Biofuel Carbon Savings May Be Minimal, NGOs Warn EU - EDIE

[hatrack]

CO2 emissions from growing, transporting and processing plant material to make biofuels can offset the carbon savings they deliver, the European Environmental Bureau, Birdlife International and Transport and Environment NGOs said. "Greenhouse gas savings could be substantial in certain circumstances, or they could be very low in others. Promoting just any biofuels will not automatically deliver carbon savings," EEB biodiversity campaigner Pieter de Pous told edie.

EU energy ministers will be debating the EU "Biomass Action Plan," published last December, on 8-9 June. The EU goal of replacing 5.75% of fossil fuels with bio-fuels by 2010 would require significant imports from countries like Brazil and Indonesia. According to the EU-sponsored Well to Wheels study, Europe would have to use 14-27% of its agricultural land to reach this target - more than is realistic, meaning the target cannot be met with domestically produced biofuels alone.

Imports could cause not only shipping and land transport emissions but also destroy the rainforest to make way for plantations, thus reducing the carbon sink that rainforests provide. The environmentalists urged the EU to introduce safeguards to make sure only sustainable biofuels are promoted. "Whether the biofuels target can be met sustainably or not depends on the safeguards and incentives in place," said Pieter de Pous.

"We see the potential of the directive, but there needs to be a serious effort into designing a system of sustainability safeguards and incentives. With the current resources there is no way the EU can ensure sustainability," he said.

EDIT

http://www.edie.net/news/news_story.asp?id=11549&channel=0

[deFaultLine]

1. Makes sense

I can't understand why anyone would think that burning ethanol or bio-diesel would produce less CO2 emissions. You get the heat energy from breaking carbon bonds and it doesn't stand to reason that a carbon bond formed millions of years ago is going to produce more CO2 after it is burned.

People need to think this through before jumping to the conclusion that bio fuels will solve global warming.

[eppur_se_muova]

2. Not the point. The point is that there is a huge reservoir of carbon in

fossil fuels. Dumping much of it into the air is what's creating the greenhouse problem. The point of biofuels is *supposed* to be that plants REMOVE CO2 from the air and, using the energy from sunlight, break it down into oxygen and hydrogen-rich organic compounds--either hydrocarbons or carbohydrates. (For highest energy density, you want hydrocarbons, or close to, which is why fermentation of sugar to EtOH gives a higher density--energy/mass--even though a good deal of energy is lost.) So all the carbon in biofuels is carbon that's been REMOVED from the air, and when the biofuels are burned, it goes back into the air as CO2 again. That way the carbon is just being cycled through a continuous loop, rather than being transfered from an underground reservoir into the air.

Look at it this way--there are three huge resorvoirs of carbon. (1) CO2 in the air;(2) underground coal, oil, and gas; (3) biomass. No 1 is bad for the planet. Anything that converts no 2 or no 3 to no 1 is bad. Anything that converts no 1 to no 2 or 3 is probably good. And something like a biofuels industry that interconverts 1 and 3 in a closed cycle is at least not shifting the balance.

(on edit: Geochemists will note that there is a fourth resorvoir, carbonate rocks. But until we really change the pH of the ocean we can kind of ignore that.)

/edit to clarify last sentence, first para

[deFaultLine]

3. Recycled CO2

While the idea is great, the problem is that when you consider that carbon sinks such as the Amazon Basin, which is still actively being destroyed to grow sugar cane for ethanol production, you are still running a net deficit with the carbon cycle.

[eppur_se_muova]

5. Too true. Fuel should be grown as near its destination as practical.

I realize that tropical regions get more sunlight, but a balance needs to be struck between efficiency of production at the source and energy costs of transport.

I think the basic problem with most alternative energy approaches *as they are being implemented* is that only one aspect of an established industry is being changed, while everything else is assumed to continue "business as usual", especially as regards leaving it all up to the "free market". A little more high-level planning might be needed -- but we need a gov't that cares for that to happen.

This doesn't undermine the arguments for alternative fuels. It does suggest that some careful thinking needs to be done, and we can't expect big agro or energy corps to do it for us.

[JohnWxy]

9. Destruction of Rain Forest began with lumber companies cutting trees down

for the wood. Cattle ranching is another major source of deforestation pressure. These are still the overwhelming economic pressure producing Rainforest destruction. Ethanol is a relatively recent and trivial component. Growing renewable fuels does not automaatically equate to destruction of rainforest.

Nonetheless the destruction of rainforest is a huge problem but even if ethanol disappeared tomorrow you wouldn't see any reduction in the loss of rainforest. For those who are interested, the Rainforest Alliance is one of several good organizaations which are trying to show Amazonians (and other rainforest residents) and their governments ways to reap economic benefits from the rainforest without destroying it.

http://www.savetherainforest.org/savetherainforest_006.htm


http://www.ru.org/32defore.html

Many development institutions and politicians regard population pressure as the major factor causing rainforest destruction. Nobody can deny the serious global problem of population growth. However, the belief that this is the main cause of rainforest loss is used by many governments and businesses to imply that there is little or nothing they can do about the problem of rainforest destruction.

An examination of forest destruction on a regional basis reveals that this is not so. In fact it is large companies and the inequities of international trade which are the root causes of rainforest destruction. For instance, millions of hectares of primary rainforests are being destroyed in South East Asia by logging, and the driving force in this industry is not the local population but international demand for timber. Because landless people will follow logging roads into primary rainforest areas, it is the logging industry which is the main immediate factor responsible for colonisation of rainforest.

In Central America, 40% of all the rainforests have been cleared or burned down in the last 40 years, mostly for cattle pasture to feed the export market (often for US beefburgers). This industry in particular, and the continuing consolidation of land ownership in general, force the poor into rainforest in their search for land. Latin American environment groups have cited skewed land distribution as the most important factor frustrating the conservation and sustainable use of rainforest areas. Throughout South East Asia there are the people who have the same desperate need for land. Land reform would not only provide for the needs of the poorest people in these countries, but would also halt conversion of new areas of primary rainforest into unsustainable agricultural lands. In spite of this, the problem of wealth and resource distribution is still a taboo topic in the context of official discussions on development cooperation.
<more>

[JohnWxy]

10. Destruction of Rain Forest began with lumber companies cutting trees down

for the wood. Cattle ranching is another major source of deforestation pressure. These are still the overwhelming economic pressure producing Rainforest destruction. Ethanol is a relatively recent and trivial component. Growing renewable fuels does not automaatically equate to destruction of rainforest.

Nonetheless the destruction of rainforest is a huge problem but even if ethanol disappeared tomorrow you wouldn't see any reduction in the loss of rainforest. For those who are interested, the Rainforest Alliance is one of several good organizaations which are trying to show Amazonians (and other rainforest residents) and their governments ways to reap economic benefits from the rainforest without destroying it.

http://www.savetherainforest.org/savetherainforest_006.htm


http://www.ru.org/32defore.html

Many development institutions and politicians regard population pressure as the major factor causing rainforest destruction. Nobody can deny the serious global problem of population growth. However, the belief that this is the main cause of rainforest loss is used by many governments and businesses to imply that there is little or nothing they can do about the problem of rainforest destruction.

An examination of forest destruction on a regional basis reveals that this is not so. In fact it is large companies and the inequities of international trade which are the root causes of rainforest destruction. For instance, millions of hectares of primary rainforests are being destroyed in South East Asia by logging, and the driving force in this industry is not the local population but international demand for timber. Because landless people will follow logging roads into primary rainforest areas, it is the logging industry which is the main immediate factor responsible for colonisation of rainforest.

In Central America, 40% of all the rainforests have been cleared or burned down in the last 40 years, mostly for cattle pasture to feed the export market (often for US beefburgers). This industry in particular, and the continuing consolidation of land ownership in general, force the poor into rainforest in their search for land. Latin American environment groups have cited skewed land distribution as the most important factor frustrating the conservation and sustainable use of rainforest areas. Throughout South East Asia there are the people who have the same desperate need for land. Land reform would not only provide for the needs of the poorest people in these countries, but would also halt conversion of new areas of primary rainforest into unsustainable agricultural lands. In spite of this, the problem of wealth and resource distribution is still a taboo topic in the context of official discussions on development cooperation.
<more>

[Dead_Parrot]

4. I think he's saying...

That we're trashing #3 to replace #2 - and in the process, reducing the capacity of #3 to re-absorb it. Which makes sense - biofuels need to be grown using existing agricultural land or at least, land with lower biomass per Ha.

To pull numbers out of thin air, if you trash 1,000 tons of rainforest to make 100 tons of fuel, even if the fuel is renewed each year, you've still added 900 tons of carbon.

We've got to be able to produce biofuel crops without destroying forest. Simple as that.

[deFaultLine]

6. Carbon sinks

The fact is that fossil fuels account for only about 15% of the CO2 dumped into the atmosphere. Other sources are from Cement production, destruction of carbon sinks from burned up rain-forests, destroyed humus from soils (grasslands, tundra etc.) and degradation of calcium carbonate from sources of limestone exposed to acidic environments.

When you consider that cement production accounts for about 10% of the CO2 load and that China produces about 8 times as much cement per year as the United States, it should be apparent that there needs to be a more comprehensive approach to solving global warming than just the feel good approach from using ethanol as a fuel.

Further, the highest contribution of the greenhouse effect is from water vapor which account for 60% of the total greenhouse effect alone. Growing more trees in tropical rain-forests will also lock up this water vapor since cellulose is comprised of a major portion of metabolized H2O.

[NNadir]

7. It would be very interesting to see attempts to operate biofuels farms

as closed systems.

This should answer the question wholly.

[Boomer]

8. Theorectically interesting...

...but in practice, sadly irrelevant.

Some can call me a cynic, but based on the past history of our species, we almost always choose expediency over prudence.

As the planet's oil production continues to flatten and fall, countries and industries will scramble to generate any substitute energy source within their grasp (or the grasp of their army). The destruction of carbon sinks and the resulting effect on the environment will be ignored because short term goals, and present pain, trump future calamities.

Since no amount of carbon reduction will ameliorate deteriorting conditions during our lifetime, the demands for fuel to maintain life style comforts and fight the climate change itself will be hard to ignore.

Do you really think any politician would tell people there's not enough energy for them to run their air conditioners in 100+ degree heat because alternate energy sources will just make temperatures hotter several decades from now? Or that they have to go hungry now because we don't have enough energy to cultivate massive agribusiness crops?

People will clamor for as much as they can get NOW, for themselves, not for their children or even for themselves tomorrow.

Reminds me of one of the best cartoons I've ever seen. A lifeboat full of dogs and a crate of dog food. Top Dog: "All in favor of eating all our food right now, raise your paw." All paws were raised.