhere, have a material incentive to keep their forests intact.

That could now change because of a decision at December's UN climate conference in Bali, Indonesia, to negotiate a deal, as part of the next international climate agreement, under which countries would be rewarded for reducing their galloping rates of deforestation, a big contributor to global warming.

The cash might come directly from a fund financed by richer northern nations, or through "carbon credits" granted per unit of forest saved. The credits could be traded on the world carbon market, where a northern industry can buy such allowances to help meet its own required reductions in emissions of global-warming gases.

Indonesia and other tropical countries backing the "avoided deforestation" concept hope this carbon price will outpace what landowners could get from logging the forests or clearing them for palm oil, rubber, soybean or other plantations.

"For the next decade, the international community and countries that negotiate this convention have tremendous potential, tremendous power in their hands," said Benoit Bosquet, head of a World Bank project to prepare poorer countries to take part in the new initiative, known as REDD, for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation.

"There will be a lot of money going in there," he said. "You will see actors currently converting forest to plantations and cattle ranches saying, 'Wait a minute. If I get more money to preserve my forest than to produce beef, then of course I will keep my forest standing.' "

But turning REDD into reality is far from guaranteed, given competing interests among tropical countries, the world's growing demand for plantation products, and its poor track record in controlling deforestation.

The tangled question of forests has dogged climate negotiations for years.

Deforestation was left out of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol because of concerns that tradable credits for saving forests would take pressure off northern nations to reduce their own industries' greenhouse-gas emissions as required under that accord. But scientific uncertainty also muddies the picture.

The carbon dioxide spewed into the atmosphere by the burning and rotting of deforestation is estimated to account for 20 per cent of manmade greenhouse-gas emissions. But from Brazil's mahogany trees to Papua New Guinea's thick-trunked kauri, how much carbon is stored in which of the world's forests? How much carbon dioxide is absorbed by which trees?

How will the world fix baselines, judging what a country's "usual" deforestation rate is, in order to gauge rewards for a lower rate? And who's to verify the numbers?

A technical body under the UN climate treaty is collecting proposals from governments on how to address such issues. It's the first step toward negotiating a deal by 2009, as part of an overall agreement on deeper emissions cuts to succeed Kyoto when it expires in 2012.

Beyond the technical, however, political disputes will complicate the UN talks.

The focus may be on today's deforestation, but India, Costa Rica and others believe they should get credit for having been "good" - protecting their forests over the years. Some rain-forest governments, meanwhile, want commercial tree plantations counted in the mix, a move environmentalists oppose.

Some fear "avoided deforestation" credits flooding the market will drive down the carbon price. That's why REDD's advocates want the next round of emissions reductions to cut much deeper than Kyoto, raising demand for credits.

Brazil, whose energy projects already make it a big player in carbon credits, has opposed extending that market to trees, favouring instead a global fund to compensate rain-forest nations directly for income lost when land sits undeveloped.

The British government's Stern Review of climate economics argued that targeting deforestation is among the cheapest ways to reduce greenhouses gases. It estimated halting 70 per cent of rain-forest destruction would cost $5 billion a year in compensation.

Some rain-forest nations, on the other hand, calculate REDD could generate as much as US$23 billion a year.

Whatever the amount, into whose pockets would these credits or cash flow?

Over the years, in Indonesia and elsewhere, many initiatives - from arresting illegal loggers to promoting sustainable logging operations - have failed because of widespread corruption. Bribed officials look the other way. Politically connected elites often reap the profits from deforestation. Such problems remain.

Few governments have the means or money to monitor their deforestation. Land-rights disputes leave ownership of much forested land in question. Some environmentalists fear governments might push indigenous people out of newly protected forests - as they did when many national parks were created.

"We need to have clear property rights so we know who owns these forests that we're paying not to convert," said Frances Seymour, head of the Center for International Forestry Research in Indonesia. "We need mechanisms to get (the funds) down to the local level so they are not just skimmed off at the top."

Powerful interests have much at stake. European money is bringing pressure on Malaysia and Indonesia, for example, to clear land to produce biofuels, and Brazil faces demands from China to plant soybean to feed their growing middle class.

"It doesn't stop at national borders," said the World Bank's Bosquet. "What Brazil is doing is supplying more beef and soy to the outside world. You don't control that within Brazil."

The challenge in the Amazon became clear again in late January, when Brazil's government met in emergency session to deal with a sudden burst of deforestation after three years of decline.

Two months earlier, visiting the Amazon, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon learned how dying rain forests will feed global warming and he went on to Bali to urge the world's nations to act. "It is time to wake up," he said.

Cutting through the political tangle to produce the grand plan called REDD - money for doing nothing to forests - will itself prove a challenge.

"There is a hell of a lot to negotiate and many controversial issues," said Christoph Thies, a Greenpeace forest campaigner who observed the Bali talks. "It's a long and difficult road ahead. To be honest, there is quite a good chance of failure."

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080206/forests_payout_080206/20080206?hub=SciTech

Europe’s Biofuel Rethink

Those pesky greener-than-thou Europeans are at it again. Not content with leading the way on carbon trading and greenhouse gas reductions, the European Union announced a plan this week to ban the import of a broad swathe of biofuels that scientists say may do more harm than good.

The new rules are primarily designed to protect vulnerable ecosystems in Asia and Latin America, which have borne the brunt of the biofuel revolution as unscrupulous producers cleared rainforests and grasslands to make way for palm-oil and soy plantations. Already, peatland clearances in Southeast Asia account for 8 percent of global carbon emissions; in Indonesia, meanwhile, some 44 million acres of rainforest have already been cleared by palm-oil producers.

While nixing the import of biofuels from recently cleared rainforests and grasslands is a start, Europeans are also raising questions about their entire biofuel strategy. The EU currently aims to source 10 percent of its transport fuel from ethanol and biodiesel by 2020; increasingly, though, its scientists are arguing that such quotas may be misguided.

A new study from the Royal Society - Britain’s most important scientific body - argues that rather than mandating the use of fixed quantities of biofuels, policymakers should set targets for fixed carbon savings from the use of biofuels. That would help ensure that the fuels sold to consumers are genuinely carbon negative, both sustainably farmed and produced without the excessive use of fossil fuels.

That’s a swipe not just at producers of Asian palm oil and Brazilian soy, but also at America’s corn ethanol industry: A study by Swiss scientists recently found that corn ethanol - which demands significant quantities of water and energy to produce - may actually be worse for the environment than regular fossil fuels. That’s a big problem: The US is looking to massively expand its biofuel sector, and corn ethanol remains at the center of its strategy.

The real message from Europe’s rethink is simple: not all biofuels are equal. With the right regulations, responsibly farmed and processed plant petrol can still play a key part in the battle to avert climate change; but an unregulated rush to embrace biofuels - particularly American corn ethanol - will only lead to disaster.

Given Iowa’s electoral importance, it’s been difficult until now for America’s policymakers to talk frankly about this problem: The corn-belt simply carries too much clout. Now, though, with the caucuses out of the way, it’s time for politicians to take a page out of the EU’s playbook, and give some serious thought to the way forward.

http://www.plentymag.com/blogs/political/2008/01/europes_biofuel_rethink.php