Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiBROOKLIN, Canada - Biofuels have quickly turned from environmental saviour to just another mega-scale get-rich quick scheme. Countries and regions without their own oil reserves to tap now see their farms, peatlands and forests as potential "oil fields" -- shallow but renewable lakes of green oil.
However, renewable does not mean sustainable, and in most cases the only green part of biofuel is the wealth they generate.
Not surprisingly, given the record high oil prices, worldwide investment in bioenergy reached 21 billion dollars in 2007, according to the U.N. Environment Programme. The Inter-American Development Bank announced 3 billion dollars for investment in private sector biofuel projects -- mainly in Brazil -- while the World Bank said it had 10 billion dollars available in 2007.
Meanwhile development assistance for food-producing agriculture had fallen to 3.4 billion dollars in 2004 -- with the World Bank's share less than 1 billion dollars, according to the Bank's own World Development Report on Agriculture released in October 2007. And most of this financial assistance was spent on subsidising use of chemical fertilisers.
"It's not just the World Bank, regional development agencies, progressive development groups in Europe and many countries are all investing in agrofuels," says Anuradha Mittal of the Oakland Institute, a U.S. NGO focused on social and environmental issues.
"I was amazed to see how much land in India has been taken away from poor people to start up new agrofuel operations," Mittal told IPS after a recent visit to her home country.
Many social and environmental activists use the term agrofuels instead of biofuels because the focus is on using agriculture to mass produce fuel.
Agrofuels are "false solutions" to the critical problem of climate change, and in many cases may simply be making it worse, she says. Worse, because rich countries think they are making real gains in reducing emissions with biofuels while utterly failing to deal with their out-of-control consumption of energy and other resources.
Investors in biofuels can not only make money, they can also get valuable carbon credits under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) of the Kyoto climate change treaty. Carbon credits can be used to offset fossil fuel emissions or can be sold on various carbon trading markets. The CDM is a complicated process that provides funding and certifies carbon credits. It funds solar energy projects and wind power as replacements for coal power in less developed countries. With biofuels it has been difficult to determine exactly how much a biofuel project would reduce CO2 emissions compared to fossil fuels when emissions involved in growing the crop, transportation and production are included.
As a result only a few small projects that make biodiesel from waste vegetable oil have CDM funding, says Almuth Ernsting of Biofuelwatch, an environmental NGO in Britain. However, a number of large-scale projects including biodiesel project in Brazil and an ethanol project in Mexico may be approved this year.
"The industry says they need CDM funding," Ernsting told IPS. "If the CDM funds these kinds of large projects then the carbon markets are likely to finance others."
If that happens, as seems likely, another wave of biofuel financing will flood the world when there is considerable scientific debate about the environmental benefits of agrofuels, she says. Recent research shows that fertilisers and tilling the soil releases from 30 to 45 percent of all carbon emissions.
Europe's biodiesel made from Indonesian palm oil was known as early as 2005 to cause deforestation and the draining of peatlands and putting enormous amounts of carbon emissions into the atmosphere. It has been hard to slow this down and while the European Union has expressed concern, it has held fast to its goal of deriving 10 percent of its transport fuel from plant material, says Ernsting.
"If we're serious about fighting climate change then a moratorium on agrofuels is needed to allow time to do a proper assessment," she asserts.
George Weyerhaesuer, Jr, senior executive at the Weyerhaeuser Company, one of the world's largest forest products companies, agrees that the risks and benefits of biofuels need to be worked out.
"We need a way to sort this out and then pass along recommendations to the United Nations," says Weyerhaeuser who is working with the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) in Geneva, Switzerland. WBCSD is a CEO-led, global association of some 200 companies dealing exclusively with business and sustainable development.
There are lots of fuels, feedstocks, processes and different situational circumstances for biofuels around the world. Some may be okay on a small scale only, while others may work on a larger scale, he told IPS.
So who is going to sort out which biofuel and where? Weyerhaeuser suggests the International Risk Governance Council, an independent organisation also based in Geneva whose purpose is to help the understanding and management of global risks. This little known group has bioenergy as one of its current projects and hopes to eventually "prepare risk governance guidelines and policy options for the production of electricity, heat and transport fuel from biomass".
However, he opposes a moratorium, saying: "I'm more worried about carbon emissions, some of the biofuels will reduce those."
Others are more worried that biofuels have become a land grab and another way for agribusiness to increase its power and riches. "Agrofuels are not about reducing carbon emissions. It is a big conspiracy to benefit agro-corporations, as well as oil and automobile companies," says Simone Lovera, managing coordinator of the Global Forest Coalition, an environmental NGO based in Asunción, Paraguay.
In Latin America Lovera has seen how agrofuels are devastating the land, farmers and local communities. The principle of sustainable development is being completely ignored she told IPS. "It is all about how to make a profit -- the evidence is everywhere."
She doesn't deny that done right biofuels could provide a range of benefits, including reducing carbon emissions and alleviating poverty for poor farmers. "What's lacking is a guarantee that agrofuel projects are done properly," said Lovera.
And a moratorium on further biofuel expansion is needed to allow time to figure out how to do biofuels properly and set up guidelines and a monitoring system. "As things stand now, kids are starving because of agrofuels," she added.
© 2008 Inter Press Service
12 Comments so far
Show AllThere IS a future in biofuels that are NOT made from Food crops. Those who don't jump on the scare tactics and actually read a little would see this. How does doing nothing at all but bashing big money (which I despise) help the poor or the environment.
The future of biodiesel has nothing to do with soybeans or palm oil. With algae and cellulosic we will get away from this argument about food.
To believe we would feed the poor if we weren't making bio is silly at best. Sounds harsh, but 50 million starving is better than NO ONE AT ALL BREATHING.
Why is this usually progressive site running endless articles that bash alternatives to fossil fuels?
The use of biofuels is nothing more than a threshold we need to cross to convince you lemmings that we can survive without dino transportation fuels. There IS a future in biofuels that are NOT made from Food crops. Those who don't jump on the scare tactics and actually read a little would see this.
We need a different engine design to change things and that will not happen till our fuels are 18 bucks a gallon.
PEOPLE OR PROFIT is the only choice for the future anyway and since we know which one will ALWAYS rule it is foolish to expect positive change from this society, EVER.
ENJOY YOUR PETRO! I'm burning bio and proud of it.
And a moratorium on further biofuel expansion is needed to allow time to figure out how to do biofuels properly and set up guidelines and a monitoring system.
The answer is easy - kick the capitalist's ass. Specifically, teach and encourage the people to shift their exchange/association away from the capitalists and toward their local communities. Failing that, you will be ruled by capital. It's your choice.
"As things stand now, kids are starving because of agrofuels,"
Nope. Kids are starving because of capitalist greed. You wanna save the kids or you wanna be ruled by capital? Your choice.
There is something integrally wrong when you start turning grain into fuel when there are millions of people starving to death each year. We're not in an energy crisis, we're in a consumption crisis. The US's insatiable appetite for energy is way over the top. In my neighborhood I'm the old-man on the block. The home I've lived in for nearly forty years is only 1100 sq. feet. My wife and I have two cars (a Prius and an older Corrola). Yet over the years a younger generation have moved into the old neighborhood. We are now surrounded by a multitude of newer homes that dwarf my house by comparison. Most of which are 3500 sq. feet or larger. The young family that lives directly across from me just got finished building a new home after tearing down a beautiful old farm house. Their new home is nearly 6000 sq. ft with a four car garage. This is for a family of three! He has three cars, a truck, a huge boat, snowmobiles, and is now talking about buying a Hummer.
As I look around the old neighborhood I just have to shake my head.
Americans and their consumption of "Stuff" is a sad state of affairs.
A reality-check is right around the corner. The signs are all there.
Live simply so that others my simply live.
How did the "worst and the dullest" out-smart the rest of us?
It's all very simple.
The world contains too many poor people.
The liberal viewpoint is that the solution is to lift these people out of poverty. Not easy, but it could be done.
The SuperRich, Corporate viewpoint is that Poverty can best be eliminated by eliminating everyone who lives in poverty. But, the Capitalist knows that the SuperRich will never Act on this knowledge unless there is a Profit in it.
So, they create an Energy Crisis with endless ways to profit. Increased Oil Prices. Corporate Welfare to "find an alternative fuel". Which, by a funny coincidence, increases Food prices, generating more profit.
These increased Food prices will drive people to desperation. Eventually, they will become so Desperate, Broke and Hungry that their Anger will be the only thing they have left.
At that point, they will begin to congregate on street corners (Having already become Homeless, they will have nowhere else to congregate) and their anger will begin to grow until it consumes them.
Sooner or later, that anger will flash over into violence. And the Police will be sent in to "put down the Riot". If the Corporate planners have timed this correctly, the police will fail (because by that time the police will be outnumbered 1000 to 1), allowing the corporation's Political Allies (By now, thoroughly Panicked) to authorize the use of "Deadly Force".
The corporations will then offer to provide assistance in the form of "Extra Manpower" from Blackwater Corporation, et al. For a nice Profit, of course.
Blackwater's troops will then use the authorized "Deadly Force" to eliminate the Rioters and herd the survivors into Corporate run prison camps where they will become a new and improved Low Cost work force. Plus, the Government will PAY the corporations to run the prisons. A nice Profit center. (They've already Built the prison camps, by the way.)
When the dust and gunpowder smoke clears, there will be Much Less Poverty because Prisoners don't Live in poverty. After all, they are living in a Multi-Million Dollar, Tax Supported Housing Facility!
And the dead will be Cremated at Taxpayer expense. Thus creating yet Another Profit center.
See? Everyone Wins. At least, everyone who Counts. Best of all from the Corporate point of view, Prisoners lose the right to Vote, so they no longer have to worry about those Uppity Poor Folks accidentally electing a politician who hasn't been Bought and Paid For.
Won't that be a Wonderful Future when Poverty has been Eliminated?
Neither "we" nor anybody else is going to do anything except struggle to survive. It's too late to try to share the good things offered by earth.
Whether the president is Democrat or Republican will not seem important after five more summers like the last one.
Leave it to the rich to come up with such a stoopid solution-that-isn't-one. Brilliant! The way they squandered the world's wealth and resources during the industrial era, now they'll do the same to everyone in the 21st century.
When will we physically stop these pricks from shoving it up our butts once again?
Morally bankrupt, Corporate vandalism!
God forbid they invest in anything with a chance of being sustainable---Solar, wind,---hell, it might actually work over the long term.
There are profits for Exxon/Mobile to be considered here.
George is not sharp enough to figure out this con. Who is the brains behind this?
"However, renewable does not mean sustainable, and in most cases the only green part of biofuel is the wealth they generate."
Ain't that the truth... This agrofuels crap is just another techno-fix that was nice in theory but is horrible in practice. Poor people are starving, yet agribusiness is buying up more land and growing more commodity crops to feed the insatiable maw of industrial civilization. Forests, croplands, grasslands, rivers, oceans, lakes... The whole biosphere is being converted to plantations and factory farms to convert more of the only livable planet we have into economic activity.
The whole damn system is rotten to the core and needs to be fundamentally altered, replaced, or dismantled.
The single biggest impact biofuels have, directly or indirectly, is the rapid destruction of rainforests. The decimation of rainforests in Malaysia and Indonesia and nearer home in Brazil, to feed this latest fad, is reason enough to completely stop or ban the use of biofuels.