Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Palm Oil: The Biofuel of the Future Driving an Ecological Disaster Now
KALIMANTAN, Indonesia - The numbers are damning. Within 15 years 98% of the rainforests of Indonesia and Malaysia will be gone, little more than a footnote in history. With them will disappear some of the world's most important wildlife species, victims of the rapacious destruction of their habitat in what conservationists see as a lost cause. Yet this gloomy script was supposed to have included a small but significant glimmer of hope. Oil palm for biofuel was to have been one of the best solutions in saving the planet from greenhouse gases and global warming. Instead the forests are being torn down in the headlong rush to boost palm oil production.
More startling is that conservationists believe the move to clear land for this "green fuel" is often little more than a conspiracy, providing cover to strip out the last stands of timber not already lost to illegal loggers. In one corner of Kalimantan, the Indonesian part of Borneo, a mere 250,000 hectares or 1,000 sq miles - almost twice the size of Greater London - of the 6m hectares of forest allocated for palm oil by the government have actually been planted.
"When you look closely the areas where companies are getting permission for oil palm plantations are those of high-conservation forest," said Willie Smits, who set up SarVision, a satellite mapping service that charts the rainforest's decline. "What they're really doing is stealing the timber because they get to clear it before they plant. But the timber's all they want; hit and run with no intention of ever planting. It's a conspiracy."
The fear is that Indonesia's aim of almost doubling the 6.5m hectares under oil palm plantation in the next five to eight years - tripling it by 2020 - to meet rocketing worldwide demand will afford ever-greater opportunities for the timber thieves. An estimated 2.8m hectares of forest is already lost every year.
Until now palm oil - of which 83% is produced in Indonesia and Malaysia - was produced for food. But the European Union's aim of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by 2020, partly by demanding that 10% of vehicles be fueled by biofuels, will see a fresh surge in palm oil demand that could doom the rainforests.
That is likely to kill off the "flagship species" of wildlife such as the Asian elephant, the Sumatran tiger and the orangutan of Borneo which are already under enormous pressure from habitat loss. Plantation owners regard the orangutan as pests because it eats the young palm oil plants and hunt them down ruthlessly.
"In reality it's over for the tiger, the elephant and the orangutan," said Mr Smits, who founded the Borneo Orangutan Survival Foundation. "Their entire lowland forest habitat is essentially gone already. We find orangutan burned, or their heads cut off. Hunters are paid 150,000 rupiah [£8.30] for the right hand of an orangutan to prove they've killed them."
Two orangutan rehabilitation centers run by the foundation on Indonesian Borneo are overflowing with more than 800 of the primates, most rescued from oil palm plantations. But the east Kalimantan center, where rescued babies are reared by hand, has been unable to release any rescued orangutan into the wild for four years because suitable habitat has proved impossible to find. In central Kalimantan the picture is worse: it has never staged a release in almost a decade.
A new UN report The Last Stand of the Orangutan: State of Emergency found that forests in Indonesia and Malaysia are being felled so quickly that 98% could be gone by 2022. Yet the orangutan's lowland forest could disappear much sooner.
"We're looking at the virtual extinction of the orang-utan in 15 years, or less," said Raffaella Commitante, primatologist at the foundation's east Kalimantan center. "There are between 50,000 and 60,000 on Borneo and 7,000 on Sumatra. But 5,000 -10,000 are killed each year."
Yet palm oil, mixed with diesel to produce biofuel, was hailed as a potential savior for the environment. Put simply, the argument runs that the palm oil plants produce organic compounds that when burned in engines do not add to overall carbon dioxide levels. The CO2 absorbed by the plant in its life-cycle should balance the amount it gives out when burned.
However, the more the ecological fairytale is scrutinized the more it begins to look like a bad dream. Researchers from the Dutch pressure group Wetlands International found that as much as half the space created for new palm oil plantations was cleared by draining and burning peat-land, sending huge amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
The sodden peat of central Kalimantan acts as a vast organic sponge that stores huge amounts of carbon. But as it dries while being drained for plantation, or by roads being cut through to remove timber, it releases the stored carbon. In Indonesia alone, the peat releases 600m tons of carbon a year. Worse, it is often set alight to speed clearing, adding to the CO2 from the huge forest fires that blanket much of south-east Asia in haze. Estimates say Indonesia's fires generate 1,400 tonnes of carbon dioxide each year, pushing it to the world's third-largest producer of CO2 from 26th, if both factors are considered.
Conservationists also fear that placing all eggs in one basket could prompt an ecological disaster. A palm oil monoculture would be unable to support the rich diversity of wildlife and leave the environment vulnerable to catastrophic disease, while local people dependent on the crop could be left high and dry if it fell out of favor.
"There are bad biofuels in the world and palm oil is often the very 'baddest'," said Ed Matthew, biofuel specialist at Friends of the Earth. "Europe shouldn't be setting targets until it's put a mechanism in place to block bad biofuels. Palm oil is one of the cheapest biofuels in the field, but by setting targets it sends the wrong signal for businessmen."
As the risks become more obvious there has been a growing clamor for eco-labeling of "sustainable" palm oil. A "round table" of buyers, producers and environmentalists has established several key criteria that would prevent conversion of high-conservation rainforest to palm oil plantations, cut the use of fires to clear land, and mitigate the conflict of plantations with wildlife and rural communities, though it has yet to be ratified. "It's vital we find financial backing for this now," said Fitrian Ardiansyah, a Worldwide Fund for Nature-Indonesia program officer.
Jakarta is increasingly aware of the dangers, highlighted by its inability to prevent continuing illegal logging. But it is keen to grab the chance and is pledging to put in place regulations to seize allocated palm oil land not planted within a time limit.
Yet as a developing country it also believes Europe must help out financially if it wants the safeguards against the downside of palm oil production that will assist in cutting greenhouse gas.
"The Indonesian government simply doesn't have the capability or the capacity to do this alone without the support of the Europeans, the US, Japanese, or whoever," said Alhilal Hamdi, chief executive of Indonesia's biofuels development board. "It's no good other countries looking to us to help cut their CO2 emissions without helping to support us in that effort."
© Guardian News and Media Limited 2007



23 Comments so far
Show AllI would also recommend everything written by James Howard Kuntsler - and of course, the documentary film "The End of Suburbia". My only criticism is that the 50's style suburbia seen in most of the film seems pretty benign compared to the modern style malignancy...
Hemp oil is a much better ecological substitute for Palm Oil. The best solution would be to reduce the need for organic fuels by reducing population growth humanely to the earth's carrying capacity, through birth control. "Conservatives" like to do it consciously or not by killing people (while saving zygotes) and making the earth uninhabitable.
All these alternatives are nice, but we have to face the facts that none of them will work without big changes in our fuel consumption habits, which will require a complete overhaul of our incredibly inefficient patterns of suburban development - basically abolish suburbia. Anyone who doesn't need to be in the countryside for their occupation will live in compact car-free communities - better places to live than suburbia in every way from a quality of life perspective anyway.
I don't see how we can reduce population rapidly enough to address the problem. Besides most of fossil fuel consumption increases are from countries that already have fairly stable populations.
It seems counter intuitive, but making bio-char from crop residue creates energy, sequesters carbon, and enhances soil.
Do a search for Terra Preta.
It is not necessary to use food crops for bio-fuel, or destroy natural habitat.
Inform your friends, and contact your legislators.
I agree with PJD; we also need to change our fuel consumption habits.
When I first heard about biofuels- maybe forty years ago- I thought "my Goddess the american have gone completely mad- they want to feed corn to their cars! i have had no reason to change my mind about this since. no matter how you do it, you'll be taking good arable soil away from food production to make biofuel products, even if you are not actually stuffing food in your gas tanks. We really need to get over our addiction to oil right now.
The day it is announced that not one single person on the planet died from hunger you may then be able to begin to talk about biofuels. I probably still won't listen. Feed people, not cars.
Progressives should embrace diversity of approaches but always applied appropriately. We need diverse energy sources, because different ones are most appropriate in different applications. And we have different types of residential developments appropriate for different lifestyles.
Suburbia is more appropriate for people to grow their food in their yards. Check into Karala, India home gardens. But suburbia pushed by capitalist schemes to increase gluttonous consumption is inappropriate.
Fossil fuel production as a means of development in impoverished societies, such as in Venezuela with its highly successful education and medical programs, is appropriate. Fossil fuel production/consumption as a means of running economic and political races for power/control is highly inappropriate.
Biofuel production is appropriate as a great opportunity for small farmers to supply a moderate amount of fuel to highly efficient applications that truly serve the better interests of society. For example, people greatly benefit from taking road trips several times a year in 150 mpg diesel-electric hybrids. But daily 100 mile solitary commutes in 12 mpg SUVs are completely inappropriate.
Destruction of beneficial rainforests to make way for oil palm plantations is inappropriate. But there is a whole world of opportunity to apply sustainable polyculture methods to biofuels production, interplanting food crops is just one example.
It may seem like a daunting task to discover the appropriate means of doing things, and implement them against the forces of greed. But this is the progressive task and shouldn't be neglected.
people!!! please! think. public transportation... make it free... come on... think! jeez. Either free public transit kills the car... or the car kills us. think. crunch the numbers... (good grief!)
I've said this before and I'll say it again, The energy produced by use of bio-fuels is almost equal to the energy used to produce these fuels. I have researched this before I becan writing a moment ago, but I'm positive that studies into the benefits of ethanol show that the energy we get from ethonal is only slightly greater that the energy needed to produce ethanol.
Certainly we can and should do better than this. As we all know, simply forcing the car manufacturers to increase fuel efficiency would save an enormous amount of gasoline, thus making such ideas as drilling in the arctic or expanding offshore drilling unneccessary.
The best ideas I have come across are from the Apollo Alliance. If I had the financial means to do more than get by everyday, I would be doing what I could to help such new ideas - as well as supporting Common Dreams.
We have the knowledge and reasons to change so many things we are presently doing which have such a negative effect on this planet. We could redirect the missions of such places as Raytheon, and other defence contractors which don't come to mind right now. We could have them employ the educated, highly intlligent people working for these companies presently involved in creating new and better ways to kill to more positive goals such as saving lives. These companies don't need to be gotten id of. Their wealth of knowledge and resources could be steered in the opposite direction. Whole new industries could be created and along with the creation of new industries follows thee creation of new jobs.
It all sounds so simple to me. No one has to lose out, unless you consider killing an admirable career. More than anything, they would contribute to our national security because it's our need fo a vanishing natural resource that's causing the USA to contol oil through the use of force. Let's become a truly independent state, let's change the role of our military to more honorable ends, and let's stop making so many enemies.
Am I just being naive, or doesn't this make a lot of sense?
Makes total sense. Just that people in our country our trained (from birth) to think of self-interest and not the whole. But every time you spread your philosophy there are little light bulbs going off all over the place.
"Suburbia is more appropriate for people to grow their food in their yards. Check into Karala, India home gardens."
Well, there are plenty of places in urban areas to grow vegetables too. I grew a garden behind my city townhouse in an urban neighborhood which probably had 40 houses per acre. By suburbia, I mean the traffic-clogged strips, malls, acres of parking lot, homes built in winding overly wide streets and cul-de-cacs in absolutely the the most inefficient manner possible for walking and transit (usually nearly impossible). Sure they can grow gardens and have compost piles there, but the most routine errands require driving a car 10 miles.
I suspect such places look nothing like neighborhoods in Kerala.
Back on topic: What they are doing in Borneo and Sumatra to the rainforests, habitat and indiginous peoples to supply land for the growing of a food crop to put in cars is immoral and corrupt. There are a multitude of problems with the whole scheme. Number one, NO food crops should EVER be used to produce anything but food and feed. No fuel. No pharmaceuticals. Nothing else! Further, no crops should be grown ANYWHERE in such a way that it endangers the environment or the water supply.
That being said, the problems we face relative to transitioning away from nonrenewable fuels to environmentally sustainable alternatives is really a political one. Shrub can proclaim that we have to wean ourselves off fossil fuels until the cows come home. It isn't going to make a bit of difference, because the alternatives he envisions are all related to profit and greed. And very few in Congress have a clue or are bought off by the powers that will profit.
I don't mean to sound like a broken record, but if we don't get meaningful campaign finance reform we will never have a government that will address the real problems we face relative to fossil fuels with reasonable and viable alternatives. They will just keep dancing with the same corporate and special interests that bought and paid for them. Until We the People force our government officials to focus on and fund long range, sustainable solutions, nothing good is going to happen.
i dream of a world without engines. and if people keep at it, that world will come. sadly though, by default
PJD wrote:
"I don't see how we can reduce population rapidly enough to address the problem. Besides most of fossil fuel consumption increases are from countries that already have fairly stable populations."
Either we reduce our populations humanely, or nature will do it for us in her own bloody, painful way through wars, famine, crime, plagues, resource scarcity etc.
Fossil fuel consumption is increasing in developed and developing countries as a direct result of population growth:
The Demographic Facts of Life
United States World
291.5 million Population, mid-2003 6.3 billion
78 Population per square mile 122
14 Births per 1,000 people 22
9 Deaths per 1,000 people 9
116 Doubling time in years at current growth rate 53
351.1 million Projected population, 2025 7.9 billion
2.0 Total fertility rate 2.8
21 Percent of population under age 15 30
13 Percent of population over age 65 7
74 (male), 80 (female) Life expectancy 65 (male), 69 (female)
0.6 Percent of adult population living with HIV/AIDS 1.2
125,000 Number of AIDS orphans 13.4 million
25 Average age at first marriage, all women 22
76 Percent of married women using contraception 59
53 Births per 1,000 women aged 15-19 50
99 Percent of births attended by skilled personnel 57
19 Percent of women who give birth by age 20 31
6.9 Infant deaths per 1,000 live births 55
12 Maternal deaths per 100,000 live births 400
8 Under 5 child mortality rate 81
19.8 Carbon dioxide emissions (metric tons per capita) 3.9
774 Number of vehicles per 1,000 people 176
$34,280 GNI per capita (PPP) $7,160
4 Percent of male labor force in agriculture 46
1 Percent of female labor force in agriculture 52
1,542 Tractors per 1,000 agricultural workers 20
Sources and definitions on reverse.
Notes
Doubling time is the number of years it would take for a population to double in size at its
present rate of growth. It is calculated by dividing a country's growth rate into the number 69.3.
However, growth rates around the world are changing due to changes in fertility and mortality
rates. The projected population number takes these changes into account.
Total Fertility Rate is the average number of children that would be born alive to a woman
during her lifetime if she were to pass through her childbearing years conforming to the agespecific
fertility rates of a given year. This rate is sometimes stated as the number of children
women are having today.
Adult population living with HIV/AIDS refers to adults between the ages of 15 and 49.
Total number of AIDS orphans is the estimated number of children under 15 who have lost their
mother or both parents to AIDS since the beginning of the epidemic. UNAIDS does not specify
dates for the beginning of the epidemic.
Carbon dioxide emissions are those stemming from the burning of fossil fuels and the
manufacture of cement. They include contributions to the carbon dioxide produced during
consumption of solid, liquid, and gas fuels and gas flaring.
GNI per capita PPP is the gross national income in purchasing power parity (PPP) divided by
mid-year population. GNI PPP refers to gross national income converted to "international"
dollars using the purchasing power parity conversion factor. International dollars indicate the
amount of goods and services one could buy in the United States with a given amount of money.
Compiled Spring 2004. Overpopulation threatens the quality of life for people everywhere.
Population Connection is the national grassroots population organization that educates young
people and advocates progressive action to stabilize world population at a level that can be
sustained by Earth's resources.
Sources
2003 World Population Data Sheet, Population Reference Bureau (PRB).
2003 World Development Indicators, The World Bank.
The State of the World Population 2000, United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA).
Sorry, it didn't print out right. But you get the idea.
only HEMP works for biofuel
Carfree cities...
http://www.carfree.com/
Rebel Farmer has it right about campaign finance reform. The root of 80% of our problems is a broken system that cannot objectively analyze and address them. Every solution that is proposed by Congress immediately attracts every vested interest from far and wide. The oil companies, the pharmaceutical companies, the defense contractors. This administration is worse. They are driven totally by the profit motive for their friends. Nothing and nobody, most of all American citizens, will stand in their way.
We have a system that is broke, that cannot solve our issues, that tries to divert attention to non-issues (terrorists!!!) and expends our money to make their friends rich.
Campaign finance reform, Voting system integrity should be at the top of everyone's five year plan. Only once reforms have taken place can we can have a government more responsive to us and proactive to address the world's problems.
ezflyer ... population growth is not the problem ... rabid mass consumption by the west is the problem.
gyptian:
I think many people agree with you. The population issue is a political hot potato that no one wants to deal with. There are basic religious issues involved and it elicits knee jerk reactions, visions of eugenics and more. It has been ignored or pushed under the rug for these reasons. Nature is taking its toll from our denial of science. You can find out more about our overpopulation problem and its solutions here:
http://www.populationconnection.org/Factoids/
I agree, the whole issue of "population control" is a hot potato. China has had resonable successes in stabilizing it's population with it's stick -and carrot one-child program. But unforseen probelms - sexist attitudes leave many families taking measures to assure they only have a boy. And, a looming prolem of a retired elderly poulation with no caregivers. At any rate, few other cultures or religions in the world are going to accept such restrictions on their personal decisions.
Then, here in the US, population control proponents have associated themselves with an ugly xenophobic-racist element - population control really meaning brown-and black skin control.
The only tool for population control is going to be change in cultural attitudes and this is going to take time. In the meantime, we need to focus on that small fraction of the population taht is doing 90% of the damage. Since artificial lighting is probably a good indicator or energy usage, look at this image here:
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap001127.html
It is the really densely populated, fast growing countries that are producing all that light pollution ? Or, it is a particular, large north american country which ranks 172nd in population rank.
correcton - I mean population DENSITY rank.
First we cut down all the Trees NEXT SOLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE!
The nightmare of and old Sci Fi book is coming true.I really believe it is unstoppable now.Be it PALM OIL,Sugar Cane ,or Corn. The powers that be will make their bucks out of it,and the rest of WE the people of this world will suffer the conseqences.
When we were given all the special abilities we now possess we were also given free will and choice. We can't handle either. Too bad but in a few short years the earth will no longer be a nice place to live. We had our chance. The answer is unattainable.