Biofuel Watch

at 4:33 PM

W4B Renewable Energy Ltd is planning an estimated £30million power plant at Balaclava Bay, Portland Port, to be operational by 2011.

If the scheme gets planning permission, the plant would run 24 hours a day, generate 17.8 Megawatts of electricity and consume 4 tonnes per day of oil including oilseed rape, jatropha, palm oil and waste cooking oils.

more at:

http://www.thisisdorset.net/news/4231712.Jobs_boost_in_renewable_energy_plan_for_Portland/?loginattempt=yes

and the company W4B Renewable Energy Ltd is very much in favour of electricity generation from biomass/bioliquids - see:

http://www.renewable-energy-report.org/Biomass/tabid/56/Default.aspx

they also display this statement:

"But instead of encouragement we have every green activist on the planet challenging this goal [the EU RED targets for transport biofuel] as encouraging the destruction of rain forests, peat bogs and pushing grain prices beyond the reach of ordinary people."

so we know where their sympathies lie.

------------------------------------

at 11:42 AM

1. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/mar/27/biochar-monbiot-global-warming

Charleaders must cool enthusiasm for settting fire to the planet

Reactions to my 'biochar' stance got a lot of people fired up, but I was too soft on one champion of so-called development

Well that got 'em going. So far James Lovelock, Jim Hansen and Pushker Kharecha, Chris Goodall and Peter Read have all responded in the Guardian to my column on biochar.

Reading their responses, I realise that it was unfair of me to include James Lovelock and Jim Hansen on the list of those who have been suckered by the charleaders. Their position is more nuanced than I made out. Chris Goodall, to his credit, has accepted that he was too bullish about the technology. The points he makes in its defence seem fair and well-reasoned.

On the other hand, I wasn't harsh enough about Peter Read. In his response column today he uses the kind of development rhetoric that I thought had died out with the Indonesian transmigration programme.

To him, people and land appear to be as fungible as counters in a board game. He makes the extraordinary assertion that "degraded land" - which he wants to cover with plantations - is uninhabited by subsistence farmers, pastoralists or hunters and gatherers. That must be news to all the subsistence farmers, pastoralists and hunters and gatherers I've met in such places.

Then he repeats the ancient canard that, by denying such people the opportunity to have their land turned into a eucalyptus plantation/hydroelectric dam/opencast mine/nuclear test site/re-education camp or whatever project the latest swivel-eyed ideologue is trying to promote, we are keeping them in poverty.

Has he learnt nothing from the past 40 years of development studies? Does he not understand that development is something that people must choose, not something that can be imposed on them from on high by megalomaniacs?

As for the "unused potential arable land" he wants to use, that could apply to most of the surface of the planet that possesses a soil layer: rainforest, wetland, savannah - you name it. From my office window I can see a perfect candidate for his attentions: the brakes and thickets of the Cambrian Mountains. I can also see the kind of crop with which Read would cover them: the sitka spruce plantations that blight the lives of everyone who loves the countryside here. Yes this land is degraded, overgrazed and poorly managed. But is there anyone who would prefer that it was all converted to plantations?

But at least a debate is taking place. This technology has gone largely unchallenged by environmentalists for far too long, fooled perhaps by Read's cunning rebranding of charcoal as biochar, on the grounds - wait for it - that this stuff is "finely divided". By all means, as Hansen and Kharecha recommend, let's use genuine waste - whether from crops, forestry, sewage or food - to make biochar. But let's stop the charleaders from pyrolising the planet in the name of saving it.

monbiot.com

2. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/mar/27/biochar

This gift of nature is the best way to save us from climate catastrophe

Biochar schemes would remove carbon from the atmosphere and increase food supply, says Peter Read

I believe that George Monbiot, in rubbishing the concept of biochar, misrepresents my work (Woodchips with everything. It's the Atkins plan of the low-carbon world, 24 March). "The great green miracle works like this: we turn the planet's surface into charcoal. Sorry, not charcoal ...

Now we say biochar." I coined the word about four years ago. It doesn't mean charcoal like you burn on the barbecue, but finely divided pyrolysed (OK, George, "cooked" if you like) biomass prepared for soil improvement.

Monbiot says that I propose "new biomass plantations of trees and sugar covering 1.4bn hectares ... Read says the new plantations can be created across 'land on which the occupants are not engaged in economic activity'". But this degraded land is former forest that has been logged over and abandoned - not, as Monbiot says, "land occupied by subsistence farmers, pastoralists, hunters and gatherers". Given the chance, impoverished people often opt for a waged income.

Does Monbiot wish to keep them impoverished for ever?
In reality there is not the shortage of land Monbiot implies but a desperate shortage of investment in the land. His "global total" of 1.36bn hectares of arable land does not include 2.38bn of unused potential arable land reported by the UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation, into which such investment, eg irrigation, might go. Moreover, the productivity of the 1.36bn could be raised with biochar pyrolysed from currently wasted agricultural residues, thus linking carbon removal with increased food supply and incomes.

Monbiot misses the point that the need for land-use improvements comes from the threat of climatic catastrophe. With too much carbon in the atmosphere and oceans, some of it has to be removed and put somewhere safer. Using the gift of nature - photosynthesis which enables green plants to use the sun's energy to absorb atmospheric carbon - is the only economic way.
One threat arises from the accumulation, summer after summer, of melt-water flowing down crevasses in Greenland's ice sheet to the rock surface under the ice, lubricating glacial flows into the oceans. Studies of pre-historic climate show that this happens suddenly, when the last sticking point gives way, raising sea levels by a metre or so, possibly in a decade. Arctic temperatures have to be brought down, not just stabilised. Emissions reductions alone, however drastic, cannot do that job.

The remedy is not "an easy way out" but needs hard work and good policy resulting in, to quote last year's Sustainable Biofuels Consensus, "a landscape that provides food, fodder, fibre, and energy; that offers opportunities for rural development; that diversifies energy supply, restores ecosystems, protects biodiversity, and sequesters carbon."

I do not want my grandchildren to be conscripted into the food, land and water wars that will break out unless an effective plan is devised and implemented. This would not involve usurping the rights of existing occupiers of the land but, since their rights and livelihoods will be extinguished anyhow in such wars, such usurpation would, if necessary, be preferable to catastrophic climatic change. Get your priorities sorted, George.

• Peter Read is an honorary research fellow at the Centre for Energy Research, Massey University, New Zealand

pread2@attglobal.net

at 12:05 AM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7963489.stm

By Mark Kinver
Science and environment reporter, BBC News

Whether protecting rainforests will give nations a pot of gold remains to be seen

Efforts to mitigate climate change could be hampered if nations do not agree to protect the world's forests by the end of the year, warn researchers.

Earthwatch says it is vital for leaders attending a key UN summit in December to find a way to halt deforestation.

Deforestation accounts for about 20% of the greenhouse gas emissions resulting from human activities, UN data shows.

The environmental charity will outline its concerns during a public lecture in central London on Thursday evening.

"This year is the crunch time for forests and climate change," Earthwatch's head of climate change research Dan Bebber told BBC News.

"We are hoping for big things from the Copenhagen climate summit at the end of 2009," he added, referring to a much anticipated UN gathering.

"Unless we tackle the question of forests as a mitigation method for climate change, then we will really have lost the battle to keep greenhouse gas concentrations below levels that many people would consider to be dangerous."

Raising awareness

Despite the measures introduced by the UN's Kyoto Protocol on climate change, global emissions of CO2 have continued to rise as a result of increasing energy consumption and the loss of forest cover.
Smoudering remains of a rainforest (Image: HSBC/Earthwatch)
Until now, rainforests have been worth more dead than alive

The reason why deforestation accounts for about 20% of CO2 emissions from human activities is primarily a result of old growth tropical forests being felled or burned in order to convert the fertile land into farmland.

The issue is one of the key topics on the agenda at the UN climate summit in Copenhagen, which will consider how the global climate strategy will look when Kyoto expires in 2012.

"This year is going to be critical and we feel we need to raise public awareness about this issue as much as possible," Dr Bebber said.

"There have been some very strong pressures to use forests in an unsustainable way, particularly in the tropics.

"You could probably make a thousand times more money by converting tropical forests to agricultural land to grow, for example, soya beans than you could managing it in a sustainable way.

"It is this imbalance that needs to be addressed at a global level."

Growing money on trees

Gro Harlem Brundtland, the UN secretary general's climate change envoy, said that emissions from deforestation were comparable to total annual CO2 emissions of the US or China.

Tropical forest leaves (Image: Paul Harris/Earthwatch)

Forests 'facing a testing time'

"Deforestation therefore has to be included in the new climate change agreement," she told delegates at a UN Committee on Forestry meeting in Rome earlier this month.

"While forests were left out of the Kyoto Protocol, it must now find its place within the broader solution."

In order to tackle deforestation effectively, Dr Brundtland said it was necessary to develop a regime that "creates the necessary incentives for developing countries to act in the broader interest of... the planet".

In October 2008, the Eliasch Review - commissioned by UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown - concluded that an international deal to protect forests would reduce the cost of tackling climate change by up to 50% in 2030.

The report by Swedish businessman Johan Eliasch said cash put aside for carbon saving in rich countries could be transferred to nations with rainforests in need of protection.

Such a scheme could reduce deforestation rates by up to 75% in 2030, Mr Eliasch concluded.

The leading contender to cut the loss of tree cover is a scheme called Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD).

Rainforest in Ghana

Forest plan may 'fuel corruption'

It first came to light during negotiations at the 2007 UN climate summit, hosted by the Indonesian island of Bali.

The resulting "Bali Action Plan" called for "policy approaches and positive incentives on issues relating to reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries".

This led to the formation of REDD, which states that nations "willing and able to reduce emissions from deforestation should be financially compensated for doing so".

Supporters of the scheme say it will offer the necessary financial incentive to halt large areas of tropical forests being felled.

However, critics of the scheme are sceptical about how the system of carbon credits will be regulated.

Whatever scheme is favoured, Dr Bebber, who will be one of the speakers at the Earthwatch Lecture on Thursday evening, says it is vital that delegates at the Copenhagen climate summit reach an agreement on a way to curb deforestation.

He warned: "If these types of schemes do not get up and running shortly, then we will have really missed the boat."

------------------------------------

at 9:21 AM

Press Statement

23 March 2009

United Nations criticises Indonesia’s response to Forests and Climate Change:

Expansion of biofuels plantations and plans to market forest carbon

fail to respect indigenous peoples’ rights

In a statement made public on 18 March 2009, the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination strongly criticises Indonesia for failing to respect indigenous peoples' rights in relation to oil palm plantations. Oil palm converts existing forests into plantations, in part for the production of biofuels, a process that has resulted in massive forest loss in Indonesia. The Committee also raised concerns about a draft regulation on Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD). The latter envisages the government handing out forest concessions to companies for the capture of carbon much as logging concessions have been handed out in the past, and is proposed as a measure to mitigate climate change by reducing pressure on forests.

The UN Committee, a body composed of 18 independent human rights experts chosen by governments, explains that it remains concerned that oil palm plantations are the source of numerous conflicts with local communities. It was especially concerned with respect to Indonesia's failure to protect indigenous peoples' rights in connection with oil palm concessions.

The Committee reiterates its August 2007 recommendation to Indonesia that oil palm concessions must not violate the rights of indigenous peoples to own and control their traditional lands and must not be issued without first obtaining the consent of the affected indigenous peoples.

Indonesia’s national indigenous peoples’ organization, Aliansi Masyarakat Adat Nusantara (AMAN), welcomed the Committee’s statement as further evidence of the growing international concern about the situation of indigenous peoples in Indonesia, particularly as it relates to their rights to own and control their traditional territories. AMAN urges the Government of Indonesia to respond by ensuring that it effectively implements the Committee’s recommendations and by providing accurate and timely reports to the Committee that show the actual situation on the ground.

Indonesia's draft 2008 Regulation on Implementation Procedures for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation was also criticised by the Committee for being incompatible with the rights of indigenous peoples. The Committee recommended that the draft Regulation, as well as other laws, be reviewed and amended to ensure their consistency with the rights of indigenous peoples to own and control their traditionally owned territories and to consent to activities, such as REDD, that may affect them.

The Committee's statement was adopted pursuant to its early warning and urgent action procedures, which are only used for the most serious and urgent cases. The urgency was emphasised by the Committee when it asked Indonesia to report back to the Committee no later than 31 July 2009. Indonesia has so far failed to respond to the Committee’s concerns about palm oil expansion along the Kalimantan border, which were first raised by the Committee over a year ago.

Abdon Nababan, Secretary General of AMAN, calls upon all government institutions to support the implementation of Indonesia's Constitutional responsibilities to recognise and protect the rights of indigenous peoples, not only in Kalimantan’s border areas, but throughout Indonesia. “Since the rights of indigenous peoples is an important national issue, not just as it relates to forests, it requires good will and strong efforts by the various government institutions to work together to implement these rights,” Abdon says. He also emphasized that the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples should be used as guidance for the government in protecting indigenous peoples’ rights and called upon Indonesia to ensure that indigenous peoples fully participate in all decision making that may affect them.

Abetnego Tarigan, Director of Sawit Watch, explains that his organisation continues to be concerned with development in the border areas, most recently the detention of three Dayak Iban indigenous persons in West Kalimantan who were arrested for opposing oil palm plantations on their traditional lands. Agreeing with AMAN, he calls on the government of Indonesia to stop all activities that are inconsistent with the UN Committee recommendations and to urgently take immediate measures to end repressive actions against indigenous peoples and local communities in handling any conflicts.

- Ends -

For further information contact:

a. FPP: Tom Griffiths, email: tom@forestpeoples.org; +44-1608-652 893

b. Sawit Watch: Abetnego Tarigan, email: nego@sawitwatch.or.id; +628159416297

c. AMAN: Abdon Nababan, email: abdon.nababan@aman.or.id; Cell : +62 811111365

Notes to Editors

All submissions and the responses by the Committee can be found at www.forestpeoples.org
The UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination’s letter to Indonesia can be found directly at: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cerd/docs/early_warning/Indonesia130309.pdf
Perkumpulan Sawit Watch is an Indonesian Non-Government Organisation concerned with adverse negative social and environmental impacts of oil palm plantation development in Indonesia. It is active in 17 provinces where oil palm plantations are being developed in Indonesia.
Aliansi Masyarakat Adat Nusantara/AMAN (Indigenous People Alliance of the Archipelago) is an indigenous peoples’ organisation that represents indigenous peoples from the whole of the Republic of Indonesia. The Alliance is aimed to be an organisation for indigenous peoples to struggle for their existence and rights inherited with it as well as to struggle for sovereignty in running their lives and in managing their natural resources.
Forest Peoples Programme is an international NGO, founded in 1990 to promote forest peoples' rights. FPP supports forest peoples in their efforts to secure and sustainably manage their forests, lands and livelihoods. For further information visit www.forestpeoples.org

===========================================================

Norman Jiwan

Head of Department

Risks Mitigation Initiatives

Sawit Watch, Association

Jl. Sempur Kaler No. 28

Bogor 16129
Phone: +62-251-8352171

Email: norman@sawitwatch.or.id

Homepage: www.sawitwatch.or.id

===========================================================

__._,_.___

at 6:11 AM

One of the most exciting developments for aviation is the opportunity to make use of sustainable resources to produce a bio fuel to blend or replace the standard kerosene, or Jet-A fuel that is currently being used. Global policy initiatives insist that the industry takes a lead where other transport sectors have failed to discover clear economic reason for doing so. The Aviation industries global operations platform provides for establishing a complete, least cost, agriculture to industry program of activities, that integrates and addresses many of the seemingly irreconcilable conflicts of interest that have arisen when discussing the promotion of liquid bio fuels and other alternative energy solutions in the tropics and sub tropical regions.

Climate Change:

The European Union target of limiting the increase in global mean temperature to 2°C above pre-industrial levels within this century implies two main challenges: a substantial and continuous reduction of global greenhouse gas emissions (by about 70 to 80% or more of present emissions by the middle of this century) and a convincing foreign policy that strives for a maximum per capita emission of about 2 tonnes of CO2-eq by 2050.

There is no question that atmospheric greenhouse gases (GHG) have risen considerably since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, but there remains considerable debate as to what effects, if any, these gases will exert on earth's climate and biosphere. In spite of this uncertainty, many individuals and corporations are pressing forward to identify, calculate, and report their GHG emissions. For them, the monitoring and reporting of GHG emissions is a critical aspect of doing business, the significance of which will likely only increase as International, national down to local governments move closer toward enacting legislation designed to reduce the emissions of such gasses into the atmosphere.

We have very little time left to avoid breaching the EU climate change commitment not to exceed a CO2 rise in global mean surface temperature above the pre-industrial level (EC, 2007a). The directive to include aviation in EU ETS (2008/9) has been welcomed yet benefits will be largely conditional on the proposed baseline and ways in which the wider EU ETS develops, particularly the level of the cap. To stand a modest chance of not exceeding the +CO2 threshold, the EU has a window of only 10 years or so in which to bring substantial year-on-year reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Remaining within this + CO2 threshold requires a maximum global atmospheric CO2 concentration of 450ppmv CO2, and preferably 400ppmv CO2.

Global warming occurs in cycles caused mainly by changes in the sun's energy output and the sun's relative position to the Earth.

Major Causes of Global Temperature Shifts:

Astronomical Causes

· 11 year and year cycles: Cycles of solar variability.

· 21,000-year cycle: Earth's combined tilt and elliptical orbit around the Sun.

· 41,000-year cycle: Cycle of the +/- 1.5° wobble in Earth's orbit.

· 100,000-year cycle: Variations in the shape of Earth's elliptical orbit.

Atmospheric Causes

· Heat retention: Due to atmospheric gases, mostly gaseous water vapour (not droplets), also carbon dioxide, methane, and a few other miscellaneous gases - the "greenhouse effect" (The Greenhouse Effect helps to moderate temperatures -- especially night time temperatures. Without the greenhouse effect, the average temperature of the Earth would be -18 degrees C). Solar reflectivity: Due to white clouds, volcanic dust, polar ice caps

Tectonic Causes

· Landmass distribution: Shifting continents (continental drift) causing changes in circulatory patterns of ocean currents. It seems that whenever there is a large landmass at one of the Earth's poles, either the North Pole or South Pole, there are ice ages. Undersea ridge activity: "Sea floor spreading" (associated with continental drift) causing variations in ocean displacement.

Climate change debates range from an absolute professing that there must be every effort made to reduce anthropogenic levels of CO2 emissions to those that advocate business as usual and beyond with arguments that increasing levels of CO2 will actually stimulate numerous world wide benefits.

The notion of "geo-engineering" solutions, suggest that with present cost estimates the price of artificially removing 50 ppm of CO₂ from the air would be about $20 trillion. It is suggested instead that improved agricultural and forestry practices offer a more natural way to draw down CO₂, noting that reforestation of degraded land and improved agricultural practices that retain soil carbon could draw down atmospheric CO₂ by as much as 50 ppm. Additional significant CO₂ reduction could be achieved by using carbon-negative biofuels to replace liquid fossil fuels and phasing out emissions from natural gas-fired power plants, a combination of these approaches could bring CO₂ back to 350 ppm well before the end of the century.

Aviation's status, the need to reduce CHG emissions:

Aviation and climate policy has received considerable attention recently, for several reasons: deepening concerns that aviation does not pay its external costs, more profound awareness that climate change requires a substantial, urgent response, and acknowledgement that, by 2050, the growth of demand for air travel could potentially consume almost all of the emissions savings achieved by other sectors of the global economy. Consequently, policy makers are under increasing pressure to develop and implement appropriate responses to mitigate the impacts of aviation on climate.

The political agenda for reducing anthropogenic levels of CO2 have established a global lead promoting policies that support developing alternative energy resources from agricultural endeavour. Liquid bio fuels from oil seed crops are supported throughout the sub tropical regions while there are policy directives that mandate the inclusion of bio fuels in Europe’s transport fuel compliment. The global aviation industry is compelled to consider bio fuel as part of its of energy efficiency activity as in the future all aircraft landing at European airports will have to be in compliance with EU regulations with regard to the use of bio fuel as part of the jet fuel.

By 2020, 20% of all energy used in the EU has to come from ‘renewable sources’, including biomass, bio liquids and biogas. This translates into different targets for individual Member States. An ‘indicative trajectory’ is introduced, i.e. Member States have to show that they are increasing their use of ‘renewable energy’ over every two-year period. This comprises all types of energy use, though with a cap on the amount of aviation fuel, which is taken into account.

· Throughout the briefing, the terms ‘renewable energy’ and ‘greenhouse gas savings’ are written into quotation marks to highlight the fact that some types of energy classed as ‘renewable’ by the EU is highly unsustainable and not truly renewable (such as agro fuels and agro energy from large-scale monocultures), and that assumptions made by the EU about ‘greenhouse gas savings’ are very different from scientific evidence about true greenhouse gas emissions associated with agro fuel production.

By 2020, each Member State must ensure that 10% of total road transport fuel comes from ‘renewable energy’, defined to include bio fuels and biogas, as well as hydrogen and electricity from ‘renewable energy’. The vast majority of this is expected to be met from bio fuels. There are no sub-targets, no interim targets, and no provisions that the 10% target will be reviewed at any time.

A very small list of a few purely environmental ‘sustainability standards’ will apply to bio fuels and biogas for transport and to liquid bio fuels for heat and power. There are no social, not even basic human rights standards and most environmental aspects are also being ignored. There will be no genuine verification scheme. Instead, whether or not the small list of standards is complied with will be assessed on the basis of company information, or through voluntary certification schemes, or through the existence of bilateral and multilateral agreements. The European Commission will, by the end of 2009, report on whether they propose any ‘sustainability standards’ for solid biomass and biogas for heat and power. There is no obligation on them to propose any such standards.

Bio Jet Fuel a Sub Tropical Sustainable "drop in" contribution to solutions:

Use of bio fuel as a substitute or extender for mineral jet fuel (Jet A1 Kerosene) has rapidly moved from a relatively niche research topic to mainstream attention.

Globally we have sufficient land to biologically sequester global aviation emissions in the long term and to supply sufficient bio fuel.

Large-scale bio fuel production undoubtedly has a legitimate contribution for solutions. However the current evidence points to environmental harm poor social conditioning with scant economic incentives. In the most optimistic scenarios bio energy could provide over twice the current global energy demand without competing with food production, forest-protection efforts and biodiversity. In the least favourable scenarios, however, bio energy could supply only a fraction of current energy use. The range hinges upon many assumptions, not least of which is the extent to which one believes that institutions, treaties and policy tools can be relied upon as a buffer against misaligned corporate and individual economic interest.

Throughout the sub tropical regions alternative energy solutions are supported by government policies. Liquid bio fuel derived from oil seed harvests has attracted considerable interest from all sectors. Many cite Jatropha Curcas Linn as the agricultural crop species that is best suited to deliver a replacement for fossil diesel and fossil kerosene (Jet A1 fuel).

Jatropha Curcas Linn Centres of Excellence:

Jatropha Curcas has been promoted as the most appropriate plant species for delivering a bio fuel solution to the transport sectors of developing economic regions. Unfortunately, despite positive policy there have been scant economic drivers in place to stimulate first class agricultural activity or pronounced investments.

While the Aviation industry has been correctly reluctant to engage with the production of a bio fuel substitute or blending inclusion with its highly sensitive fuel requirements global policy initiatives have created an absolute need for the Aviation industry to comply with moves to mitigate CO2 from the atmosphere and contribute to the reduction of GHG's generally by engagement with the use of bio fuel.

In order to address the issue of Bio Jet Fuel the Aviation industry must take ownership of the complete supply chain for this fuel requirement. Sustainability has been selected as the most significant parameter for the provision of a "drop in" bio fuel solution.

By establishing strategically placed Centres of Excellence for Jatropha Curcas Linn that guide and control the agriculture to industry activities for the production of a fully certifiable Bio Jet Fuel the Aviation industry will provide for a fully integrated opportunity to establish complimentary Climate Change, GHG mitigation, Sustainable use of resources, Improved land use for both food and fuel, repair and renewal of degraded land areas, improved utility for under-utilised land areas, Compliance with Fair-trade standards, and additional deliverables that have significant economic value at sufficient levels to promote a least cost delivery of Bio Jet Fuel directly into the current global Aviation networks.

http://sites.google.com/site/jclbjf/Home?previewAsViewer=1

at 10:19 AM

http://www.btimes.com.my/Current_News/BTIMES/articles/pal24/Article/

EU to import more palm oil for biofuels

Published: 2009/03/25

HAMBURG: European Union (EU) imports of palm oil are currently increasing and could rise sharply this year largely because of demand for biofuel production, Hamburg-based oilseeds analysts Oil World forecast yesterday.

"We consider it possible that one to 1.1 million tonnes of palm oil will be used for biofuels in the European Union in calendar year 2009, compared with 0.8 million tonne in Jan/Dec 2008," Oil World said.

Palm oil use for biofuels has been controversial in Europe because of allegations tropical rain forests are being destroyed for palm production. The first shipment of palm oil certified as coming from sustainable production under a new programme arrived in Europe in November 2008.

The EU is set to use 550,000 tonnes of palm oil for biodiesel in 2009, up from 450,000 tonnes in 2008 when consumption mainly took place for biodiesel output in Italy, Spain, France and Germany, Oil World said. - Reuters

[Whereas in respect of overall uses WWF-De reported (http://tinyurl.com/86poej): "In Europe, approx. 1-1.5 million tonnes of palm oil was used in power stations in 2005, compared to total imports of palm oil amounting to 3.5 million tonnes. About a third of this was supplied by the Dutch company Biox B.V. (Kerkwijk 2006). Starting in 2007, Biox will be supplied by IOI Group Bhd and Golden Hope Plantations Bhd (both based in Malaysia) and intends to build another four palm oil-based power stations in the Netherlands. In 2005, an estimated 400,000 tonnes of palm oil was used for power generation in the Netherlands alone (F.O. Licht 2006)."]

at 9:09 AM

http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2009/3/24/worldupdates/2009-03-24T161117Z_01_NOOTR_RTRMDNC_0_-386742-1&sec=Worldupdates

Tuesday March 24, 2009

Japan election may bring tougher climate policies

By Chisa Fujioka

TOKYO (Reuters) - Japan will adopt greener climate policies if the opposition, ahead in voter polls, wins an election this year and sticks to promises for greater use of renewable energy and bold cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.

The main opposition Democratic Party, which could oust the long-ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) in an election due by October, has pushed for a boost to investment in clean energy projects and the launch of an emissions trading system.

It has also called for Japan to adopt a target of cutting greenhouse gas emissions to 25 percent below 1990 levels by 2020, a much deeper cut than the target the government is expected to announce by June.

But big polluting industries, such as power generators, are likely to oppose deep emissions cuts, particularly during a severe recession.

Some analysts question the Democrats' ability to follow through on their ambitions once they face such resistance, but the party's lawmakers say they are committed to change.

"In many aspects, the government's efforts have been inadequate and too passive," said lower house Democrat lawmaker Nobutaka Tsutsui, involved in crafting the party's environmental policies.

"The government is too close to industries and has therefore been reluctant to impose policies that are seen hurting them, but our party will be free of such ties."

Climate policy has been an area where the Democrats have been able to differentiate themselves from the current government, which critics say has set lax climate policies catering to companies worried about additional costs.

Tsutsui said Japan needed tough, binding targets on biofuel and renewable energy use to slash emissions and avoid falling behind efforts by Europe and now the United States, where climate policies have tightened under President Barack Obama.

GREEN RECOVERY
Japan, the world's fifth-largest greenhouse gas emitter, is far above its target based on the Kyoto Protocol climate pact to cut emissions to 6 percent below 1990 levels between 2008-12.

Pressure is also growing on Japan from developing nations to do more to tackle its carbon emissions ahead of U.N.-backed climate talks at the end of the year.

Nearly 200 nations will meet in the Danish capital Copenhagen in December to try to agree on a tougher and broader climate pact to replace the Kyoto Protocol.

The Democrats and the LDP have yet to pitch their campaign pledges for the election and climate policy has not been a big focus for voters in the past.

But a stronger climate stance could become a vote-winner in the world's second-biggest economy this year, as governments worldwide try to create jobs and lift economies out of recession by supporting investment in "green" businesses.

The Democrats have called for investment in environmental projects to create 2.5 million jobs and the government plans to unveil its own version of a "Green New Deal" soon, including non-interest loans to green businesses.

More Japanese companies also see environmentally friendly products and a shift to cleaner energy as an opportunity, rather than a cost, and would be willing to foot additional spending despite financial constraints, analysts said.

TARGET PLAN MIGHT BACKFIRE
"Companies realise that the United States, Europe and Japan are all shifting to a low-carbon society and changes are underway, such as in infrastructure," said Kuniyuki Nishimura, research director at the Mitsubishi Research Institute.

"They will invest if they know that the business will yield profits in a few years' time, even if it doesn't make money right away."

The extent of change the Democrats can push through is unclear, however, since a number of party lawmakers, mainly those backed by industry unions, oppose a tougher climate stance and could speak out once policies become closer to reality.

Nishimura said the Democrats' medium-term emissions target might backfire by forcing companies to focus too much on cutting emissions over the next decade and leaving them with less money for longer-term projects.

The party also faces a policymaking process that is often slow because government ministries pursue different interests, although the Democrats have also vowed to reduce bureaucratic meddling.

"Even if the Democrats were to be ambitious on climate policy, implementing measures will depend on how well they can get the bureaucracy to cooperate," said Junko Edahiro, an environmental journalist and president of e's Inc., which hosts speeches and seminars on the environment.

"It may be difficult to deliver on their pledges 100 percent.
"Still, the Democrats' will to change matters appears bigger than the LDP, so they will likely take action," said Edahiro, who is also a member of the government's top climate policy advisory panel.

Copyright © 2008 Reuters

at 7:22 AM

1. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/25/hansen-biochar-monbiot-response

We never said biochar is a miracle cure

George Monbiot's implication that we believe biochar is a miracle solution to CO2 reduction is grossly misunderstood

- Pushker Kharecha and Jim Hansen
- guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 25 March 2009 13.16 GMT
- Article history

It is unfortunate that George Monbiot has insinuated that one of us (Jim Hansen) is a believer in biochar as a "miracle" solution for the climate crisis. If he is basing this on our published papers, then he has grossly misunderstood them. An attentive reader would know his insinuation is false by simply examining our land use-related assumptions in our recently published peer-reviewed paper, Target atmospheric CO2: Where should humanity aim?

Broadly speaking, our climate change mitigation scenarios are strictly illustrative in nature, in other words, they serve to convey the types, magnitude and time frame of mitigation measures needed to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide amounts. Although we do mention waste-derived biochar as a possible mitigation option, it certainly does not mean we are advocating that as the panacea. Indeed, as we very clearly outline in the paper, our scenarios assume waste-derived biochar provides only a very small fraction of the land use-related CO2 drawdown, with reforestation and curtailed deforestation providing a magnitude more. Nowhere do we assert or imply plantations should be grown specifically for biochar, or that reforestation should be at the expense of food crops, pristine ecosystems or substantially inhabited land. Furthermore, all relevant numbers used in our mitigation scenarios are derived from the peer-reviewed scientific literature.

On the issue of land use changes in general, our paper clearly states any biofuels approach must be very carefully designed, and we cite two major critiques of current biofuels approaches. We agree there are still fundamental uncertainties associated with biochar as a mitigation option, but the peer-reviewed papers we cite describe these uncertainties.

Monbiot's piece might leave readers with the impression that human-assisted reforestation is a lose-lose situation everywhere on the planet. However, there are numerous scientific assessments that indicate there are hundreds of millions of hectares of suitable, sparsely inhabited lands — lands degraded by human activities in the first place. Given that reforestation occurs on a large scale even in nature (for example natural succession), it makes perfect sense to promote sensible, anthropogenic reforestation, among other reasons to undo the damage caused by large-scale deforestation.

• Pushker Kharecha and Jim Hansen are at the Nasa Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University Earth Institute

2. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/24/biochar-earth-c02

James Lovelock on Biochar: let the Earth remove CO2 for us

James Lovelock: George Monbiot is wrong to dismiss biochar out of hand – burying carbon is one way to tackle climate change

James Lovelock
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 24 March 2009 18.12 GMT
Article history

I usually agree with George Monbiot and love the way he says it but this time – with his assertion that the latest miracle mass fuel cure, biochar, does not stand up – he has got it only half right.

Yes, it is silly to rename charcoal as biochar and yes, it would be wrong to plant anything specifically to make charcoal. So I agree, George, it would be wrong to have plantations in the tropics just to make charcoal.

I said in my recent book that perhaps the only tool we had to bring carbon dioxide back to pre-industrial levels was to let the biosphere pump it from the air for us. It currently removes 550bn tons a year, about 18 times more than we emit, but 99.9% of the carbon captured this way goes back to the air as CO2 when things are eaten.

What we have to do is turn a portion of all the waste of agriculture into charcoal and bury it. Consider grain like wheat or rice; most of the plant mass is in the stems, stalks and roots and we only eat the seeds. So instead of just ploughing in the stalks or turning them into cardboard, make it into charcoal and bury it or sink it in the ocean. We don't need plantations or crops planted for biochar, what we need is a charcoal maker on every farm so the farmer can turn his waste into carbon. Charcoal making might even work instead of landfill for waste paper and plastic.

Incidentally, in making charcoal this way, there is a by-product of biofuel that the farmer can sell. If we are to make this idea work it is vital that it pays for itself and requires no subsidy. Subsidies almost always breed scams and this is true of most forms of renewable energy now proposed and used. No one would invest in plantations to make charcoal without a subsidy, but if we can show the farmers they can turn their waste to profit they will do it freely and help us and Gaia too.

There is no chance that carbon capture and storage from industry or power stations will make a dent in CO2 accumulation, even if we had the will and money to do it. But we have to grow food, so why not help Gaia do the job of CO2 removal for us?
• James Lovelock is an independent scientist, author, researcher, environmentalist. He is known for proposing the Gaia hypothesis.

3. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2009/mar/24/response-biochar-chris-goodall

Biochar: Much is unknown but this is no reason to rule it out

Biochar - where wood and crop wastes are cooked to release the volatile components buried in the soil - is a cheap and highly beneficial way of disrupting the global carbon cycle

- Chris Goodall
- guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 24 March 2009 16.36 GMT
- Article history

A seedling grown in a potting mixture including Biochar. Photograph: www.biochar-international.org

George Monbiot is right to tell biochar enthusiasts to calm down. Some of us have been guilty of febrile proselytising for this most unlikely scheme for geo-engineering. It is often thus: it is only after a period of reflection and assessment that some of the disadvantages of a new weapon against climate change become apparent.

Nevertheless in his eagerness to get us to tone down our enthusiasm he goes too far. Biochar is a useful and important way to help reduce atmospheric concentrations of CO2.
First of all, let's ask why small knots of dedicated people have been focusing on biochar for the past five or 10 years. Biochar looks as if it is a cheap and highly beneficial way of disrupting the global carbon cycle.

As plants grow, they naturally absorb carbon dioxide, only to give it back as they die and then rot away. Huge volumes of carbon are continuously moving between the soil, plants and the atmosphere, dwarfing the emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. If instead of letting plant matter rot, it is turned into charcoal which is almost pure carbon and stable for many centuries, we are reducing atmospheric concentrations of CO2.

No one disputes the basic science, even George. If we can get this to work on a large scale, we can make a significant difference to greenhouse gas levels. We will have to take the organic outputs of large areas of land in order to achieve this and Monbiot is right to express horrified disbelief at some of the figures that we have suggested.

Here we depart from the path of agreement. Monbiot mentions but then ignores the other benefits of biochar. These are at least as important as direct climate change mitigation. First, soil dosed with charcoal can substantially improve agricultural productivity. Food crops grow better. Trees planted in biochar often have better root systems. Crop yields are improved. This means that we can provide food supplies for more people from a smaller area of land. Growing bigger plants and trees, which are largely made from carbon, hydrogen and oxygen has a secondary effect of holding back CO2 that would otherwise be in the air. It is another form of useful carbon sequestration, albeit a once-only gain, adding to the primary effect of storing charcoal in the soil.

The second effect of biochar is to reduce the emission of other greenhouse gases, such as nitrous oxide and methane, from the soil. Thirdly, conventional fertilisers added to biochar appear to be much more effective and less likely to be washed away. Biochar-dosed soil therefore maintains its fertility better.

No one argues that biochar's effects are well understood. Scientific investigation is only just beginning. Next month sees the publication of Biochar for Environmental Management, a book edited by Johannes Lehmann and Stephen Joseph, two of the world's pre-eminent scientific advocates of biochar. This 400-page book is not the work of gullible fools, it is a resolutely serious attempt to tell the world of the many uncertainties surrounding how best to make and apply biochar.

Its chapters on climate change mitigation are not an attempt to minimise the problems but rather to offer realistic and practical ways of utilising biochar's beneficial properties for the good of the planet and its poorer people. Yes, we don't yet understand fully why biochar works but this is not an argument to ignore it or rule it out. I challenge George to read the science in this book and then tell us whether he is quite so sceptical as he is today.

• Chris Goodall is the author of Ten Technologies to Save the Planet

at 10:31 AM

Woodchips with everything. It's the Atkins plan of the low-carbon world.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/24/george-monbiot-climate-change-biochar

The latest miracle mass fuel cure, biochar, does not stand up; yet many who should know better have been suckered into it.

Whenever you hear the word miracle, you know there's trouble just around the corner. But no matter how many times they lead to disappointment or disaster, the newspapers never tire of promoting miracle cures, miracle crops, miracle fuels and miracle financial instruments. We have a limitless ability to disregard the laws of economics, biology and thermodynamics when we encounter a simple solution to complex problems. So welcome, ladies and gentlemen, to the new miracle. It's a low-carbon regime for the planet that makes the Atkins diet look healthy: woodchips with everything.

Biomass is suddenly the universal answer to our climate and energy problems. Its advocates claim that it will become the primary source of the world's heating fuel, electricity, road transport fuel (cellulosic ethanol) and aviation fuel (biokerosene). Few people stop to wonder how the planet can accommodate these demands and still produce food and preserve wild places. Now an even crazier use of woodchips is being promoted everywhere. The great green miracle works like this: we turn the planet's surface into charcoal.

Sorry, not charcoal. We don't call it that any more. Now we say biochar. The idea is that wood and crop wastes are cooked to release the volatile components (which can be used as fuel), then the residue - the charcoal - is buried in the soil. According to the magical thinkers who promote it, the new miracle stops climate breakdown, replaces gas and petroleum, improves the fertility of the soil, reduces deforestation, cuts labour, creates employment, prevents respiratory disease and ensures that when you drop your toast it always lands butter side up. (I invented the last one, but give them time).

They point out that the indigenous people of the Amazon created terras pretas (black soils) by burying charcoal over hundreds of years. These are more fertile than the surrounding soils, and the carbon has stayed where they put it. All we need to do is to roll this out worldwide and the world's problems - except, for the time being, the toast conundrum - are solved.

It takes carbon out of circulation, reducing atmospheric concentrations. It raises crop yields. If some of the carbon is produced in efficient cooking stoves, it reduces the smoke in people's homes and means they have to gather less fuel, curtailing deforestation.

This miracle solution has suckered people who ought to know better, including James Lovelock, Jim Hansen, the author Chris Goodall and the climate campaigner Tim Flannery. At the UN climate talks beginning in Bonn on Sunday, several governments will demand that biochar is made eligible for carbon credits, providing the financial stimulus required to turn this into a global industry. Their proposal boils down to this: we must destroy the biosphere in order to save it.

In his otherwise excellent book, Ten Technologies to Save the Planet, Goodall abandons his usual scepticism and proposes we turn 200m hectares of "forests, savannah and croplands" into biochar plantations. Thus we would increase carbon uptake by grubbing up "wooded areas containing slow-growing trees" (that is, natural forest) and planting "faster growing species". This is environmentalism?

But that's just the start of it. Carbonscape, a company that hopes to be among the first to commercialise the technique, talks of planting 930m hectares. The energy lecturer Peter Read proposes new biomass plantations of trees and sugar covering 1.4bn hectares.

The arable area of the UK is 5.7m hectares, or one 245th of Read's figure. China has 104m hectares of cropland. The US has 174m. The global total is 1.36bn. Were we to follow Read's plan, we would either have to replace all the world's crops with biomass plantations, causing instant global famine, or double the cropped area, trashing most of the remaining natural habitats. Read was one of the promoters of first-generation liquid biofuels which played a major role in the rise in the price of food last year, throwing millions into malnutrition. Have these people learned nothing?

Of course they claim everything can be reconciled. Peter Read says the new plantations can be created across "land on which the occupants are not engaged in economic activity". This means land used by subsistence farmers, pastoralists, hunters and gatherers and anyone else who isn't producing commodities for the mass market: poorly defended people whose rights and title can be disregarded. Both Read and Carbonscape speak of these places as "degraded lands". We used to call them unimproved, or marginal. Degraded land is the new code for natural habitat someone wants to destroy.

Goodall is even more naive. He believes we can maintain the profusion of animals and plants in the rainforests he hopes to gut by planting a mixture of fast-growing species, rather than a monoculture. As the Amazon ecologist Philip Fearnside has shown, a mixture does "not substantially change the impact of very large-scale plantations from the standpoint of biodiversity".

In their book Pulping the South, Ricardo Carrere and Larry Lohmann show what has happened in the 100m hectares of industrial plantations established around the world so far. Aside from destroying biodiversity, tree plantations have dried up river catchments, caused soil erosion when the land is ploughed for planting (meaning loss of soil carbon), exhausted nutrients and required so many pesticides that the run-off has poisoned marine fisheries.

In Brazil and South Africa, tens of thousands of people have been thrown off their land, often by violent means, to create plantations. In Thailand the military government that came to power in 1991 sought to expel five million people. Forty thousand families were dispossessed before the junta was overthrown. In many cases plantations cause a net loss of employment. Working conditions are brutal, often involving debt peonage and repeated exposure to pesticides.

As Almuth Ernsting and Rachel Smolker of Biofuelwatch point out, many of the claims made for biochar don't stand up. In some cases charcoal in the soil improves plant growth, in others it suppresses it. Just burying carbon bears little relation to the farming techniques that created terras pretas. Nor is there any guarantee that most of the buried carbon will stay in the soil.

In some cases charcoal stimulates bacterial growth, causing carbon emissions from soils to rise. As for reducing deforestation, a stove that burns only part of the fuel is likely to increase, not decrease, demand for wood. There are plenty of other ways of eliminating household smoke which don't involve turning the world's forests to cinders.

None of this is to suggest that the idea has no virtues, simply that they are outweighed by hazards, which the promoters have overlooked or obscured. Nor does this mean that charcoal can't be made on a small scale, from material that would otherwise go to waste. But the idea that biochar is a universal solution that can be safely deployed on a vast scale is as misguided as Mao Zedong's Great Leap Backwards. We clutch at straws (and other biomass) in our desperation to believe there is an easy way out.

__._,_.___

at 2:52 PM

ACTION ALERT PLEASE FORWARD WIDELY!

Call on U.S. Government to Halt Ecologically Misguided Support for Large Scale Biofuel

By Rainforest Rescue (Rettet den Regenwald)
http://www.regenwald.org/international/englisch/index.php
In partnership with Ecological Internet's Climate Ark
http://www.climateark.org/
March 23, 2009

TAKE ACTION HERE NOW:
http://www.climateark.org/shared/alerts/send.aspx?id=corn_biofuel

Fuel from food and already overstressed terrestrial ecosystems is immoral and unsustainable. The Obama administration must start by rejecting the proposal to increase the corn ethanol fuel blend limit from 10-15%.

BRIEF BACKGROUND:

Please support US environmental and social justice groups calling upon the new Obama administration to halt financial and policy support for large scale biofuel production. In particular, the Obama government's potential support for agrofuel expansion -- making of transportation fuels from food -- runs counter to their aim to urgently address climate change and threatens to cause more hunger, human rights abuses, and degradation of soil and water.

The Obama administration promised to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to boost renewable energy. Unfortunately, a large part of their solution involves further boosting agrofuel production, both in the US and abroad. The new administration must heed the overwhelming evidence that agrofuels worsen climate change through further deforestation and the destruction of other ecosystems; drive food prices up, forcing more and more people worldwide into hunger and malnutrition; and decimate biodiversity and ecosystems.

Rainforest Rescue and Ecological Internet are concerned with America's growing ethanol industry, and the implications it has in setting a precedent for massive agricultural industrialisation of the world's remaining rainforests and other natural wildlands. We concur with the growing ecological consensus that large-scale industrial production of transport fuels and other energy from plants such as corn, sugar cane, oil palm, soya, trees, grasses, or so- called agricultural and woodland waste threatens forests, biodiversity, food sovereignty, community-based land rights and will worsen climate change.

TAKE ACTION NOW:
http://www.climateark.org/shared/alerts/send.aspx?id=corn_biofuel

DISCUSS THIS ALERT:
http://www.climateark.org/blog/2009/03/alert-call-on-us-government-to.asp

--
Dr. Glen Barry
President
Ecological Internet, Inc.
PO Box 9704
Seattle, WA 98109
USA
GlenBarry@EcologicalInternet.org

Ecological Internet's projects include:

EcoEarth.Info -- http://www.EcoEarth.Info/
Climate Ark -- http://www.climateark.org/
Forests.org -- http://forests.org/
Water Conserve -- http://www.waterconserve.org/
Rainforest Portal -- http://www.rainforestportal.org/
Ocean Conserve -- http://www.oceanconserve.org/
My.EcoEarth.Info -- http://My.EcoEarth.info/
New Earth Rising (new e-zine) -- http://www.newearthrising.org/

------------------------------------

at 12:08 PM

Hi y'all,
Here is a very troubling report on threats to the Amazon from oil palm.
News story:
http://news.mongabay.com/2009/0323-butler-laurance_tcs.html

Journal paper:
http://tropicalconservationscience.mongabay.com/content/v2/09-03-23_butler-laurance_1-10.pdf

Lots more in our biofuel newsfeed at:

http://www.climateark.org/rss/biofuel.xml

I am adding in materials from this list as well.
Regards,
Glen

--
Dr. Glen Barry
President
Ecological Internet, Inc.
PO Box 9704
Seattle, WA 98109
USA
GlenBarry@EcologicalInternet.org

Ecological Internet's projects include:

EcoEarth.Info -- http://www.EcoEarth.Info/
Climate Ark -- http://www.climateark.org/
Forests.org -- http://forests.org/
Water Conserve -- http://www.waterconserve.org/
Rainforest Portal -- http://www.rainforestportal.org/
Ocean Conserve -- http://www.oceanconserve.org/
My.EcoEarth.Info -- http://My.EcoEarth.info/
New Earth Rising (new e-zine) -- http://www.newearthrising.org/

------------------------------------

at 6:56 PM

A great quote from United Plantations Bhd director Martin Bek-Nielsen: "The only reason why first-generation biofuels are economically viable in Europe is because of the enormous subsidies."

It was his brother and fellow UP director Carl Bek-Nielsen who said in 2006: "Even if it is another oil that is goes into biodiesel, that other oil then needs to be replaced. Either way, there's going to be a vacuum and palm oil can fill that vacuum - be it for biodiesel or for food"
(http://asia.news.yahoo.com/060224/5/2ge5t.html)

http://planetark.org/wen/52149

Reuters Summit - Economic Recovery May Rekindle Food/Fuel Debate

Date: 23-Mar-09
Country: US
Author: Karl Plume

CHICAGO - The steep drop in energy prices from last year's peaks has cooled the food-versus-fuel debate for the moment, but the battle may be rekindled by an eventual global economic recovery or energy price rebound.

The push to produce more biofuels like corn-based ethanol or biodiesel made from soybean oil or palm oil helped drive prices of raw food commodities to record highs last year, prompting double-digit food price inflation in some countries.

It also set off a debate over the morality of using food crops to make fuel while millions around the world go hungry.

Now, initiatives to expand the production and use of renewable fuels in the name of national security, domestic job growth or to combat climate change may further fan the controversy, according to several food and agriculture company executives and industry analysts speaking at the Reuters Food and Agriculture Summit in Chicago and elsewhere.

"At the moment, the food-versus-fuel debate has been put on the back burner given what we have seen in the commodities markets," said Doug Whitehead, a soft commodity analyst at Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Ltd.

"But it (biofuel) is still a very significant demand source for the feed grains and ... it is likely to increase with the US government looking to increase their ethanol blending mandates," he said, referring to recent calls to raise the percentage of ethanol allowed in US gasoline blends.

Food and energy prices have retreated since last summer amid wider global economic woes, but with a large biofuels industry now in place and poised to expand once economic conditions allow, competition for the limited supply of food crops will heat up again.

With next-generation biofuels made from non-food sources including grasses and agricultural waste still years away from widespread commercialization, food crop based fuels will be the primary source of bioenergy for now.

HIGHER US ETHANOL BLENDS
US ethanol makers were projected to use nearly a third of corn output this year, up from about a quarter last year, according to the latest US Agriculture Department data.

Ethanol supporters in the United States recently petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency to increase the amount of ethanol that blenders can mix into the US fuel supply from the current 10 percent to 12 to 13 percent or more.

Industry sources said higher blends would consume 200 million more bushels of corn, given current fuel demand.

Meanwhile, global demand for both food and fuel will continue to accelerate as a growing middle class in developing nations like China and India consumes higher quality foods while industrialization increases energy demand.

"We keep adding mouths to feed. As long as you don't have another collapse in some of the major economies like China or India, we will see continued demand growing in those areas," said Mark Palmquist, executive vice president and chief operating officer of US farmer cooperative CHS Inc.

Demand for energy will also continue to grow as countries emerge from the current grim economic climate.

"The world's demand for energy is going to continue to increase at an accelerating rate," said Brett Begemann, executive vice president of global commercial businesses at seed company Monsanto. "We ought to be pursuing all alternatives for producing energy."

He said advances in biotech seed technology can help boost grain yields needed to increase ethanol output.

BIOFUEL PROFITABILITY
But the future of renewable fuels is murky in some parts of the world as a lack of government support for the industry in some producing nations clashes with price-distorting import tariffs and government subsidies elsewhere.

The biodiesel sector needs high oil prices and low vegetable oil prices to remain competitive with traditional diesel made from crude oil.

"Without subsidies and without support from the government, I can't see how biodiesel production is at all economically viable," said Martin Bek-Nielsen, executive director at United Plantations in Kuala Lumpur.

"The only reason why first-generation biofuels are economically viable in Europe is because of the enormous subsidies."

(Reporting by Karl Plume, additional reporting by Naveen Thukral in Kuala Lumpur, editing by Matthew Lewis)

© Thomson Reuters 2009 All rights reserved

at 6:33 PM

http://planetark.org/wen/52142

Indonesia's Sinar Mas Defends Palm Oil Expansion

Date: 23-Mar-09
Country: INDONESIA
Author: Aloysius Bhui

JAKARTA - Sinar Mas Group, one of Indonesia's top palm oil growers, denied on Friday accusations that its activities were damaging the environment and said it would stick to plans to expand its plantations.

Greenpeace activists have targeted Sinar Mas in a recent campaign for contributing to deforestation in Indonesia, which is blamed as a key source greenhouse gas emissions in the Southeast Asian country.

"We should have been arrested if we had ever been involved in deforestation," Gandi Sulistiyanto, a managing director of Sinar Mas Group, told Reuters.

He said the company only opened up new plantations in degraded land that had been farmed on or previously logged and not rainforest.

Sinar Mas Group owns publicly-listed PT Sinar Mas Agro Resources Tbk (SMART), which runs its palm oil business, and Asia Pulp & Paper (APP), which operates the pulp and paper business.
Bustar Maitar, Greenpeace Southeast Asia forest campaigner, accused Sinar Mas of destroying forest areas.

"We are facing the greatest threat to humanity -- climate chaos, yet still companies like Sinar Mas can continue to destroy forests and peatlands, rather than protecting them for future generations," Maitar said in a statement.

As of the end of September, SMART managed 127,124 hectares (314,100 acres) of planted oil palm, according to the company.

It produced 410,314 tonnes of crude palm oil in January-September last year, against 509,095 tonnes in all of 2007.

The group has earmarked a $100 million palm expansion this year and is not planning to pull back the plan.

"We are still a growing company. We (Indonesia) are still competing with Malaysia to become the world's top producer of palm oil. So we must keep planting," Sulistiyanto said.

He said the current financial crisis may slow down the expansion but would not stop the firm from planting in new areas.

According to Greenpeace, Sinar Mas has 200,000 hectares of unplanted concessions in rainforest in Indonesia and plans to acquire an additional 1.1 million hectares, mainly in Papua.
Sulistiyanto said the firm was currently focused on managing the 11,000 hectares that it has planted with oil palm in the past 14 years in Papua.

"Everybody is eyeing Papua because of its huge land but we haven't got any more concessions there," he said.

Indonesia, the world's top producer of palm oil -- used in a wide range of products, from soap to biodiesel -- is expected to produce 20.25 million tonnes of palm oil in 2009, up from 18.8 million in 2008, the industry association has estimated.

Annette Cotter, campaign manager for the forests campaign in Greenpeace Southeast Asia, has urged Indonesia palm growers to squeeze far higher yields from existing plantations rather than open up more land.

Indonesia yields only about 2 tonnes per hectare from its plantations, or just a third of the 6 to 7 tonnes in countries such as Malaysia with better estate management practices.
(Editing by Ed Davies and Valerie Lee)

© Thomson Reuters 2009 All rights reserved

at 4:47 PM

Indymedia pictures and report:
http://publish.indymedia.org.uk/en/2009/03/424397.html

Thirty protesters from Food Not Fuel (London) and Biofuelwatch convened outside the Royal Society on Monday 16th where the Entrepreneurs With Conscience event was hosted, to protest against agrofuel energy company Blue NG. Blue NG recently gained planning permission for the UK's first agrofuel power station at Beckton, Newham, East London despite a 1000-strong petition from the local community concerned about toxic emissions and the proximity of the proposed plant to Gallions primary school. Newham has the highest mortaility rate for asthma in people under 30 in England. Blue NG are now applying for a second agrofuel power station in Ealing and intend to build a total of 43 agrofuel power plants across the country.

Colourful banners and a megaphone were used to make explicit the concerns held by the local community and the 100 NGOs who have signed an Open Letter calling for agrofuels to be kept out of CHP.

Blue NG has won support by promoting geo-pressure, which acted as a cover for agrofuels and the lucrative agrofuel subsidies which make expansion so profitable. Geo-pressure was not part of the planning application for the first biofuel plant at Beckton.

Blue NG promote rapeseed oil as a sustainable fuel even though the UN FAO has conclusively linked its use in transport fuels to increased imports of palm oil in the EU. Blue NG have also refused a request from Biofuelwatch to confirm they would not burn palm oil. To date Blue NG has offered no binding commitments on sourcing or sustainability.

The Beckton power plant will burn 56,000 litres of vegetable oil a day; if the 43 intended plants are of similar size this would amount to nearly half of the UK's entire rapeseed oil crop!

------------------------------------

at 3:56 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090316/ap_on_re_eu/eu_turkey_water_forum

By CHRISTOPHER TORCHIA Christopher Torchia – Mon Mar 16

ISTANBUL – Worldwide demand for water is rising just as access to safe drinking water and sanitation remains inadequate in much of the developing world, the United Nations said Monday, calling for better management to alleviate water shortages.

Population growth and mobility, as well as increased energy production, especially of biofuels such as ethanol, are contributing to the high demand for water, UNESCO said on the first day of a global water forum in Istanbul, Turkey's largest city.

"With increasing shortages, good governance is more than ever essential for water management. Combating poverty also depends on our ability to invest in this resource," said Koichiro Matsuura, director-general of the U.N. agency. He urged leaders who will gather for the G-8 summit in Italy in July to pledge investment in water resources to help prevent a "major water crisis."

Thousands of activists, entrepreneurs, mayors, parliamentarians and business executives have gathered for the weeklong World Water Forum, which is held every three years to promote ideas about conserving, managing and supplying water. Climate change and the impact of the global economic meltdown are key issues on the agenda this year.

Earlier Monday, police used truncheons and tear gas to disperse a small group of Turkish demonstrators who rallied outside the conference center to protest what they said was the forum's promotion of water as a commodity. The protesters said big water companies benefit from privatization, and that the poor are entitled to clean water as a "human right."

About 20 protesters who tried to enter the complex in Istanbul were detained, according to an Associated Press photographer at the scene.

The forum, whose members include the World Bank and the International Committee of the Red Cross, deny they represent special interests. Still, companies were exhibiting water-related products at the conference complex on the Golden Horn, the city's peninsula.

UNESCO said half a billion people in Africa lack access to adequate sanitation, and that 5,000 children die daily from diarrhea, a disease that can be prevented with clean water. The agency said the number of people living on less than $1.25 a day is roughly the same as the number without access to safe drinking water.

"In America, diarrhea is bad takeout," said John Sauer of Water Advocates, a U.S.-based nonprofit group. "In Chad, it's the difference between life and death."

Two dozen U.N. agencies released a report that said countries fail to share water data, GDP growth had been held back by as much as 10 percent in areas where water investment was weak and donors are not meeting aid commitments.

"In recent years, the share of aid going to water supply and sanitation has stagnated at around 4 percent, while that to other areas of the water sector has actually dropped," Matsuura said.

Water demand is increasing partly because of the rising production of ethanol and other biofuels in countries such as Brazil and the United States. Large amounts of water and fertilizers are needed to grow the crops needed to make biofuels, placing additional stress on the environment, according to the U.N.

But Growth Energy, a trade group for the U.S. ethanol industry, said American ethanol plants have reduced their use of water by 26.6 percent since 2001 because of technological advances and water recycling programs, while recording a 6.4 percent increase in yield.

"Somehow these activities are conveniently left out of the U.N.'s report," spokesman Jin Chon said.

In addition, the U.N. said many countries have legislation that protects and manages water resources, but reforms "have yet to have any noticeable effect" because water policy needs to include decision-makers in other fields such as agriculture, energy, trade and finance.

-----------------------------------

at 3:30 AM

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/mar/17/royaldutchshell-energy

Tim Webb, Tuesday 17 March 2009

Shell will no longer invest in renewable technologies such as wind, solar and hydro power because they are not economic, the Anglo-Dutch oil company said today. It plans to invest more in biofuels which environmental groups blame for driving up food prices and deforestation.

Executives at its annual strategy presentation said Shell, already the world's largest buyer and blender of crop-based biofuels, would also invest an unspecified amount in developing a new generation of biofuels which do not use food-based crops and are less harmful to the environment.

The company said it would concentrate on developing other cleaner ways of using fossil fuels, such as carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technology. It hoped to use CCS to reduce emissions from Shell's controversial and energy-intensive oil sands projects in northern Canada.

The company said that many alternative technologies did not offer attractive investment opportunities. Linda Cook, Shell's executive director of gas and power, said: "If there aren't investment opportunities which compete with other projects we won't put money into it. We are businessmen and women. If there were renewables [which made money] we would put money into it."

Shell said biofuels fitted its core business of providing fuels, logistics, trading and branding. Cook added: "It's now looking like biofuels is one which is closest to what we do in Shell. Wind and solar are interesting [but] we may continue to struggle with other investment opportunities in the portfolio even with big subsidies in many markets. We do not expect material investment [in wind and solar] going forward."

The company also confirmed that it would increase its dividend payments this year by about 5% to $10bn.

Friends of the Earth (FoE) criticised Shell for freezing investment in renewables such as wind in favour of biofuels. "Shell is backing the wrong horse when it comes to renewable energy – biofuels often lead to more emissions than the petrol and diesel they replace," the campaign group said.

Until recently, Shell's investment in wind power featured prominently in its corporate advertisements. FoE said the company's move heralded a slightly more honest approach. "Shell is at least being a bit more honest about the fact they are a fossil fuel company. It has seen the limitations of the greenwash it was putting out a few years ago."

Shell has about 550 megawatts of wind farm capacity around the world, enough to power a city the size of Sheffield when the wind blows. Last year, it pulled out of the 1,000MW London Array project, the joint venture to build what would be the world's largest offshore wind farm, in the Thames Estuary. Former project partner E.ON has yet to decide to continue with the £3bn investment needed.

Outgoing chief executive Jeroen van der Veer admitted that the company had suffered some "technology baths" in the past when it backed unprofitable technologies. "We don't do it [renewables] all."

The company has predicted that by 2025, 80% of energy will come from fossil fuels and 20% from alternative energy sources. Yet it is spending just over 1% of its budget on alternative technologies. Over the past five years, only $1.7bn of the $150bn it has invested has gone towards alternative energies.

Cook pointed out that at one stage the company only invested 1% of its budget on liquefied natural gas, which is now a big part of its business. "You have to start somewhere," she said.Van der Veer also admitted that Shell's overall R&D budget would "fall a bit" as the company focused on the most promising technologies and in the wake of the oil price slump.

The company said it would raise debt levels to maintain dividend payments and its spending programme. Van der Veer insisted that energy demand in the long term was strong and oil prices would recover. "The problem is you don't know when the long term starts."

------------------------------------

at 8:45 AM

Hi People
It would be fantastic if you could support this call-out below from Rising Tide and let all of your friends know in your next communication.

Please forward wildly.

Thanks and sorry for any cross-posting!
Love steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Friends,

FOSSIL FOOLS DAY is less than a month away!

The international Rising Tide network and its allies are calling for a day of action against the fossil fuel industry on April 1st 2009. We would like to invite you to get involved in this day of action.

Fossil Fools Day is about taking action in the name of carbon common sense:
- leaving fossil fuels in the ground
- abandoning false solutions
- building real and just alternatives

On April 1st last year, people around the world celebrated Fossil Fools Day. Over 150 actions took place across four continents. Oil, gas, coal and aviation were all targeted. Fossil fuel extraction, production, financing, PR and greenwash all felt the jester's wrath. Actions spanned the full spectrum from the simply subversive to the downright disruptive: office occupations, banner drops, street theatre, Big Carbon blockades, city centre parades, spoof product launches, subvertising, leaflets, lock-ons and even a laugh-in. The tentacles of the carbon web were exposed for all to see, more people saw the empire for what it truly is - a sinking ship awaiting abandonment - and here and there, the carbon machine even ground to a halt.

Check out some of what happened and who was involved here:
www.fossilfoolsdayofaction.org/2008

With your help, this year Fossil Fools Day will be bigger, better and bolder.

Here's how you can get involved:

1. Plan an action where you live ... from a bit of street theatre and a stall to an citizen's occupation of a newly nationalised bank; a little local subvertising to a Big Carbon blockade. Read on for loads of resources and support to help you pull your prank.

2. Come along to Climate Camp in the City of London on April 1st - targeting carbon markets on the eve of the G20 leaders' summit in London - because nature doesn't do bailouts. More info: www.climatecamp.org.uk/g20.

Later you can head off to spoil BP's Centenary party at the British Museum. Join Rising Tide and Art Not Oil, between 6-7pm, to say 'Your Party's Over!' Bring banners, musical instruments, a sense of climate justice and a nonsense of foolery. Meet at 6pm at the British Museum's Gt. Russell St. gate.

3. Help spread the word - email friends or group members, add a link to Fossil Fools Day to your website or blog (you can grab a graphic for the event here: ww.risingtide.org.uk/fossilfoolsday2009), join the Facebook group (http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/event.php?eid=76383323792) include the call-out (at the end of this email) in your newsletters/e-bulletins, put posters up where lots of people will see them, hand out leaflets, etc.

Our actions are amplified when we act in unison. This year, in the build-up to the UN climate negotiations in Copenhagen in November, let's see if we can reach over 1000 actions worldwide! On Fossil Fools Day, bring the spirit of carnival and mischief to the fight for climate justice.

It would be great to hear of your support and plans! Get in touch if you're planning a public action, so we can list it on our website and help spread the word. And whatever you do, make sure to let us know about your Fossil Fools Day action so we can add it to our end-of-day round up and show the world what grassroots action against the fossil fuel industry can achieve.

See you on the streets on April 1st.

CONTACTS
Rising Tide UK
Email: info@risingtide.org.uk
Tel: 07708 794665

www.risingtide.org.uk
www.fossilfoolsday.org

**************************************************************************

RESOURCES AND SUPPORT

All available at: www.risingtide.org.uk/fossilfoolsday2009
(get in touch if you'd like anything mailed to you in hard copy):

-actions booklet with 15 ideas for action against the fossil fuel industry, including planning tips, target locations, examples of successful actions and more
-leaflets and graphics to make your own materials
-a generic leaflet you can adapt to hand out on the day, and a sample press release to help you write your own
-a Q&A sheet for answering media questions.

Want to find an action to get involved in?
If you are looking to get involved where you live, get in touch
(info@risingtide.org.uk) and we may be able to link you up with something in your local area... or give you advice on getting your own action off the ground ... or put you in touch with another local group for future actions!

Media
We'll be sending out a national press release and may be able to direct journalists to you on the day if you wish, so any info you can let us know in advance will be really helpful - and/or a phone number to contact you on the day if that's possible. And call or email us as soon as your action's happened so we can include it in the end-of-day actions round-up, which we'll be press releasing as well. Get in touch if you'd like help writing and/or sending your own press release - there's a great guide here:

http://www.networkforclimateaction.org.uk/toolkit/press_and_media/guides_for_using_the_mainstream_media/short_guide_to_the_media.pdf

CALL TO ACTION

On April 1st, take aim at your local Fossil Fool!

We are living through both alarming and amazing times: financial systems are creaking, climate change is being felt around the world, and the peak in fossil fuels fast approaches. Cracks are widening daily throughout the fossil fuel empire, and change is coming whether we like it or not.

Q: What's Fossil Fools Day going to do?
A: Speed up the end of the fossil fuel empire, and the beginnings of a more just and sustainable world.

On April 1st last year, people around the world celebrated Fossil Fools Day. Over 150 actions took place across four continents. Oil, gas, coal and aviation were all targeted. Fossil fuel extraction, production, financing, PR and greenwash all felt the jester's wrath. Actions spanned the full spectrum from the simply subversive to the downright disruptive: office occupations, banner drops, street theatre, Big Carbon blockades, city centre parades, spoof product launches, subvertising, leaflets, lock-ons and even a laugh-in. The tentacles of the carbon web were exposed for all to see, more people saw the empire for what it truly is - a sinking ship awaiting abandonment - and here and there, the carbon machine even ground to a halt. This year Fossil Fools Day will be bigger, better and bolder.

Our actions are amplified when we act in unison, so this year, in the build-up to the UN climate negotiations in Copenhagen in November, let's see if we can reach 100 UK actions and over 1000 worldwide! Fossil Fools Day is about taking action in the name of carbon common sense - leave fossil fuels in the ground, abandon false solutions, and build real and just alternatives.

Dismantling the fossil fuel empire is a massive task, but every action we take takes its toll, and there is no doubt that our resistance is growing and our struggles are uniting year by year.

So whether you've been looking for a chance to dip a toe into the growing climate action movement, or have had your kick-ass action planned since last year, now is the time to do it - whatever it is. On April 1st, join the global day of resistance and pull a prank that packs a punch.
-----------------
Rising Tide UK,
c/o 62 Fieldgate Street,
London E1 1ES
www.risingtide.org.uk
www.artnotoil.org.uk
www.fossilfoolsday.org
Tel: 07708 794665

See also the Camp for Climate Action (www.climatecamp.org.uk), Network for
Climate Action (www.networkforclimateaction.org.uk) and Climate Indymedia
(www.climateimc.org)

------------------------------------

at 11:29 AM

PRESS RELEASE

Friends of the Earth International - Global Forest Coalition

March 16, 2009

WORLD FORESTS RAPIDLY DISAPPEARING - BIOFUELS A MAJOR DRIVER

ROME, ITALY, MARCH 16 -- In a reaction to the alarming data released today in the 2009 State of the World's Forests report by the UN Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO), friends of the Earth International [1] and the Global Forest Coalition [2], two leading networks of environmental and Indigenous Peoples' Organisations, called on world governments to take immediate action to halt deforestation and forest degradation.

Deforestation rates continue to be shockingly high in many countries despite increased awareness that forests -which host more than 70% of terrestrial biodiversity- play a key role not only in sustaining the livelihoods of more than one billion people but also in mitigating climate change.

The environmental networks called on the FAO Committee on Forestry to stop promoting plantations and urged governments to immediately halt the conversion of forests into biofuel plantations in their countries. Governments should also recognize urgently Indigenous Peoples' territories, promote community-based forest management and restoration, ban illegal logging and related trade, and implement immediate deforestation moratoria.

The FAO report notes that the expansion of large-scale monocultures of oil palm, soy and other crops for agrofuel production has been a key factor in the failure to halt deforestation.

The report also states that "the potential for large-scale commercial production of cellulosic biofuel will have unprecedented impacts on the forest sector."

"If cellulosic biofuel leads to a strongly increased demand for wood, it will have a dramatic impact on the world's forests, especially in regions like Africa and Asia, which are already facing increased pressure on forests due to the failure to combat illegal logging and the rapidly rising demand for wood in general," said Andrey Laletin, chairperson of Friends of the Siberian Forests and focal point for North and Central Asia of the Global Forest Coalition.

Another driver for deforestation is illegal logging - 20% of the timber supply comes from illegal sources. "Europe remains one of the main markets for illegal timber despite a 2003 EU action plan to combat illegal logging and related trade. Strong legislation to halt illegal timber trade and to decrease Europe's devastating impact on the world's forests should be adopted as a bare minimum – there is no time to lose," said Friedrich Wulf from ProNatura / Friends of the Earth Switzerland.

According to the FAO report, illegal logging could increase due to the global economic crisis, as it might cause a contraction of the formal forestry sector.

An additional worrying trend is the massive replacement of forests by large-scale tree plantations in many countries. "Plantations are not forests", said Isaac Rojas, coordinator of the Forest and Biodiversity Program of Friends of the Earth International. "All over the world, plantations destroy the lands and livelihoods of local communities and Indigenous Peoples, as well as biodiversity and water resources. They also store far less carbon than natural forests."

"As they provide very little employment for rural people, tree plantations are also a major cause of rural depopulation and a further shifting agricultural frontier, thus causing the destruction of forests elsewhere," added Simone Lovera, managing coordinator of the Global Forest Coalition. "By actively promoting monoculture tree plantations, FAO itself is partly responsible for this global trend of replacing biologically diverse forests with straight rows of usually non-native trees."

NOTES

[1] http://www.foei.org

[2] http://www.globalforestcoalition.org

------------------------------------

at 4:05 AM

www.motherjones.com/environment/2009/03/ethanols-african-landgrab

Mozambique has survived colonialism and civil war. But can it survive the ethanol industry? by Adam Welz

March/April 2009

Massingir is an unremarkable town. The electricity supply here in rural Mozambique is erratic, clean water is hard to come by, and the hotels—well, calling them hotels is a little too polite. The town center is two ragged blocks of colorful bars, stores, and market stalls arranged along a reddish sandy furrow—the main street—with goods packaged in the smallest possible quantities to match the pinched cash flow of local buyers: individual quarts of fuel in old bottles, spoonfuls of soap powder in bright little packets, single cigarettes, microcans of tomato paste and sardines, all laid out in creative patterns to catch the eye. Babies doze in the shade while their mothers gossip, pausing on the way back from the unicef tent outside the shabby clinic; loose-limbed teenagers play rough games of pool under a thatched roof by the side of the road.

Hardcore nature nuts sometimes pass through Massingir; tourism has been picking up as word spreads of the giant Great Limpopo Transfrontier Park, a "peace park" that will merge the Mozambican wilderness of the nearby Limpopo National Park with South Africa's world-famous Kruger National Park (just across the border) and some adjacent Zimbabwean wildlands to make one of Africa's largest protected areas.

But I'm here for something bigger than elephants. This backwater is also the beachhead for an enormous project that promises to spend some $500 million, employ at least 2,000 people, and use nearly 75,000 acres of native woodland and savanna—an area five times the size of Manhattan—to grow sugarcane and produce ethanol for the growing global biofuel market. Known as ProCana, it's an endeavor that could not just transform Massingir, but also, via a mess of land claims and conflicting promises, put at risk the transnational park and other significant conservation projects.

ProCana is just the first in a long line of massive biofuel projects backed by investors ranging from local speculators to multinational corporations like BP. Some have asked the government—which legally owns all land here—for entire districts (the equivalent of US counties). Government officials told me that as of 2007, biofuel investors had applied for rights to use about 12 million acres, nearly one-seventh the country's 89 million acres of arable land; unofficial tallies are double that. The message is clear: This country, almost twice the size of California, is beckoning the plow. ProCana and its ilk are the vanguard of an underreported land revolution—a movement that could reshape vast terrains and the livelihoods of millions as international agribusiness sets its sights on the cheap soil of Africa.

I find the big man of ProCana, Izak Cornelis Holtzhausen—Corné to his friends—in an unexceptional '60s modernist office block in Maputo. A secretary shows me to a small boardroom with new furniture, extremely shiny parquet floors, and a promotional banner for a new coal mining area along the Zambezi River. Holtzhausen walks in, plants himself sideways at the table, and introduces himself with a charming smile; as we talk, his chubby fingers spin a tiny cell phone in unbalanced orbits on the table.

Holtzhausen is the Mozambique manager of the Central African Mining & Exploration Company (camec), which does what its name suggests and owns half of ProCana. He won't tell me who owns the other half ("Ask me next month"), and he doesn't want to talk about camec at all. There's been too much in the media about the company's allegedly corrupt mining deals in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and its connections with two notorious white Zimbabwean businessmen, Billy Rautenbach and John Bredenkamp, who were blacklisted by the US Treasury Department in November for their support of Zimbabwean despot Robert Mugabe. (Six months after our interview, a British Virgin Islands-based company named BioEnergy Africa, led by top camec officials, bought 94 percent of ProCana; Holtzhausen remains its head.)

An Afrikaner born and raised in South Africa (he served in the apartheid-era army and often uses Afrikaans in conversation), Holtzhausen has taken Mozambican citizenship and married a Mozambican woman of color. He believes in the place. Many Afrikaners, he says, ask him for business connections in Mozambique. "Most of them are scum. Absolute scum. They go on about the bad black government over there, and when they start using the k-word"—kaffir, the racist slur—"I just put the phone down on them. Afrikaners have caused a lot of trouble in Africa."

Mozambique is set to become a major biofuels producer, Holtzhausen assures me, and other agribusiness ventures are booming, too. (Among other things, he has a stake in the country's growing beef industry.) ProCana will process its cane in a Brazilian-built sugar-ethanol factory. It will lay miles of track to link the plant up with the national rail network. Eventually, trains will take about 9.5 million gallons of ethanol a month down to the Maputo harbor, where it will be pumped into tankers and shipped to Europe. Once the operation is up and running, ProCana will be printing money.

Yes, Holtzhausen acknowledges before I even ask, he's putting his plantation in the driest part of Mozambique—but he's investing a fortune in efficient drip irrigation. "You can't produce a green fuel and waste water," he says. Still, ProCana will use 108 billion gallons of water per year, supplied via canal from the nearby Massingir Dam. I've heard that this has downstream farmers worried, but Holtzhausen says those stories are pure fiction: "I'll give you a million bucks if you find me one of those farmers!" he brags, grinning broadly.

I've also heard that much of the area ProCana aims to plant had previously been slated to complete the development of the peace park, but that Holtzhausen levered it away, leaving the project in chaos. He laughs this off, too. I tell him of rumors that he got his land rights because powerful people had equity in the venture. (The story around Maputo is that Graça Machel, widow of Mozambique's first president and now wife of Nelson Mandela, is involved in ProCana—though verifying this is near impossible.) "No prominent people have invested in ProCana," he replies, after some thought. "But it will only be good for me if she did." Machel is a friend, he says. "I would be honored to have her as an investor." Another triumphant smile.

Despite Holtzhausen's disavowals, out in Massingir I discover that many of ProCana's 75,000 acres had indeed been slated rather precisely (and publicly) as part of planning for the Transfrontier Park. Some 29,000 people still live within Limpopo National Park's borders, and as many as 9,000 in the heart of the park are supposed to be relocated. After years of delicate negotiations, park authorities have arranged for the inner 9,000 to move to the valley of the Rio dos Elefantes, just downstream of Massingir Dam. They have—as Mozambican law requires—obtained permission from "receiving" communities to build houses for the newcomers and, very important, identified a sufficiently large grazing area for the new residents' livestock.

A ProCana map I've managed to obtain shows that the company's 75,000 acres cover this intended grazing zone. The same chunk of land has been promised to both the inner 9,000 and ProCana. How did this happen? I'll need a 4x4 and two interpreters (Shangaan to Portuguese, Portuguese to English) to find the answer.

A trip into the Rio dos Elefantes valley is a journey into a cliché of Africa: hardworking women in colorful cloth, relentlessly pecking chickens, and thin, lazy yellow-brown dogs scattered around circular grass-roofed huts. In most village centers a hand-carved flagpole carries a Mozambican flag (crossed hoe and Kalashnikov, nice bright colors). Take away the occasional T-shirt, radio, and cell phone, and the ever-present cheap plastic buckets and chairs, and you have something like the Mozambique of 500 years ago. Polygamy is common, many children and cattle are a sign of wealth, and the village leader and his elders are not to be crossed. Villagers build their homes near a river, plant crops in the fertile floodplain, and graze cattle in the nearby savanna; like about 70 percent of their compatriots, they rely on the land for their livelihood.

Mozambique was colonized by the Portuguese starting in the early 1500s; they set up vast plantations whose laborers were kept in line with brutal corporal punishment. In 1975, after Portugal's Carnation Revolution, Mozambique was chaotically catapulted into independence. The civil war that followed, one of the Cold War's many proxy conflicts, shattered the country's infrastructure and killed about a million people before petering out in 1992. To this day, bullet holes pockmark buildings, amputees beg along the roads, and crushing poverty saturates the country. During one of my trips to Mozambique early last year, riots broke out a day after a high-profile visit by the president of the World Bank, who had congratulated the country on its success in becoming "a major destination for foreign investment." Thousands took to the streets to protest skyrocketing prices; Mozambique's staple food, corn, had become vastly more expensive as the United States turned an increasing percentage of its crop into ethanol.

"It's important to remember that Mozambican independence was about liberating people and land," Diamantino Nhampossa, a land-rights activist, told me. Mozambique's constitution decrees that all land is owned by the state. Individuals and private companies can acquire rights to use parcels for 50-year periods, but the country's sweeping Land Law requires them to find out if any local people are already using the land and, if so, obtain their permission for any project. In theory, the law gives Mozambican peasants more power to determine their fate than their counterparts around the world. In practice, as I was to discover, the arm of the law has limited reach.

Driving down to the Rio dos Elefantes from Massingir along a rough track, I pass a rust-flecked sign announcing a relocation area for a community from the Limpopo park. I stop in some villages along the land ProCana has claimed and, following protocol, ask to speak to the headman in each. Everywhere, I hear versions of the same story. Yes, people from the park are coming to live with us here, but we don't know when. Yes, ProCana is taking a lot of land, but we think there will be enough for the project, the people, and their cattle. In every village, I'm told that ProCana has promised a house for the headman and jobs for others, but written evidence of those promises is nowhere to be seen.

Villagers have conflicting stories about how much land ProCana is taking; some direct me to Ernesto Bandi Ngovene, traditionally the leading headman for the whole area. I find him reclining in the shade outside his home, barely able to move after a stroke. He has not been to the disputed land for a while, does not know how to read a map, and cannot say exactly how much land has been promised to the people from the park, or to ProCana.

One afternoon I run into a couple of village elders when their headman isn't around. They say that in the middle of their negotiations with the park, ProCana came along and took all the valley's headmen away for meetings. These were not held in front of the communities or elders, as is customary. Afterward, their headman told them that he'd signed a paper giving ProCana a large piece of the village's land. They have never seen this paper. They do not want to give away their land, but ProCana came with powerful people, and they are afraid. They have been told that they have rights under the Land Law, that they can say no to ProCana, but they do not have a copy of this law. Can I please send them one?

We drive in the 4x4 into ProCana's claim. The bush rustles and sings; birds are everywhere, and the savanna is filled with gray-barked and butterfly-leafed mopane trees, some of the biggest and oldest I have ever seen. A giant baobab, centuries old, provides a backdrop for a screaming flock of parrots, while a black-breasted snake eagle hovers overhead. Holtzhausen told me his environmental people found no trees of value here—charcoal burners, he said, cut them long ago. I'm not sure where those experts looked, because here, in the perfectly cadenced afternoon light, is paradise.

I ask the Limpopo park administrators in Massingir what they made of ProCana swiping the resettlement land from under their noses. They won't say much on the record except some boilerplate about it's being a fait accompli, about the resettlement's being delayed but not scuttled, and that ProCana's 2,000 jobs could be a good thing for the region. Other locals tell me ProCana made it very clear that it had the support of "important people," including President Armando Guebuza—a millionaire politician-businessman who has his fingers in many pies and flew to Massingir to officially open the project. Ominous rumors even link Nyimpine Chissano, the late gangster son of former president Joaquim Chissano, to ProCana.

I try numerous times, to no avail, to get formal government comment on ProCana and Mozambique's broader plans for biofuels. A few administrators do agree to talk—but only in secret. "ProCana were smart," one official with intimate knowledge of the Limpopo park relocation tells me. "They approached the leader of Chitar village"—the stroke-hobbled Ngovene—"first. They made sure he said yes to the project because they knew the other chiefs in the valley would follow."

Details of land rights in the Massingir area prove hard to find, but after many quiet meetings I get my hands on several credible maps. They tell a story of cascading land chaos following ProCana's arrival. The company's claim on the Limpopo park land has left park officials scrambling to identify another place for the relocatees' cattle. They've found one—but much of this land was previously identified as a game reserve, in which a US conservation group had already allocated hundreds of thousands of dollars. The reserve project has now collapsed, and South Africans, Americans, and Mozambican military officers are claiming fragments of it for private safari operations. On one map, a big chunk of land adjacent to ProCana's carries the legend "Emelia Machel"—apparently a relative of Graça Machel. Local people tell me the Machel family keeps cattle there.

The maps make it clear that much of the land around Massingir has been allocated to two, sometimes three, different people or entities. This is widespread in Mozambique; in practice, land is owned by those who have the most influence, or the money to fence or patrol it, no matter what the documents say. Foreign governments and donor agencies—which supply fully one-half the government's budget—generally won't get involved in land disputes, even if these conflicts cause projects funded by their own donors' or taxpayers' money to go up in smoke (or into Mercedes-Benzes and Hummers for the corrupt elite). They refuse to upset the government—which, as it happens, is busy handing out rights to a string of potentially lucrative gas, oil, and coal deposits.

Carlos Castel-Branco, a respected local economist, tells me that the primary function of politicians in Mozambique is to mediate between competing private interests, including their own. They lack both the political will and the administrative capacity, he says, to build a modern state. The current land rush—for biofuel plantations, export-oriented farms, and private hunting concessions—is the first stage in a war over land that Mozambique's fragile democratic and legal systems might not survive. "The government is not politically capable of stopping this process of land speculation. People feel that the dignity of the state and of themselves has been taken away. It's not hopeless, but it's going to be a big fight."

I present a plausible nightmare scenario to ProCana's Corné Holtzhausen. His 75,000-acre farm/factory will have serious ecological impacts—lost wildlife habitat, greenhouse gases released as natural vegetation is destroyed, massive water consumption, fertilizer and pesticide pollution. On the greater scale of Africa, these might be considered small, but ProCana is not alone. What about the hundreds of other big investors who will rush in if he succeeds? Who will stop his beloved Mozambique, and much of the rest of the continent, from being turned into vast pesticide-and-fertilizer-soaked monocultures? He smiles, a great gotcha smile, and pauses. "People like you," he says. "People like you who wear cotton shirts that take 25,000 liters of water to make—you like to wear them, because they're comfortable. People like you who drive private cars and like to fly around the world in aeroplanes. The consumer. That's who determines what happens."

------------------------------------

at 6:37 PM

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article5908207.ece

From The Sunday Times

March 15, 2009

'Green' dams hasten rape of Borneo forests

Tribal peoples are fighting huge hydro-electric projects that are carving up the island's rainforest

Access roads and terraced fields erase Sarawak's rolling lowlands

Deforestation: Access roads and terraced fields erase Sarawak's rainforests

Image :1 of 2

One of Borneo's better-known species, orang-utans are threatened by habitat destruction

Michael Sheridan, Kuching, Sarawak

THE island of Borneo, a fragile treasure house of rainforests, rare animals and plants, is under threat from plans for Chinese engineers to build 12 dams that will cut through virgin land and displace thousands of native Dayak people.

The government of the Malaysian state of Sarawak says the dams are the first stage of a "corridor of renewable energy" that will create 1.5m jobs through industries powered by safe, clean hydro-electricity.

Campaigners are furious but appear powerless in the face of a project they fear will compound the devastation wreaked on Borneo's peoples and land by previous dam projects and the felling of its forests.

They point to the ruin caused by the levelling of millions of acres of trees for oil palm plantations to meet the world's demand for biofuels.

The dams would slice across a vast sweep of Sarawak, a place where wisps of cloud cling to remote, tree-clad peaks, huge butterflies flit through the foliage and orang-utans, sun bears and leopards roam.

There is more than an ecological argument over the scheme. The initial contract has gone to the Chinese state-owned company that built the controversial Three Gorges dam – a project described by Dai Qing, the campaigning Chinese journalist, as "a black hole of corruption".

Teams from the China Three Gorges Project Corporation are at work on the first of the 12 new dams at Murum, deep in the interior, from where Sarawak's great rivers uncoil towards the South China Sea.

Tribal peoples are dazed and frightened, telling a visiting researcher last week that they had been ordered off their ancestral lands. Signs in Chinese were posted all over the project site.

No financial details or contracts have been publicly disclosed. Analysts in China say the work is likely to have been financed in part by a loan from a state institution.

Critics argue that Sarawak does not need more electricity. It produces a 20% surplus and there is as yet no cable to deliver power to peninsular Malaysia – which itself generates more energy than it needs.

Company records filed with the Malaysia stock exchange show that a big beneficiary of the policy is a firm whose shareholders and directors include the wife and family of Abdul Taib Mahmud, Sarawak's chief minister.

Taib, 72, who drives around in a vanilla Rolls-Royce, is one of the richest and most powerful men in Malaysian politics. He also serves as Sarawak's finance minister and planning minister.

The family-owned firm, Cahya Mata Sarawak (CMS), has interests in cement, construction, quarrying and road building. It has signed a memorandum of understanding with Rio Tinto, the London-listed mining group, to build a "world class" aluminium smelter that will get its electricity from a dam at Bakun.

The Bakun dam, a separate project due to be completed by 2011, has already displaced an estimated 10,000 indigenous people, leading to bitter legal battles and a chorus of dismay from economists about cost overruns.

Malaysia's reinvigorated opposition is now campaigning against what it calls "crony capitalism", helping hitherto powerless tribal peoples to challenge in the courts land grabs and cheating.

For all that, it may be too late to save the natural bounty of Borneo itself. Orphaned orang-utans, piteously holding the outstretched hands of their human saviours, are the most conspicuous symbols of its fragility.

Divided between Malaysia and Indonesia, with Brunei occupying a tiny enclave in the north, Borneo's riches have ensured its plunder.

One reason is the voracious world demand for timber. The other is the fashion for biofuels made from palm oil. Almost half of Borneo's rainforests have been cut down. Two million acres have vanished every year as trees are felled, the wood sold and the land turned over to oil palms.

The greatest plunderer of all was Indonesia's late dictator, Suharto, who doled out timber concessions to generals and cronies during his 32 years in power.

Now the central government in Jakarta is winning praise for a determined crackdown that has slowed the rate of illegal logging.

However, much of Indonesian Borneo is already laid waste. Enormous fires cast a perpetual pall of toxic haze, making Indonesia the world's third largest greenhouse gas polluter after China and the United States.

"Green gold", or palm oil, poses an even more insidious threat because it promises prosperity and development to the numerous poor of Borneo – along with immense rewards for the elites.

The vegetable oil comes from crushed palm husks. Long used for cooking, cosmetics and soap, it has now become a principal source of biodiesel fuel.

Malaysia and Indonesia produce about 85% of the world's supply of palm oil – most of it on Borneo.

The price of this apparently environment-friendly fuel is high. Its damage far outweighs its benefits, according to a recent international study published in the journal Conservation Biology.

One of the research team, Emily Fitzherbert of the Zoological Society of London, concluded that oil palm as a biofuel was "not a green option".

John Anthony Paul, a Dayak notable in Sarawak, explained it another way: "There's a stench from the palm oil mill close to my longhouse. There's a huge quantity of slurry and sludge. Our water is deteriorating. Many fish disappear and there are more floods. Pesticides leach into our soil. The insects start to change, so the pollination changes and so does the quality of our fruits and crops. It's unsustainable."

Resistance is growing. Last week two Dayaks walked for four hours, carrying their sharp-edged parangs, or blades, to meet me near a cluster of huts housing Chinese dam workers.

The scene was Bengoh, a place so wild, flower-strewn and lovely that it would have made a tourist poster were it not for the grumble of construction noise and the gouged earth.

The Dayaks are being forced out of their villages because engineers from SinoHydro, a second Chinese contractor, are building yet another dam to improve the water supply to Kuching, capital of Sarawak.

"We are 28 families, in our village since our ancestors," said Simo Anakbekam, 48. "The government says we must leave. We want them to recognise our rights to our land."

The state government says it has offered adequate compensation plus resettlement to new homes with better jobs, health and education.

However, most people in Simo's village just want to move higher up their familiar mountainside and cannot understand why they must depart for the hot, marshy lowlands.

It turned out to be an example of legal coercion with the familiar echo of "crony capitalism". Armed with eviction orders, the dam builders told the Dayaks their presence might contaminate the new water supply.

However, lawyers for the villagers found draft plans for the Bengoh dam – drawn up, the documents state, with input from Halcrow, the British consultancy firm – which reveal that unnamed investors plan to build two resorts on the site.

The Dayaks are now fighting for better compensation and the right to stay in the area.

All over Sarawak, tribal people have lost their ancestral lands to similar gambits. "They don't know that this thing is coming until they hear the sound of the bulldozers," said See Chee How, a lawyer and civil rights activist.

It is worse deep in the northeast interior, where logging, palm oil and dams threaten the existence of the Penan, a nomadic tribe. Last week a British researcher for Survival International, the campaign group, found people running short of food.

"They hunt but go for weeks at a time without finding a single animal. Fish are also scarce, because the logging silts up the rivers. Sago is becoming more and more difficult to find," said the researcher, who asked not to be named.

"One old man told me that the changes could be seen in the bodies of the young people, who were thinner and weaker than the people of his generation. The Penan asked me again and again to get news of their plight to the outside world."

The ravishing of Borneo – its peoples, animals and the land itself – has roots in the past. But there may be a remedy, too.

Sarawak led a romantic, isolated existence under the "white rajahs" of the Brooke dynasty, whose adventurous founder, James Brooke, established himself in 1848 as an absolute ruler. His heirs held power until 1946.

The Brookes disdained the British empire's commerce and industry, seeking to preserve a noble Dayak culture in all its splendour.

They established native customary rights by which district officers recorded land tenure as a way to stop headhunting wars among the Dayaks. The rajahs also granted leases and published an official gazette.

Malaysian courts have upheld cases based on such documents and now a hunt is on for letters folded away in longhouses and yellowing copies in archives in Britain. For many in faraway Sarawak, it may be their only hope of justice.

[Comments/end]

at 9:19 AM

Biodiesel made using biomass and a methanol reagent will not be eligible for the government's renewable electricity subsidy scheme, if the methanol is sourced from fossil fuels.

However, it appears that if the biodiesel is used as a transport fuel, it is still eligible for Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation certificates.

The Renewable Fuels Agency said today that it was aware of the issue of fossil fuel-sourced methanol being used in biodiesel production.
A spokesman told New Energy Focus that the issue had been accounted for in the organisation's life cycle analysis calculations regarding biofuel sustainability reporting.

The RFA spokesman said: "Biodiesel is a renewable fuel under the RTFO, and the RFA includes the methanol used in the manufacture of biodiesel in the lifecycle analysis of biodiesel carbon emissions, just like the tractor fuel used to grow the crop and the electricity used to process it. The Renewables Obligation is based on different definitions than the RTFO."

The Renewable Energy Association said today that the apparent difference in using the biodiesel in an engine in a generating plant, or in an engine in a truck, as stated by the two different regulators, was "silly".

A spokeswoman said the Association's position was that the biodiesel should be eligible for both ROCs and Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation certificates.

"Ofgem is shying away from the stigma attached to biofuels at the moment," the spokeswoman said. "Whenever there is the risk of too many ROCs being awarded, Ofgem always errs on the side of caution, but this is not going to encourage renewable energy."

<<< I like the idea that OFGEM might be shying away from biofuels because of the "stigma" attached to them.

http://www.newenergyfocus.com/do/ecco.py/view_item?listid=1&listcatid=32&listitemid=2373

------------------------------------

at 5:34 AM

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/13/charcoal-carbon

'Biochar' goes industrial with giant microwaves to lock carbon in charcoal

Climate expert claims to have developed cleanest way of fixing CO2 in 'biochar' for burial on an industrial scale

Digg it

Alok Jha, green technology correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Friday 13 March 2009 12.07 GMT
Article history

Burning Charcoal

Burying charcoal produced from microwaved wood could take billions of tonnes of CO2 from the atmosphere every year. Photograph: Rex Features

Giant microwave ovens that can "cook" wood into charcoal could become our best tool in the fight against global warming, according to a leading British climate scientist.

Chris Turney, a professor of geography at the University of Exeter, said that by burying the charcoal produced from microwaved wood, the carbon dioxide absorbed by a tree as it grows can remain safely locked away for thousands of years. The technique could take out billions of tonnes of CO₂ from the atmosphere every year.

Fast-growing trees such as pine could be "farmed" to act specifically as carbon traps — microwaved, buried and replaced with a fresh crop to do the same thing again.

Turney has built a 5m-long prototype of his microwave, which produces a tonne of CO₂ for $65. He plans to launch his company, Carbonscape, in the UK this month to build the next generation of the machine, which he hopes will process more wood and cut costs further.

He is not alone in touting the benefits of this type of charcoal, known as biochar or biocharcoal. The Gaia theorist, James Lovelock, and Nasa's James Hansen have both been outspoken about the potential benefits of biochar, arguing that it is one of the most powerful potential solutions to climate change. In a recent paper, Hansen calculated that producing biocharcoal by current methods of burning waste organic materials could reduce global carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere by 8ppm (parts per million) over the next 50 years. That is the equivalent of three years of emissions at current levels.

Turney said biochar was the closest thing scientists had to a silver-bullet solution to climate change. Processing facilities could be built right next to forests grown specifically to soak up CO2. "You can cut trees down, carbonise them, then plant more trees. The forest could act on an industrial scale to suck carbon out of the atmosphere."

The biochar could be placed in disused coal mines or tilled into the ground to make soil more fertile. Its porous structure is ideal for trapping nutrients and beneficial micro-organisms that help plants grow. It also improves drainage and can prevent up to 80% of greenhouse gases such as nitrous oxides and methane from escaping from the soil.

In a recent analysis of geo-engineering techniques published in the journal Atmospheric Chemistry, Tim Lenton, a climate scientist at the University of East Anglia, rated producing charcoal as the best technological solution to reducing CO₂ levels. He compared it to other geo-engineering techniques such as dumping iron in oceans or seeding clouds to reflect the sun's radiation and calculated that by 2100 a quarter of the effect of human-induced emissions of CO₂ could be sequestered with biochar production from waste organic matter, giving a net reduction of 40ppm in CO2 concentration.

Johannes Lehmann of Cornell university has calculated that it is realistically possible to fix 9.5bn tonnes of carbon per year using biochar. The global production of carbon from fossil fuels stands at 8.5bn tonnes.

Charcoal is usually produced by burning wood in high-temperature ovens but this process is dirty and only locks around 20-30% of the mass of the wood into charcoal. Turney's idea to use a microwave, which he found could lock away up to 50% of the wood's mass, came from a cooking accident when he was a teenager, in which he mistakenly microwaved a potato for 40 minutes and found that the vegetable had turned into charcoal. "Years later when we were talking about carbon sequestration I thought maybe charcoal was the way to go," he said.

A number of governments are investing their hopes for sequestering CO₂ from the atmosphere in large-scale carbon capture and storage projects. But Turney said this would not provide a full solution. "It's only for large single sources of emissions like large power stations and that accounts for about 60% of emissions. It doesn't deal with anything up in the atmosphere already which is driving the changes we see today."

Chris Goodall, writer of the Carbon Commentary blog, proposed biochar as a solution to climate change in his recent book, Ten Technologies to Save the Planet. "The only big problem is organising it on a large enough scale," he said. "Organising it so that farmers get paid and put the charcoal in the ground rather than burning it for their own food is a big problem to organise on a global scale."

This could be done if biochar were incorporated into the carbon markets making it more profitable to bury rather than burn. There is an emerging campaign, he said, to get

governments to recognise biochar in the post-Kyoto agreement on climate change that will be negotiated in Copenhagen later this year.

__._,_.___

__,_._,___

at 2:04 PM

Please complain via the Reuters website about the references in the following article to Jatropha as "does not compete with food crops", producing "eco-friendly" fuel; also the impression given that it does not need care as a crop; also the lack of quotation marks around "renewable" and "green" in the quote:

"The IATA wants all its members to use 10 percent renewable fuels by 2017. The challenge will be to ramp up output of green fuels at a rate fast enough to meet growing demand."

http://planetark.org/wen/52000 (also
http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSTRE52A0JB20090311?sp=true)

Toxic Jatropha Shrub Fuels Mexico's Biodiesel Push

Date: 12-Mar-09
Country: MEXICO
Author: Mica Rosenberg

Toxic Jatropha Shrub Fuels Mexico's Biodiesel Push Photo: A researcher checks samples of jatropha fruit at a research facility in Rosario Izapa February 26, 2009.
Daniel LeClair
Photo: A researcher checks samples of jatropha fruit at a research facility in Rosario Izapa February 26, 2009.

ROSARIO IZAPA - All his life elderly Mexican farmer Gonzalo Cardenas has planted a stalky weed that grows wild in southern Mexico to form a sturdy live fence around his tropical fruit trees.

Now it turns out the weed, jatropha, could be used to fuel jet planes and the Mexican government wants farmers to grow entire fields of it to turn into biodiesel.

Known locally as "pinon," jatropha is a hearty shrub that grows with no special care. Its oil-rich seeds are being eyed as an attractive feed stock for biofuel since the poisonous plant does not compete with food crops.

"I always had pinon around my corrals, just because it helped keep people off my land," said Cardenas, 78 and exhausted after helping one of his cows give birth at his farm in the balmy village of Rosario Izapa insouthern Mexico.

Jatropha is native to Mexico and Central America but was likely transported to India and Africa in the 1500s by Portuguese sailors convinced it had medicinal uses.

Now India is planting the bush en masse, converting it into a green energy source used to power trains and buses with less pollution than crude oil. Mexico hopes to follow suit.

President Felipe Calderon signed an agreement with the president of Colombia in January to build a 14.5 million peso ($936,000) experimental biodiesel plant in southern Mexico with a production capacity of 12,000 liters (3,170 gallons) of biofuel a day.

Mexico passed a law last year to push developing biofuels that don't threaten food security and the agriculture ministry has since identified some 2.6 million hectares (6.4 million acres) of land with a high potential to produce jatropha.

"If I had more land I would plant it because they say it's good business," Cardenas said, surrounded by rare rambutan and mangosteen fruit trees.

Demand for the eco-friendly fuel could grow now that U.S. President Barack Obama has promised to invest $150 billion over 10 years in renewable energy infrastructure.

GENETIC DIVERSITY
Continental Airlines ran a two-hour test flight in January of a Boeing 737 passenger plane powered with a mix of jatropha and algae-based biodiesel, following the lead of Japanese and New Zealand airline companies.

"The biofuel mix actually ran more efficiently and burned less fuel in total than the conventional (jet-fuel powered) engine," Steve Lott, a spokesman for the International Air Transport Association, or IATA, said.

The airline industry will consume 67 billion gallons of fuel this year, or 6 percent of the world's oil, a concern for environmentalists as well as airline budgets, especially after the spike in gas prices last year, Lott said.

The IATA wants all its members to use 10 percent renewable fuels by 2017. The challenge will be to ramp up output of green fuels at a rate fast enough to meet growing demand.

Mexico is running tests to find jatropha varieties that produce the most oil with the least care. Some 300 different types are being monitored at a government research center in Rosario Izapa, near Mexico's border with Guatemala.

In Guatemala, entrepreneur Ricardo Asturias has been promoting jatropha for the past eight years and now has his own plantations and biodiesel factory. He says the region's genetic diversity will give it an edge over competitors in Asia.

"This plant is native to Mesoamerica. In our nurseries we have 57 different varieties and we're not finished yet," he said. "In India there are only three recognized varieties."

Once Mexican investigators find the optimal jatropha strain, they will distribute seeds to interested farmers who like the fact the shrub is low maintenance.

"You sow it and it grows. It's not like corn," said Rafael de Leon, 39, his land ringed by bushy jatropha that can grow taller than he is. "If there's money in it, we'll plant it."

(Editing by Jim Marshall)
© Thomson Reuters 2009 All rights reserved

at 1:26 PM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7935663.stm

Page last updated at 02:30 GMT, Thursday, 12 March 2009

EU needs 'brutal' science advice

By Pallab Ghosh
Science correspondent, BBC News

John Beddington: leading a wake-up call for European Science Advice

European commissioners and MEPs need better, more "brutal" scientific advice, the UK government's chief scientist has said.

Professor John Beddington said that Europe should follow the US president's lead and step up its scientific agenda.

"Compared with the new Washington line-up, European science advice looks very deficient," he said.

Professor Beddington is leading efforts to update Europe's system and is calling for more independent advisers.

US President Barack Obama has appointed a "dream team" of scientists to senior positions in his administration to advise him on policy.

John Holdren, an expert on climate change, will be his personal science adviser. Working with him will be a plethora of world-renowned scientists, including two Nobel Prize winners.

"This should serve as a wake-up call to the European Union," says Professor Beddington.

We need scientists to come in and challenge policy at lots of levels

Professor John Beddington

The UK has a network of scientific advisors in 17 government departments.

Their job is to be an independent - and sometimes irritating voice - for ministers, scrutinising policy and, if they feel it is unworkable, saying so.

In Europe, the body that provides scientific support to the commission is the Joint Research Centre, which Professor Beddington describes as "excellent".

But it was unable to provide the proactive and sometimes "brutal" scientific advice that policy makers might not want to hear, he told BBC News.

The 'challenge'

Environmental regulations in particular, he says, are often well meant, but if they are not independently assessed, they can be misguided.

As examples, Professor Beddington cited plans to phase out pesticides that pose little risk to human health, and European efforts to forge ahead with growing biofuel crops, which have been linked to increased food prices.

"In the major directorates you don't have scientific advisors and there is no overall advisor on policy [reporting to] the commission president," he says.

"We need scientists to come in and challenge policy at lots of levels.

"It doesn't mean that policy will always be wrong. But it does mean that the mechanism of scientific challenge isn't present in the commission at the moment."

[Ends]

at 12:41 PM

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2009/03/09/news/LT-Brazil-Landless-Invasions.php

March 9, 2009

RIO DE JANEIRO: Female landless workers occupied Brazil's agriculture ministry, a vital port, a farm owned by a paper company and other property on Monday to demand faster agrarian reform and a turn away from pro-business policies.

The Landless Rural Workers Movement and the Via Campesina activist group issued a statement saying the women's demonstrations were a call for Brazil to stimulate its domestic market instead of relying on exports.

"Agrarian reform and the small farmer are the solutions for the economic crisis because they would create jobs and increase food production," they said.

In the capital Brasilia, hundreds of women peacefully occupied the lobby of the agriculture ministry, but did not halt work there and they left by noon. The Movement said 800 women occupied the building. Local media said the figure was closer to 300.

In Espirito Santo state, just north of Rio, women occupied briefly stopped work at a port that yearly handles 7.5 million tons of cellulose, the raw material for paper. But a spokeswoman for paper company Aracruz Celulose SA said the port was fully operating by noon. The Movement said 1,300 women participated in that protest; Aracruz put the number at 450.

MST said 700 women also occupied a farm in southern Brazil owned by the paper-producing unit of Brazilian conglomerate Grupo Votorantim, and 600 women in Sao Paulo state occupied land owned by Cosan SA Industria e Comercio, Brazil's largest sugar and ethanol producer.

The landless activists frequently occupy property they consider unproductive to pressure the government to speed up land reform.

------------------------------------

at 12:16 PM

www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090302183321.htm

ScienceDaily (Mar. 11, 2009)

To avoid creating greenhouse gases, it makes more sense using today's technology to leave land unfarmed in conservation reserves than to plow it up for corn to make biofuel, according to a comprehensive Duke University-led study.

"Converting set-asides to corn-ethanol production is an inefficient and expensive greenhouse gas mitigation policy that should not be encouraged until ethanol-production technologies improve," the study's authors reported in the March edition of the research journal Ecological Applications.

Nevertheless, farmers and producers are already receiving federal subsidies to grow more corn for ethanol under the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.

"One of our take-home messages is that conservation programs are currently a cheaper and more efficient greenhouse gas policy for taxpayers than corn-ethanol production," said biologist Robert Jackson, the Nicholas Professor of Global Environmental Change at Duke's Nicholas School of the Environment, who led the study.

Making ethanol from corn reduces atmospheric releases of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide because the CO2 emitted when the ethanol burns is "canceled out" by the carbon dioxide taken in by the next crop of growing plants, which use it in photosynthesis. That means equivalent amounts of carbon dioxide are removed from the atmosphere and "fixed" into plant tissues.

But the study notes that some CO2 not counterbalanced by plant carbon uptake gets released when corn is grown and processed for ethanol. Furthermore, ethanol contains only about 70 percent of gasoline's energy.

"So we actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions only 20 percent when we substitute one liter of ethanol for one liter of gasoline," said Gervasio Piñeiro, the study's first author, who is a Buenos Aires, Argentina-based scientist and postdoctoral research associate in Jackson's Duke laboratory.

Also, by the researchers' accounting, the carbon benefits of using ethanol only begin to show up years after corn growing begins. "Depending on prior land use" they wrote in their report, "our analysis shows that carbon releases from the soil after planting corn for ethanol may in some cases completely offset carbon gains attributed to biofuel generation for at least 50 years."

The report said that "cellulosic" species -- such as switchgrass -- are a better option for curbing emissions than corn because they don't require annual replowing and planting. In contrast, a single planting of cellulosic species will continue growing and producing for years while trapping more carbon in the soil.

"Until cellulosic ethanol production is feasible, or corn-ethanol technology improves, corn-ethanol subsidies are a poor investment economically and environmentally," Jackson added.

However, the report noted that a cost-effective technology to convert cellulosics to ethanol may be years away. So the Duke team contrasted today's production practices for corn-based ethanol with what will be possible after the year 2023 for cellulosic-based ethanol.

By analyzing 142 different soil studies, the researchers found that conventional corn farming can remove 30 to 50 percent of the carbon stored in the soil. In contrast, cellulosic ethanol production entails mowing plants as they grow -- often on land that is already in conservation reserve. That, their analysis found, can ultimately increase soil carbon levels between 30 to 50 percent instead of reducing them.

"It's like hay baling," Piñeiro said. "You plant it once and it stays there for 20 years. And it takes much less energy and carbon dioxide emissions to produce that than to produce corn."

As part of its analysis, the Duke team calculated how corn-for-ethanol and cellulosic-for-ethanol production -- both now and in the future -- would compare with agricultural set-asides. Those comparisons were expressed in economic terms with a standard financial accounting tool called "net present value."

For now, setting aside acreage and letting it return to native vegetation was rated the best way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, outweighing the results of corn-ethanol production over the first 48 years. However, "once commercially available, cellulosic ethanol produced in set-aside grasslands should provide the most efficient tool for greenhouse gas reduction of any scenario we examined," the report added.

The worst strategy for reducing carbon dioxide emissions is to plant corn-for-ethanol on land that was previously designated as set aside -- a practice included in current federal efforts to ramp up biofuel production, the study found. "You will lose a lot of soil carbon, which will escape into the atmosphere as CO2," said Piñeiro.

The research was funded by the National Science Foundation, the Center for Global Change at Duke University and by the Agencia Nacional de Promoción Científica y Tecnologíca of Argentina.

Other researchers in the study included Brian Murray, the director for economic analysis at Duke's Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions and a Nicholas School research professor; Justin Baker, a researcher with Murray and Jackson; and Esteban Jobbagy, a professor at the University of San Luis in Argentina who received his Ph.D. at Duke

------------------------------------

at 12:44 AM

http://www.newkerala.com/nkfullnews-1-90.html

South Korea to produce wood pellet fuel in Indonesia

Seoul, March 8 : South Korea has signed an agreement with Indonesia to produce wood pellets that are cheaper and cleaner to burn than fossil fuels, WAM reported.

Korea forest service and Indonesian forest ministry signed a pact Friday to keep aside 200,000 hectares of forestland in Indonesia's Kalimantan Island to produce wood pellets starting 2010, the report said Saturday.

The Daejeon-based state forestry service said the deal signed on the sidelines of President Lee Myung-bak's visit to Indonesia gives the South Korean government a free 99-year lease on the Kalimantan Island to implement the project.

The initiative will benefit Indonesia with foreign investments and new jobs.

South Korea would provide administrative support, build pellet-making facilities and assist in the everyday operations to be carried out by the private companies, according to the pact.

The total fuel production would be determined only after assessing the useable plants on the Island. The process involves both cutting and planting trees, the report said.

Wood pellets are made from finely ground and compressed wood that is cheap to use, have relatively good fuel qualities and do not release as much greenhouse gas as refined fuel products.

The cylinder-shaped pellets on average have lower heat value than diesel fuel, liquefied natural gas (LNG) and kerosene, but could provide a 99-sq-meter living space with adequate heat for 1.8 million won ($1,160) per year.

This is better than the 4.2 million won needed when burning diesel, 2.0 million won for LNG and 3.0 million won for kerosene. The pellets have also been found to produce 12 times less greenhouse gases than diesel fuel.

At present, South Korea's wood pellet consumption is small and generally limited to use in some rural communities and greenhouses. It has only one operational wood pellet facility, with two more to be opened this year.

------------------------------------

at 12:38 AM

http://www.scidev.net/en/agriculture-and-environment/drought-threatens-amazon-carbon-sink.html?utm_source=link&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=en_agricultureandenvironment

Zoraida Portillo

9 March 2009

Researchers have demonstrated for the first time that rainforests cannot always be relied upon as carbon sinks, and could accelerate global warming during drought.

Their findings, published in Science last week (5 March), show that drought can hamper the Amazon rainforest's ability to absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and can substantially damage the forest's capacity to absorb carbon, by killing trees.

In fact, during severe drought, the rate of carbon absorption can slow down so much that the rainforest emits more carbon dioxide than it absorbs.

The team of researchers, from 13 countries, has been monitoring forest health in the Amazon for the past 30 years, examining forest plots, identifying and measuring trees, recording tree deaths, and measuring and mapping weather patterns.

Studying the effects of an unusual drought in 2005 they found an increase in tree mortality and a reduction in growth — both evidence that the forest was emitting more carbon dioxide than it was absorbing.

Before the drought, measurements taken over 25 years indicated that undisturbed Amazonian rainforests absorbed about 1.7 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide per year — equivalent to emissions from deforestation and other disturbances such as fire and logging, says Luiz Aragao, a researcher at the UK-based Oxford University and a participant in the research.

"It means that the accumulation of carbon in the undisturbed forests was offsetting emissions from deforestation and forest degradation and consequently minimising the amount of carbon emitted into the atmosphere," he told SciDev.Net.
But during the drought the rainforest released the equivalent of 5 billion extra tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, exceeding the annual emissions of Europe and Japan combined.

As this was just for one year, the drought did not have a substantial impact on global warming, says Oliver Phillips, a researcher at the University of Leeds and lead author of the study.

"The danger is if Amazon droughts become more frequent: our results show that, if so, carbon released from Amazonia could accelerate global warming," says Phillips.

"Governments need to seriously reduce deforestation and tackle the impact of fires that are used to clean and manage lands in Amazonia," added Aragao.

------------------------------------

at 5:54 PM

http://planetark.org/wen/51967

ANALYSIS - Biofuels For Airlines Promising, But Hurdles Remain

Date: 10-Mar-09
Country: UK
Author: Michael Szabo and John Bowker

ANALYSIS - Biofuels For Airlines Promising, But Hurdles Remain Photo: Mike Blake
A pilot prepares for his flight as a worker finishes off fueling a United Airlines plane before departure at San Francisco International airport July 7, 2008.
Photo: Mike Blake

LONDON - Biofuels could be used to fly commercial airlines within the next decade as a viable alternative to kerosene, although costs and concerns over environmental impact remain big barriers.

Airlines including Virgin Atlantic, Continental, Air New Zealand and Japan Airlines have already flown on routes with one engine part-powered by a range of biofuels including algae and jatropha.

Jatropha, a poisonous plant that produces seeds that can be refined into biofuels, is being touted as a good alternative fuel and a potentially powerful weapon against climate change.

Experts say the perennial plant can grow on marginal land with limited rainfall, and does not compete with other food crops or encourage deforestation.

Following its flight using jatropha in late December, Air New Zealand has set a goal to have 10 percent of fuel coming from biofuel sources by 2013, while Virgin is aiming for 5 percent by 2015.

But Captain David Morgan, Air New Zealand's chief pilot, said bio-jet fuels had three major obstacles to overcome before regular use in aircraft engines.

"The fuel source has to be environmentally sustainable and not compete with existing food resources, it has to be a drop-in replacement for traditional jet fuel, and it needs to be cost competitive with existing fuel supplies and be readily available," he told Reuters.

SLASH AND BURN
Although the jatropha industry could create millions of jobs in the poorest countries in Africa and Asia, some warn more research is needed into the economic, social and environmental impacts of jatropha before production is ramped up.

"If you divert land from food production for jatropha, then you reduce the amount of food on the market ... On the other hand, you might increase local income to buy food. The impact is not that clear cut," Jean-Philippe Denruyter, a director at environmental group WWF, said.

Indigenous leaders from the Philippine island of Mindanao warned in December that 500 hectares of jatropha had already displaced food crops like rice, corn and bananas.

Deforestation for palm oil crops, which can also be refined into biofuel, has also triggered vast fires through slash-and-burn farming in Indonesia.

"All of the airlines have very strict sustainability criteria, one of them being no deforestation," said Sanjay Pingle, president of Terasol Energy, the firm that provided the biofuels for the Continental, Air New Zealand and Japan flights.

"All of the jatropha sourced for these flights came from marginal land not suitable for food production, that had no significant indigenous growth on it for at least 20 years."

Scientists say deforestation accounts for a fifth of global greenhouse gas emissions, while aviation makes up 2-4 percent.

OIL MOVES
Through a joint venture with BP, London-based biofuel company D1 Oils has planted over 250,000 hectares of jatropha, or around a quarter of the current world supply.

D1-BP Fuel Crops expects to plant 1 million hectares over the next four years, but D1 Oils' Graham Prince said most seeds are currently being replanted instead of being crushed for oil.
"There's actually relatively little jatropha oil around at the moment," he said.

Falling crude oil prices also mean jatropha may not be able to compete on price, which could lead to a slow down in production.

Crude oil traded up to $147 a barrel last summer, making jatropha a bargain alternative. But crude is now trading below $50 a barrel.

"If you look at jatropha's cost of production, competing with crude oil and without subsidies, you're looking at between $50 to $80 a barrel," Pingle said.

He added: "In our view, we're at least five years away from being able to have jatropha oil available on a regular basis in some sort of small blending level."

Government funding is crucial if the fuel is to consistently compete with kerosene, Andrew Herdman, director general of the Association of Asia Pacific Airlines, said.

"(Biofuel) relies on subsidies for crops and refineries. Even with all the advantages, it still struggles to compete on price," he told Reuters.

He added that emissions targets were not industry specific, meaning aviation could be snubbed and resources moved to cheaper sectors such as road transport if it was deemed too expensive.

"The object is to reduce carbon emissions overall, not to reduce emissions in every sector. There is an argument to direct biofuels to less onerous applications," he said.

But he concluded that obstacles could be overcome.

"We have to be realistic about timescales, but two or three years ago it looked 20 years away. Now, I think we are two or three years away (from commercial viability)," he said.
(Editing by Sue Thomas)
© Thomson Reuters 2009 All rights reserved

at 4:50 AM

7 March 2009

World Rainforest Movement

Friends of the Earth International

PRESS RELEASE

Negative impacts of monoculture tree plantations on women

Three new case studies on three continents

7 March 2009 – Three new case studies on the impacts of monoculture tree plantations on women in Nigeria, Papua New Guinea and Brazil will be released on 8 March, International Women's Day.

The case studies (1) and a related short video (2), available online at www.wrm.org [and www.foei.org], are jointly published by the World Rainforest Movement (WRM) and Friends of the Earth International.

International Women's Day is an important day for celebrating the crucial role played by women in our societies and reminding ourselves that we still have a long way to go to achieve gender justice, equality and equity in our societies.

The three new case studies carried out on three continents demonstrate that women who live near monoculture tree plantations are very negatively affected by them.

NIGERIA

The case study from Nigeria is focused on the Iguóbazuwa Forest Reserve, a highly biologically diverse region in the southwest whose crops long supplied food for around 20,000 people. The area has undergone drastic changes since the arrival of the French transnational company Michelin in December 2007. All of the area's natural wealth was destroyed to plant rubber trees.

A local woman described the situation like this: "Michelin came with its evil bulldozers and destroyed everything I had planted. I was crying…I was trying to stop them; they threatened to bulldoze me with their caterpillar if I didn't allow them."

BRAZIL

The case study from Brazil states that tree plantations established to produce pulp for paper-making are continuously expanding, causing severe impacts on communities and the environment. Three big corporations have moved into southern Brazil to satisfy the enormous demand for paper, mostly in Western countries: Swedish-Finnish forestry giant Stora Ensa, and Brazilian-owned Aracruz and Votorantim.

In Southern Brazil women from the grassroots organization Via Campesina have been leading protests against the "green desert" development model since 2006 in order to protect food sovereignty and the rights of local communities. According to a woman interviewed in Southern Brazil, "the companies only give work to men. The few jobs they give to women are the ones that pay the least." Even in the case of men, the companies tend to hire workers from outside the region, and this influx of strangers invariably leads to a rise in sexual harassment cases.

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

In Papua New Guinea, monoculture oil palm plantations are destroying the forests, biodiversity local communities livelihoods. Palm oil produced in Papua New Guinea is primarily exported, especially to the European Union where it is used to produce soap, cosmetics, processed foods and agrofuels.

In some Papua New Guinea communities women are no longer able to grow food crops, and they are exposed to dangerous pesticides.

"Health is a very big concern in our place right now we breathe in the chemicals... I'm pretty sure we are inhaling dangerous substances and definitely are dying every minute. Some women had babies who developed asthma when they were just one or two months old. Chemicals are killing us; we will all die sooner" said a woman from the community of Saga.

IN GENERAL

Monoculture tree plantations are primarily geared towards meeting the high levels of consumption in Western countries. The European Union plays a key role in this, due to policies that promote plantations and that benefit, above all, the transnational corporations that export, process and market the products harvested from the plantations.

By publishing these new case studies, WRM and FoEI want to expose the unsustainability of policies promoting tree plantations that do not benefit local communities, and to highlight the crucial role of food sovereignty, collective rights and gender equality as the foundations of sustainable societies.

(1) The summarized version of the report is available at: http://www.wrm.org.uy/subjects/women/summaryreport.pdf

The full report is available at: http://www.wrm.org.uy/subjects/women/fullreport.pdf

(2) The video can be acceded at: http://www.wrm.org.uy/Videos/Women_Voices.html

------------------------------------

at 7:48 AM

Dear colleagues,

I have recently joined the list and wanted to introduce myself. My name is Dr. Glen Barry and I am the President of a small NGO that makes environmental portals called Ecological Internet. We have been active for many years in highlighting concerns with biofuels, were the first to campaign internationally on Indonesian palm oil, and for many years have worked collaboratively with biofuelwatch whom we greatly admired.

Currently I am also doing some work with Regenwald on agrofuel/biofuel policy, with a focus upon identifying policy pressure points in the U.S. Towards this end I have unveiled a biofuel/agrofuel RSS/XML newsfeed that may be of interest to you all here at:

http://www.climateark.org/rss/biofuel.xml

Feel free to use this newsfeed in your news aggregator software and/or on your web sites. You can also add biofuel, climate and other environmental news to the database yourself at:

http://www.climateark.org/shared/add/

Then your news items will appear at http://www.climateark.org/shared/news/ , on the front page at http://www.climateark.org/ and in the RSS/XML newsfeeds listed at: http://www.climateark.org/rss/

I really appreciate this organization space and from time to time with have other items to share. I welcome this and further opportunities to work more closely together.

Warm regards,
Dr. Glen Barry

--
Dr. Glen Barry
President
Ecological Internet, Inc.
PO Box 9704
Seattle, WA 98109
USA
GlenBarry@EcologicalInternet.org

Ecological Internet's projects include:

EcoEarth.Info -- http://www.EcoEarth.Info/
Climate Ark -- http://www.climateark.org/
Forests.org -- http://forests.org/
Water Conserve -- http://www.waterconserve.org/
Rainforest Portal -- http://www.rainforestportal.org/
Ocean Conserve -- http://www.oceanconserve.org/
My.EcoEarth.Info -- http://My.EcoEarth.info/
New Earth Rising (new e-zine) -- http://www.newearthrising.org/

------------------------------------

at 6:25 AM

http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/06/slugfest-brewing-over-
higher-ethanol-blends/

March 6, 2009, 12:00 pm
A Slugfest Over Higher Ethanol Blends
By Kate Galbraith

Wesley Clark, the retired general and erstwhile presidential candidate, has thrown his weight behind an ethanol industry group lobbying for higher ethanol blends in gasoline. Not everyone is happy about it.

The struggling ethanol industry is flexing its political clout to try to change government regulations on how much ethanol can be blended into gasoline.

Today retired General Wesley Clark, a onetime presidential candidate who now is the co-chairman of an ethanol industry group, asked the Environmental Protection Agency to raise the limit on how much ethanol can be blended into gasoline. The limit is 10 percent; General Clark and his group, Growth Energy, want the amount raised as high as 15 percent.

The American Coalition for Ethanol and other industry groups also submitted petitions today.

Many environmentalists, however, don't like corn ethanol.

"This is a likely prescription for more pollution –- and more engine damage," wrote Frank O'Donnell of Clean Air Watch on his blog today.

Indeed, many opponents of corn ethanol argue that it creates plenty of greenhouse gas emissions, partly because of the fertilizer needed, and partly because in their view, growing corn as an energy feedstock displaces food crops, and forces an outward expansion of agriculture into precious forest land abroad.

The ethanol industry says the jury is still out on claims about "indirect land use," which are the subject of a long-running debate.

I have been watching the "blend wall" topic for a while, and last November I asked Gregory Shaver, an assistant professor in the School of Mechanical Engineering at Purdue University, for his view on E15.

"From an engine/vehicle performance point of view there are no 'show stoppers' in going from 10 to 15 percent in a modern vehicle," Mr. Shaver wrote in an e-mail message. "Ethanol is less energy dense than gasoline, so I would expect a very modest reduction in the miles per gallon."

Plenty of drivers already complain that the 10 percent ethanol blend reduces their mileage, and boaters and other users of small engines worry about complications that result from ethanol's ability to attract water when the fuel is stored.

Kris Kiser, the executive vice president at the Outdoor Power Equipment Institute, warned today of "serious concerns" about E15.

"We need to acknowledge that current equipment — including boats, chainsaws, lawn mowers, snow mobiles, motorcycles, generators and other small engine equipment — may be permanently damaged and poses a safety risk if E15 fuel is used," Mr. Kiser said in a statement. "Current equipment is neither designed, built or warrantied for mid- level blends."

Meanwhile, in California, a fight is brewing over the state's proposed "low-carbon fuel standard." California's Air Resources Board issued a proposal about the standards on Thursday, and some ethanol makers were enraged. They fear that concerns about the "lifecycle emissions" from corn ethanol — that indirect land use question, again — will disadvantage corn ethanol.

Tom Koehler, spokesman for Pacific Ethanol, told The Los Angeles Times that the Air Resources Board's proposal was "a perversion of science and a prescription for disaster."

----------------------------------------------
Brian Tokar
Institute for Social Ecology
P.O. Box 93
Plainfield, VT 05667

* See our brand new website at social-ecology.org!

------------------------------------

at 3:51 PM

Revenge of the rainforest

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/revenge-of-the-rainforest-1638524.html

The Amazon has long been the lungs of the world. But now comes dramatic evidence that we cannot rely on it in the fight against climate change.

By Steve Connor
It covers an area 25 times bigger than Britain, is home to a bewildering concentration of flora and fauna and is often described as the "lungs of the world" for its ability to absorb vast amounts of carbon dioxide through its immense photosynthetic network of trees and leaves.

The Amazon rainforest is one of the biggest and most important living stores of carbon on the planet through its ability to convert atmospheric carbon dioxide into solid carbon, kept locked in the trunks of rainforest trees for centuries.

But this massive natural "sink" for carbon cannot be relied on to continue absorbing carbon dioxide in perpetuity, a study shows. Researchers have found that, for a period in 2005, the Amazon rainforest actually slipped into reverse gear and started to emit more carbon than it absorbed.

Four years ago, a sudden and intense drought in the Amazonian dry season created the sort of conditions that give climate scientists nightmares. Instead of being a net absorber of about two billion tons of carbon dioxide, the forest became a net producer of the greenhouse gas, to the tune of about three billion tons.

The additional quantity of carbon dioxide left in the atmosphere after the drought – some five billion tons – exceeded the annual man-made emissions of Europe and Japan combined. What happened in the dry season of 2005 was a stark reminder of how quickly the factors affecting global warming can change.

"For years, the Amazon forest has been helping to slow down climate change," said Professor Oliver Phillips, from the University of Leeds and the lead author of the study in the journal Science. "But relying on this subsidy from nature is extremely dangerous. The emission of five billion tons of carbon dioxide was huge. It meant that a major part of the biosphere had switched from one function to another, from a carbon sink to a carbon source.

"It shows what could happen if droughts become more frequent, and climate models suggest that Amazonia will get warmer and so put more water stress on vegetation. If the Earth's carbon sinks slow or go into reverse, as our results show is possible, carbon dioxide levels will rise even faster. Deeper cuts in emissions will be required to stabilise our climate."

The study, which involved nearly 70 scientists from 13 countries, examined more than 100,000 trees in 100 forest plots. The scientists had been monitoring changes to the girth of each tree over a period of between 20 and 30 years, so were able to calculate with some precision the effect of the 2005 drought on tree growth.

The drought itself was unusual. Normally, droughts in the Amazon are the result of changes caused by El Niño, the warm Pacific Ocean current, but the one in 2005 was a result of higher-than-average temperatures at the sea surface of the tropical North Atlantic.

"The pattern of the drought was shorter but sharper and more intense than usual," Professor Phillips said. "It affected the southern two-thirds of Amazonia and especially the south-west through reduced rainfall and higher-than-average temperatures. It was the kind of drought we expect to see in a globally warming world. On the ground, it was hard to see because you had to detect by measuring lots of trees over a larger area of land. There was not a massive die-off of trees."

The researchers found that the drought sharply reversed the decades-long growth of the trees. The normal die-off rate of the trees, about 1 per cent per year, doubled to 2 per cent, and the continued expansion of tree girths effectively stopped.

"Visually, most of the forest appeared little affected, but our records prove tree death rates accelerated," Professor Phillips went on. "Because the region is so vast, even small ecological effects can scale-up to a large impact on the planet's carbon cycle."

Humans worldwide are estimated emit about 32 billion tons of carbon dioxide each year but just less than half of this, about 15 billion tons, remains in the atmosphere. The rest is absorbed by natural carbon sinks in the ocean and on land.

Scientists have calculated that the world's tropical forests collectively absorb about 4.8 billion tons of carbon dioxide every year, with the Amazon being the single biggest rainforest sink. Amazonia alone is estimated to store about 100 billion tons of carbon locked up in its trees.

This is why the climate change negotiations in Copenhagen later this year will focus heavily on what can be done to save rainforests to ameliorate the effects of man-made emissions of carbon dioxide.

Lee White, the chief climate change scientist for the government of Gabon, said: "To get an idea of the value of the sink, the removal of nearly five billion tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere by intact tropical forests, based on realistic prices for a ton of carbon, should be valued at about £13bn a year. This is a compelling argument for conserving tropical forests." Dr White was a co-author of another study last month on the role played by African tropical forests in processing carbon dioxide.

Professor Phillips added. "It's surprising to see how sensitive the system appears to be. This is the first time anyone has tried to measure the impact of a big tropical drought on the ground. Now we've quantified it and, yes, there's a specificity there and it wouldn't take a huge change to shut down this thing and switch it to an overall source of carbon dioxide."

The Amazon: Facts and figures

* The Amazon rainforest covers an area of some 600 million hectares (2.3 million sq miles), an area of land 25 times bigger than Britain. It is the biggest rainforest on Earth, responsible for about 40 per cent of the world's rainforest absorption of carbon dioxide.

* Satellite surveys indicate that about 5,800 sq miles of the Amazon rainforest is burnt or cleared each year to make way for cattle ranching, farming or other kinds of development.

* More than half of the world's estimated 10 million species of plants, animals and insects live in tropical rainforests. One-fifth of the world's fresh water moves through the Amazon basin.

* Scientists estimate that there are at least 100 billion tons of carbon stored in the trees of the Amazon rainforest and each year the Amazon absorbs about 2 billion tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

* During the extreme drought of 2005, the Amazon became a net producer of carbon dioxide, releasing an estimated 3 billion tons of the greenhouse gas into the atmosphere – a net increase of 5 billion tons.

__._,_.___

at 3:38 AM

Hoon speech – 4th March 2009

“So one of the big challenges that many of you are embracing is to make commercial aviation biofuels a reality within five years and a major fuel source by 2050. But before I move on I should just stress, what is obvious to everyone I think, that these future fuels must be safe, environmentally sustainable, fit for purpose, economically viable and scaleable. Selecting the right feed stock and production process will not only help secure our freedom to fly, to do business and visit friends but will help generate a whole new low carbon business sector.”

Full speech - http://www.dft.gov.uk/press/speechesstatements/speeches/omega

__._,_.___

__,_._,___

at 4:14 PM

Biofuel subsidies in Asia; the link between corn subsidies and obesity; investment incentives in Asia

Subsidies for biofuels in China, Malaysia and Indonesia

Three recent reports by the Global Subsidies Initiative (GSI) survey subsidy policies for biofuels in China, Malaysia and Indonesia.

The reports marks a shift in focus for the GSI's "Biofuels At What Cost?" series, from biofuel subsidy policies in OECD countries—which account for the lions share of global government support for biofuels—to that of certain developing countries that have stood poised to capitalize on heightened interest in these renewable fuels.

Indonesia and Malaysia, in particular, contemplated ambitious biofuel policies several years ago, only to find that high commodity prices over much of 2007 and 2008 put biofuels largely beyond the reach of any but the wealthiest nations that can afford to maintain subsidies, explains the GSI.

Nonetheless, Indonesia and Malaysia have spent public funds on promoting biofuels. According to Indonesian government figures, total government allocations for biofuel development between 2006 and June 2008 reached up to IDR 1 500 trillion (US$1.6 billion). However, the GSI notes that it is unlikely that all of these funds were disbursed. In Malaysia, meanwhile, support has been limited to RM 60 million (US$16 million) in low-interest loans in 2004, and RM 12 million (US$3.3 million) in federal grants for demonstration projects in 2006.

Both countries continue to consider expanding their incentives for biofuels, in particular by instituting blending mandates (i.e., mandating that gasoline and diesel be blended with a certain percentage of ethanol or biodiesel). However, the GSI cautions against this policy, on the grounds that the cost could far outweigh the benefits in terms of reduced GHG emissions or improved energy security, the two primary rationales behind biofuel subsidies.

"Indonesia's experience with petroleum pricing has clearly demonstrated that fuel subsidies can become a major drain on the economy," writes the GSI. "Letting fuel prices rise to levels prevailing in international markets would reduce consumption and improve efficiency, resulting in improved energy security. Adding an additional layer of subsidies for biofuels to an already distorted system makes little economic sense."

Similar advice is offered to China. That country had already backtracked on some of its earlier plans for biofuels, once it became clear that an expansion of certain biofuel stocks would weaken food security. Construction of maize-based ethanol plants has been halted, and the Chinese government is promoting the use of non-grain feedstocks grown on marginal land.

Nonetheless, the GSI warns that converting "marginal" lands for feedstock production could disrupt natural ecosystems, as well as hurt vulnerable rural communities. China should proceed carefully "to ensure that biofuels genuinely do not compete with food or undermine the government's social or environmental objectives," says the GSI.

Links to all three reports can be found from the GSI website at http://www.globalsubsidies.org/en/research/biofuel-subsidies

__._,_.___

__,_._,___

at 1:34 AM

Letter as from : http://www.ascension-publishing.com/BIZ/California110scientists.pdf

March 2, 2009

The Honorable Arnold Schwarzenegger

Office of the Governor

State Capitol

Sacramento, CA 95814

RE: Opposed to Selective Enforcement of Indirect Effects in CA LCFS

Dear Governor Schwarzenegger,

We are writing regarding the California Air Resources Board’s (ARB) ongoing development of the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS). With the rulemaking nearing its final stage, we would like to offer comments on the critical issue of how to address the issue of indirect, market-mediated effects.

As you are aware, ARB staff continues to push a regulation that includes an indirect land use change (iLUC) penalty for biofuels. To be clear, this effect is not the direct land conversion from growing crops for fuel. It is the alleged indirect, price-induced land conversion effect that could occur in the world economy as a result of any increase in demand for agricultural production. The ability to predict this alleged effect depends on using an economic model to predict worldwide carbon effects, and the outcomes are unusually sensitive to the assumptions made by the researchers conducting the model runs. In addition, this field of science is in its nascent stage, is controversial in much of the scientific community, and is only being enforced against biofuels in the proposed LCFS.

The push to include iLUC in the carbon score for biofuel is driven at least partially by concerns about global deforestation. There is no question that global deforestation is a problem, and that indirect effects must be looked at very carefully to ensure that future fuels dramatically reduce GHG emissions without unintended consequences. The scientific community is actively seeking ways to mitigate deforestation, enhance efficient land use, feed the poor and malnourished and reduce global warming. Because of the complex and important issues involved, it is critical that we rely on science-based decision-making to properly determine and evaluate the indirect effects of all fuels, as well as any predicted changes in agricultural and forestry practices. In a general sense, it is worth noting that most primary forest deforestation is currently occurring in places like Brazil, Indonesia and Russia as a direct result of logging, cattle ranching and subsistence farming. Adding an iLUC penalty to biofuels will hold the sector accountable to decision-making far outside of its control (i.e. for decisions related to the supply chains of other products), and is unlikely to have any effect on protecting forests or mitigating GHG emissions as a result of land management practices. But because indirect effects are not enforced against any other fuel in the proposed LCFS, an iLUC penalty will chill investment in both conventional and advanced biofuel production, including advanced biofuels made from dedicated energy feedstocks such as switchgrass and miscanthus, which have the potential to make the agricultural sector far less resource-intensive and could provide a significant carbon negative source of transportation fuel.

More than 20 scientists wrote to the ARB in June 2008 suggesting that more time and analysis is required to truly understand the iLUC effect of biofuels. In addition to iLUC, we know very little about the indirect effects of other fuels, and therefore cannot establish a proper relative value for indirect effects among the various compliance fuels and petroleum under the LCFS. In consideration of this and other rulemaking activities and research conducted since June 2008, we, the undersigned 111 scientists, continue to believe that the enforcement of any indirect effect, including iLUC, is highly premature at this time, based on the following two principles:

1) The Science Is Far Too Limited and Uncertain For Regulatory Enforcement

ARB staff is proposing to enforce a penalty on all biofuels for indirect land use change as determined by a computable general equilibrium (CGE) model called GTAP. This model is set to a static world economic condition (e.g. 2006), then shocked with a volume of biofuel to create the perceived land conversion result. The modeling outcome is applicable to the set of assumptions used for that particular run, but is not particularly relevant when there is a shift in policy, weather, world economic conditions or other economic, social or political variables. For example, by definition, these models assume zero innovation, which means they could not have predicted the 500% increase in corn yields since 1940, the tripling of wheat yields since 1960, or the 700% increase in yield that can occur if farmers in developing countries adopt higher yield seed varieties and more efficient farming practices. This inability to predict innovation is not limited to agriculture; similar attempts to use economic equilibrium models in other emerging markets like telephony or computing would have been equally unsuccessful. As discussed, the model runs are unusually sensitive to the assumptions made by the modelers, which is why the iLUC modeling results published thus far differ by a factor of at least four, and under some scenarios, are actually zero for today’s biofuels. Even at this late stage in the LCFS process, the GTAP model runs still do not reflect basic on-the-ground realities, such as the use of marginal and idle lands. They do not reflect recent articles about the potential for energy crops to absorb carbon at higher rates than previously thought. A partial solution to this problem is to conduct a series of model runs with different assumptions and adjustments. Unfortunately, this has not occurred at ARB (researchers have run limited sensitivity analysis within the current set of primary assumptions). We are only in the very early stages of assessing and understanding the indirect, market-mediated effects of different fuels. Indirect effects have never been enforced against any product in the world. California should not be setting a wide-reaching carbon regulation based on one set of assumptions with clear omissions relevant to the real world.

2) Indirect Effects Are Often Misunderstood And Should Not Be Enforced Selectively

In basic terms, there is only one type of carbon impact from a commercial fuel: its direct effect. Direct carbon effects are those directly attributable to the production of the fuel, which in the case of biofuel includes the land converted to produce the biofuel feedstock. Indirect effects, on the other hand, are those that allegedly happen in the marketplace as a result of shifting behaviors. As such, penalizing a biofuel gallon for direct and indirect land use change is the equivalent of ascribing the carbon impact of land

2

converted to produce biofuel feedstock as well as the land needed to produce another, allegedly displaced supply chain (e.g. soy production for food). Leaving aside the issue of whether these effects can be predicted with precision or accuracy, or whether such a penalty is appropriate for the LCFS, it is clear that indirect effects should not be enforced against only one fuel pathway. Petroleum, for example, has a price-induced effect on commodities, the agricultural sector and other markets. Electric cars will increase pressure on the grid, potentially increasing the demand for marginal electricity production from coal, natural gas or residual oil. Yet, to date, ARB is proposing to enforce indirect effects against biofuel production only. This proposal creates an asymmetry or bias in a regulation designed to create a level playing field. It violates the fundamental presumption that all fuels in a performance-based standard should be judged the same way (i.e. identical LCA boundaries). Enforcing different compliance metrics against different fuels is the equivalent of picking winners and losers, which is in direct conflict with the ambition of the LCFS.

Proponents of iLUC inclusion claim that all regulations are uncertain. This is true. However, the level of uncertainty implicated here far outweighs that found in other regulatory fields. For example, the European Parliament declared in December that the iLUC of biofuel “is not currently expressed in a form that is immediately usable by economic operators.”¹They decided not to incorporate iLUC penalties in their biofuel programs and initiated further analysis of the issue. It is also not enough to suggest that iLUC is a significant indirect effect, while other indirect effects are likely smaller. The magnitude of the alleged iLUC effect ranges from zero to very large, depending on the assumptions utilized. This is also likely true for other fuels, especially with regard to the marginal gallons of petroleum that are coming into the marketplace, such as heavy oil, enhanced oil recovery, and tar sands. Either way, even small effects are significant under the LCFS. Just a few g/MJ separate corn ethanol from petroleum in the proposed regulation, and advanced biofuel is very close to CNG and hydrogen under certain scenarios. We agree with the sentiment expressed by many experts that while indirect effects are important to understand, enforcing them prematurely and selectively on only certain fuels in a performance-based standard could have major negative consequences, even for GHG mitigation. Put another way, no level of certainty justifies asymmetrical enforcement of indirect effects.

Given the limited time, a reasonable solution to the challenges discussed above is to submit an LCFS regulation based on direct carbon effects (including direct land use impacts) and support a rigorous 24-month analysis of the indirect, market-mediated effects of petroleum and the entire spectrum of alternative fuels, regardless of source. The analysis could be conducted in collaboration with other institutions and governments implementing carbon-based fuel standards, and should include a consideration of the best way to prevent carbon effects outside the primary system boundary, including promoting sound land use practice with more direct policy solutions. This approach is consistent with the principle that all fuels should be judged through the same lens in a performance-based standard, as well as the approach taken by the European Parliament. It is worth noting that an LCFS

¹http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P6-TA-2008 0613+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN&language=EN#BKMD-27

3

policy based on direct effects already favors non-land intensive, advanced biofuel production over conventional biofuel production.

The LCFS provides an incredible opportunity to reduce the carbon intensity of transportation fuel and promote a more sustainable transportation fuel marketplace. We commend your leadership and the ARB staff for their ability to process a challenging set of scientific data resources into a workable regulation. However, it is critical that the LCFS stay on course with regard to its primary mission of establishing a level, carbon-based playing field for all fuels.

We are writing this letter as researchers in the field of biomass to bioenergy conversion, but the signatories do not represent the official views of the home institutions, universities, companies, the Department of Energy, the United States Department of Agriculture, or any of the National Laboratories. We look forward to working with ARB to ensure that the regulation reflects the best science available, and takes a policy approach that is balanced across all fuel pathways.

Sincerely,

Blake A. Simmons, Ph.D.

Vice-President, Deconstruction Division

Joint BioEnergy Institute

Manager, Biomass Science and Conversion Technology

Sandia National Laboratories

Jay D. Keasling, Ph.D.

Director

Physical Biosciences Division

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

Hubbard Howe Distinguished Professor of Biochemical Engineering

Departments of Chemical Engineering and Bioengineering

University of California, Berkeley

Chief Executive Officer

Joint BioEnergy Institute

Harvey W. Blanch, Ph.D.

Chief Science and Technology Officer

Joint BioEnergy Institute

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

Member, National Academy of Engineering

Merck Professor of Chemical Engineering

University of California, Berkeley

4

Robert B. Goldberg, Ph.D.

Distinguished HHMI University Professor &

Member, National Academy of Sciences

Department of Cell, Developmental, & Molecular Biology

University of California, Los Angeles

Pam Ronald, Ph.D.

Vice-President, Feedstocks Division

Joint BioEnergy Institute

Department of Plant Pathology

University of California, Davis

Paul D. Adams, Ph.D.

Deputy Division Director, Physical Biosciences Division,

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

Adjunct Professor, Department of Bioengineering, U.C. Berkeley

Vice President for Technology, the Joint BioEnergy Institute

Head, Berkeley Center for Structural Biology

Bruce E. Dale, Ph. D.

Distinguished University Professor

Dept. of Chemical Engineering & Materials Science

Michigan State University

Charles E. Wyman, Ph.D.

Ford Motor Company Chair in Environmental Engineering Center for Environmental Research and Technology (CE-CERT)

Professor of Chemical and Environmental Engineering Bourns College of Engineering

University of California, Riverside

Alvin J.M. Smucker, Ph.D.

Professor of Soil Biophysics

MSU Distinguished Faculty

Michigan State University

Greg Stephanopoulos, Ph.D.

W.H. Dow Professor of Chemical Engineering and Biotechnology

Department of Chemical Engineering

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Sharon Shoemaker, Ph.D.

Director

California Institute for Food and Agriculture Research

University of California, Davis

5

Stephen R. Kaffka, Ph.D.

Extension Agronomist

Department of Plant Sciences

University of California, Davis

Terry Hazen, Ph.D.

Director of Microbial Communities

Joint BioEnergy Institute

Scientist/Department Head

Ecology Department

Earth Sciences Division

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

Lonnie O. Ingram, Ph.D.

Director, Florida Center for Renewable Chemicals and Fuels

Dept. of Microbiology and Cell Science

University of Florida

George W. Huber, Ph.D.

Armstrong Professional Development Professor

Department of Chemical Engineering

University of Massachusetts

Kenneth G. Cassman, Ph.D.

Director, Nebraska Center for Energy Science Research

Heuermann Professor of Agronomy

University of Nebraska, Lincoln

Om Parkash (Dhankher), Ph.D.

Assistant Professor

Department of Plant, Soil and Insect Sciences

University of Massachusetts, Amherst

Cole Gustafson, Ph.D.

Professor

Department of Agribusiness and Applied Economics

North Dakota State University

Robert C. Brown, Ph.D.

Anson Martson Distinguished Professor in Engineering

Gary and Donna Hoover Chair in Mechanical Engineering Professor, Mechanical Engineering, Chemical and Biological Engineering, and Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering Director, Bioeconomy Institute Director, Center for Sustainable Environmental Technologies

Iowa State University

6

John Ralph, Ph.D.

Professor, Department of Biochemistry and Biological Systems Engineering

University of Wisconsin-Madison

Daniel G. De La Torre Ugarte, Ph.D.

Professor, Agricultural Policy Analysis Center

Department of Agricultural Economics

The University of Tennessee

Michael A. Henson, Ph.D.

Co-Director

Institute for Massachusetts Biofuels Research (TIMBR)

University of Massachusetts, Amherst

Danny J. Schnell, Ph.D.

Professor and Head

Dept. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology

University of Massachusetts, Amherst

Jeffrey L. Blanchard, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor, Department of Microbiology

Morrill Science Center

University of Massachusetts, Amherst

Y-H Percival Zhang, Ph.D.

Biological Systems Engineering Department

Virginia Tech University

Venkatesh Balan, Ph.D.,

Assistant Professor

Department of Chemical Engineering and Material Science

Michigan State University

Gemma Reguera, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor of Microbiology and Molecular Genetics

Michigan State University

Wayne R. Curtis, Ph.D.

Professor of Chemical Engineering

Penn State University

James C. Liao, Ph.D.

Chancellor's Professor

Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering

University of California, Los Angeles

7

Brian G. Fox, Ph.D.

Marvin Johnson Professor of Fermentation Biochemistry

Department of Biochemistry

Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center

University of Wisconsin

Robert Landick, Ph.D.

Dept. of Biochemistry

Univ. of Wisconsin-Madison

Prof. dr. ir. Christian V. Stevens

Professor Chemical Modification of Renewable Resources

Faculty of Bioscience Engineering

Director of the Center of Renewable Resources

Ghent University, Belgium

Alexander J. Malkin, Ph.D.

Scientific Capability Leader for BioNanoSciences

Physical and Life Sciences Directorate

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

Dennis J. Miller, Ph.D.

Department of Chemical Engineering and Materials Science

Michigan State University

David Keating, Ph.D.

Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center

University of Wisconsin-Madison

Susan Leschine, Ph.D.

Professor

University of Massachusetts, Amherst

Qteros, Inc.

David T. Damery, Ph.D.

Associate Professor

Dept. of Natural Resources Conservation

University of Massachusetts, Amherst

Kenneth Keegstra, Ph.D.

University Distinguished Professor

Department of Plant Biology

Michigan State University

8

Tobias I. Baskin, Ph.D.

Biology Department

University of Massachusetts

Christopher M. Saffron, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor

Dept. of Biosystems and Agricultural Engineering

Dept. of Forestry

Michigan State University

Emily Heaton, Ph.D.

Asst. Prof. of Agronomy

Iowa State University

Kurt D. Thelen, Ph.D.

Associate Professor

Dept. of Crop & Soil Sciences

Michigan State University

Bin Yang, Ph.D.

Associate Research Engineer

Bourns College of Engineering

Center for Environmental Research and Technology (CE-CERT)

University of California, Riverside

Andrea Festuccia, Ph.D.

Professor

University of Rome-Italy

Francesca del Vecchio, Ph.D.

Professor

Cambridge University

St. John Biochemistry Department

Cambridge, UK

David Shonnard, Ph.D.

Department of Chemical Engineering

Michigan Technological University

R. Mark Worden, Ph.D.

Professor

Dept. of Chemical Engineering and Materials Science

Michigan State University

9

Satish Joshi, Ph.D.

Associate Professor

Department of Agricultural Economics

Michigan State University

Timothy Volk, Ph.D.

Senior Research Associate

346 Illick Hall

Faculty of Forest and Natural Resources Management

SUNY-ESF

Henrik Scheller, Ph.D.

Director of Plant Cell Wall Biosynthesis

Joint BioEnergy Institute

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

Joshua L. Heazlewood, Ph.D.

Director of Systems Biology

Joint BioEnergy Institute

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

Dominique Loque, Ph.D.

Director of Cell Wall Engineering

Joint BioEnergy Institute

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

David A. Grantz, Ph.D.

Director, University of California Kearney Agricultural Center

Plant Physiologist and Extension Air Quality Specialist Department of Botany and Plant Sciences and Air Pollution Research Center University of California at Riverside

Rajat Sapra, Ph.D.

Director of Enzyme Engineering

Joint BioEnergy Institute

Biomass Science and Conversion Technology

Sandia National Laboratories

Masood Hadi, Ph.D.

Director of High-Throughput Sample Prep

Joint BioEnergy Institute

Biomass Science and Conversion Technology

Sandia National Laboratories

10

Swapnil Chhabra, Ph.D.

Director of Host Engineering

Joint BioEnergy Institute

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

Seema Singh, Ph.D.

Director of Dynamic Studies of Biomass Pretreatment

Joint BioEnergy Institute

Biomass Science and Conversion Technology

Sandia National Laboratories

Bradley Holmes, Ph.D.

Director of Biomass Pretreatment and Process Engineering

Joint BioEnergy Institute

Biomass Science and Conversion Technology

Sandia National Laboratories

Manfred Auer, Ph.D.

Director Physical Analysis

Joint BioEnergy Institute

Physical Biosciences Division

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

Phil Hugenholtz, Ph.D.

Senior Scientist

Joint BioEnergy Institute

Joint Genome Institute

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

Chris Petzold, Ph.D.

Scientist

Joint BioEnergy Institute

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

Steven Singer, Ph.D.

Scientist

Joint BioEnergy Institute

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

Michael Thelen, Ph.D.

Senior Scientist

Joint BioEnergy Institute

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

11

David A. Grantz, Ph.D.

Director, University of California Kearney Agricultural Center

Plant Physiologist and Extension Air Quality Specialist Department of Botany and Plant Sciences and Air Pollution Research Center University of California at Riverside

David Reichmuth, Ph.D.

Scientist, Sandia National Laboratories

Amy J. Powell, Ph.D.

Scientist, Department of Computational Biology

Sandia National Laboratories

Anthe George, Ph.D.

Post-doctoral Fellow

Joint BioEnergy Institute

Biomass Science and Conversion Technology

Sandia National Laboratories

Özgül Persil Çetinkol

Post-doctoral Fellow

Joint BioEnergy Institute

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

Supratim Datta, Ph.D.

Post-doctoral Fellow

Joint BioEnergy Institute

Biomass Science and Conversion Technology

Sandia National Laboratories

Zhiwei Chen, Ph.D.

Post-doctoral Fellow

Joint BioEnergy Institute

Biomass Science and Conversion Technology

Sandia National Laboratories

Joshua Park, Ph.D.

Post-doctoral Fellow

Joint BioEnergy Institute

Biomass Science and Conversion Technology

Sandia National Laboratories

Chenlin Li, Ph.D.

Post-doctoral Fellow

Joint BioEnergy Institute

Biomass Science and Conversion Technology

Sandia National Laboratories

12

Hanbin Liu, Ph.D.

Post-doctoral Fellow

Joint BioEnergy Institute

Biomass Science and Conversion Technology

Sandia National Laboratories

Richard Hamilton, Ph.D.

Chief Executive Officer

Ceres, Inc.

Richard B. Flavell, Ph.D.

Chief Scientific Officer

Ceres, Inc.

Robert J. Wooley, Ph.D., P.E.

Director, Process Engineering

Abengoa

Tim Eggeman, Ph.D., P.E.

Chief Technology Officer, Founder

ZeaChem Inc.

Dan W. Verser, Ph.D.

Co-Founder

EVP R&D

ZeaChem Inc

José Goldemberg, Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus University of São Paulo

São Paulo, Brazil and Former Secretary for the Environment

Neal Gutterson, Ph.D.

President and CEO

Mendel Biotechnology Inc

James Zhang, PhD

VP of Tech Acquisition and Alliances

Mendel Biotechnology Inc

Mark D. Stowers, Ph.D.

Vice President, Research and Development

POET

13

Steen Skjold-Jørgensen, Ph.D.

Vice-President of Biofuels R&D

Novozymes North America, Inc.

Claus Fuglsang, Ph.D.

Senior Director of Bioenergy R&D

Novozymes, Inc.

John Pierce, Ph.D.

Vice President-Technology, DuPont Applied BioSciences &

Director, Biochemical Sciences and Engineering

E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company, Inc.

Mike Arbige, Ph.D.

SVP Technology Genencor,

a Danisco Division

Joe Skurla , Ph.D.

President, DuPont Danisco Cellulosic Ethanol

David Mead, Ph.D.

CEO, Lucigen Corporation

Bernie Steele, Ph.D.

Director, Operations

MBI International

Stephen del Cardayre, Ph.D.

Vice President, Research and Development

LS9, Inc.

Douglas E. Feldman, Ph.D.

Corporate Development

LS9, Inc.

Matt Carr, Ph.D.

Director, Policy

Industrial and Environmental Section

Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO)

R. Michael Raab, Ph.D.

President

Agrivida, Inc.

14

Philip Lessard, Ph.D.

Senior Scientist

Agrivida, Inc.

Jeremy Johnson, Ph.D.

Co-Founder

Agrivida, Inc.

Humberto de la Vega, Ph.D.

Senior Scientist

Agrivida, Inc.

David Morris, Ph.D.

Vice-President

Institute for Local Self Reliance (ILSR)

Gregory Luli, Ph.D.

Vice-President, Research

Verenium Corporation

Kevin A. Gray, Ph.D.

Sr. Director, Biofuels R&D

Verenium Corporation

Gregory Powers, Ph.D.

Executive VP, Research & Development

Verenium Corporation

Keith A. Krutz, Ph.D.

Vice-President, Core Technologies

Verenium Corporation

Nelson R. Barton, Ph.D.

Vice-President, Research and Development

Verenium Corporation

Hiroshi Morihara, Ph.D.

Chairman of HM3 Ethanol

Kulinda Davis, Ph.D.

Director of Product Development

Sapphire Energy

Neal Briggi, Ph.D.

Global Head of Enzymes

Syngenta Biotechnology Inc.

15

Jeffrey Miano, Ph.D.

Global Business Director Biomass

Syngenta Biotechnology, Inc.

Ian Jepson, Ph.D.

Head of Enzyme R&D

Syngenta Biotechnology Inc

Patrick B. Smith, Ph.D.

Consultant, Renewable Industrial Chemicals

Archer Daniels Midland Research

Terry Stone, Ph.D.

Senior Manager, Regulatory Affairs

Syngenta Biotechnology, Inc.

Ramnik Singh, Ph.D.

Director, Cellulosic Processing & Pretreatment

BioEnergy International

Cenan Ozmeral, Ph.D.

SVP and General Manager

BioEnergy International

Cary Veith, Ph.D.

Vice-President

BioEnergy International

Cc: Mary Nichols, Chairman, Air Resources Board

David Crane, Special Advisor for Jobs & Economic Growth, Office of Governor Schwarzenegger

Linda Adams, Secretary, Cal-EPA

A.G. Kawamura, Secretary, California Department of Food & Agriculture

Mike Scheible, Deputy Director, Air Resources Board

Karen Douglas, Chair, California Energy Commission

16

__._,_.___

at 11:20 PM

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/mar/04/travel-and-transport-biofuels

Biofuels do far more harm than good

Yesterday the EU imposed temporary tariffs on US biodiesel because subsidies over there distort trade - but that shouldn't be the only reason to stop the biofuels juggernaut

guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 4 March 2009 17.03 GMT
Article history

Biodiesel in different stages of production

Is there any trade crazier than the liquid biofuel business? Apart from a handful of cars and vans running on used chip fat, it exists only because of government rules and subsidies. So what social benefits do these buy?

Biofuels are supposed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. They do the opposite. Almost all of them produce more greenhouse gases than petrol (gasoline) or diesel, for two reasons:

• emissions of nitrous oxide (a very powerful greenhouse gas) caused by the application of nitrogen fertilisers

• the destruction of grassland, wetland and forest caused by the expansion of agriculture stimulated by this new market (see this study on the biofuel carbon debt and this one on biofuels increasing greenhouse gases

Biofuels - especially biodiesel made from palm oil - also cause other kinds of environmental havoc. They are now among the major drivers of deforestation in Indonesia and Malaysia, wrecking tens of millions of hectares of primary forest and driving orang-utans and other wildlife towards extinction

And they help to starve the world. Last year, the global food crunch was caused by a decline in the world's stockpiles of cereals: they fell by around 53m tonnes. The production of biofuels consumed almost 100m tonnes. The extra millions who died as a result of malnutrition-related diseases when the price of grain rose last year did so largely because we took their food to put in our tanks.

Yet all motorists in this country are forced by law to participate in this crime against humanity. Why? Because, by taking into account only some of the emissions produced by biofuels, the government can claim to be cutting greenhouse gas production, thereby helping it to meet the legally binding targets in its climate change act. Because it means that people can carry on driving without constraint, this policy causes the government no political pain. It is exchanging political convenience at home for the lives of people overseas.

In the US the biofuel business is stimulated by a series of massive subsidies, running into hundreds of millions of dollars a year. Yesterday the European Union imposed temporary anti-dumping tariffs on US biodiesel on the grounds that the subsidies there are distorting trade, unfairly harming biodiesel producers over here. There's already plenty of aggro being generated over the Buy American clause in the US stimulus plan: this new decision could be explosive.

So here's what we gain from the biofuels trade:

1. Global environmental destruction
2. Higher greenhouse gas emissions
3. Mass starvation
4. The loss of hundreds of millions of dollars
5. The prospect of a new trade war.

Is there anyone out there who still thinks they are a good idea?

Monbiot.com

__,_._,___

at 11:20 PM

1. http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/03/04/04greenwire-industry-lobbying-effort-emphasizes-job-creatio-9986.html

Biofuel industry's lobbying effort emphasizes job creation

By JENNY MANDEL, Greenwire

Published: March 4, 2009

Corporate biofuel boosters trumpeted their industry's job creation and energy security at a briefing today that highlighted advanced technologies that could enter the market within the next few years.

"This is not really science, this is about production and commercialization," said Bill Fry, CEO of Qteros, a company working on a microbe that can make ethanol from corn or a wide variety of non-food feedstocks.

The company plans to build a "pre-commercial demonstration" bioreactor within the next two years and reach commercial production in three, Fry said, emphasizing high-quality jobs that ethanol industry growth could bring.

Jason Pyle, the CEO of Sapphire Energy -- which is fine-tuning an algae-based biofuel production method that does not require agricultural feedstocks, productive farmland or potable water -- noted that as bio-based replacements for petroleum come into use, the technologies can have effects in the plastics and fertilizer industries.

Pyle's algae-based technology largely avoids the food-versus-fuel debates associated with corn ethanol and even with some forms of cellulosic ethanol, which is produced from inedible plant material but can lead to questions about crop displacement. But Pyle downplayed the market premium for "green" attributes of biofuels, insisting that their real value lies in domestic production, which keeps fuel dollars within the United States.

Industry highlights jobs impact of raising blend limits
A report released today by Growth Energy, an ethanol industry group, said changing gasoline regulations to increase the amount of ethanol that can be blended into fuel sold at gas pumps would create thousands of new jobs and trigger economic growth.

If the blending limit were raised from 10 percent to 15 percent ethanol, more than 136,000 jobs would result, the report says, and the economy would grow by more than $24 billion.

"While there have been many media reports about the struggling ethanol sector, there has been little discussion about the cause," said Larry Leistritz, an agriculture professor at North Dakota State University and author of the report. "Part of the industry's challenge is this regulatory cap."

Calling U.S. EPA's limit of 10 percent ethanol use "arbitrary," the report says even greater economic benefits would result from using a 20 percent ethanol blend.

The industry has lobbied hard in recent months for a higher cap to get past the ethanol "blending wall" -- the limit on how much ethanol the U.S. market can absorb given the 10 percent cap (E&ENews PM, Nov. 11, 2008).

But some technical experts say there is not enough testing to know that vehicle engines could handle higher ethanol blends. Small engines like those found in lawnmowers could also be adversely affected by such a switch, and an Energy Department official said last year that agencies could consider separate standards for autos and non-vehicle engines (E&ENews PM, Oct. 7, 2008).

2. http://www.eenews.net/public/eenewspm/2009/03/03/2

INTERIOR: 'We can grow our economy and preserve the environment' -- Obama (E&ENews PM, 03/03/2009)

Noelle Straub, E&E reporter

President Obama marked the Interior Department's 160th anniversary today with an enthusiastically received visit to announce he was restoring the role of federal biologists in endangered species decisions.

"Today I've signed a memorandum that will help restore the scientific process to its rightful place at the heart of the Endangered Species Act, a process undermined by past administrations," Obama said to applause. "The work of scientists and experts in my administration -- including right here in the Interior Department -- will be respected."

Speaking to about 600 people at Interior's Yates Auditorium, with many more Interior employees watching on closed-circuit broadcast from around the country, Obama said the Endangered Species Act had protected the most threatened wildlife for three decades...

"Your mission is more important than ever before," he said. "The Interior Department manages the land on which 30 percent of the nation's energy is produced. So you have a major role to play, all of you, in our clean energy future. The nation is depending on you to help us end the tyranny of foreign oil and become energy independent -- by harnessing the wind and the sun, our water, our soil, and American innovation."

[Excerpts]

at 11:18 PM

N.B. comments under first article.

1. http://www.physorg.com/news155383636.html

Cellulosic biofuel technology will generate low-cost green fuel, says major study

Cellulosic biofuels offer similar, if not lower, costs and very large reductions in greenhouse gas emissions compared to petroleum-derived fuels. That's one of the key take-home messages from a series of expert papers on "The Role of Biomass in America's Energy Future (RBAEF)" in a special issue of Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining.

The journal believes that the collection, which includes a comparative analysis of more than a dozen mature technology biomass refining scenarios, will make a major contribution to the ongoing debate on the future potential of biofuels in the USA.

Professor Lee Lynd, the driving force behind the RBAEF project and a major contributor to the special issue, explains the background to the project. "The RBAEF project, which was launched in 2003, is the most comprehensive study of the performance and cost of mature technologies for producing energy from biomass to date" he says. "Involving experts from 12 institutions, it is jointly led by Dartmouth College

, New Hampshire, and the Natural Resources Defense Council and sponsored by the US Department of Energy, the Energy Foundation and the National Commission on Energy Policy.

"It seeks to identify and evaluate paths by which biomass can make a large contribution to energy services in the USA and determine how we can accelerate biomass energy use. In addressing these issues, the study has focussed on future, mature technologies rather than today's technology."

Professor Lynd, from Dartmouth College's Thayer School of Engineering is co-author of five of the eight papers in the special issue.

Three of these papers are being made available free on the journal's website so that they can be accessed as widely as possible by researchers and policy makers.

They include a major paper in which Laser et al carry out a comparative analysis of 14 of the mature technology biomass refining scenarios outlined in detail in the preceding expert papers, looking at each process for efficiency, environmental impact and process economics.

"We conclude that mature biomass refining is highly competitive with the fuels currently available, based on all the factors considered" says Professor Lynd. "The most promising class of processes we analysed combined the biological fermentation of carbohydrates to fuels with advanced technologies that thermochemically convert process residues to electrical power and, or, additional liquid fuels. One of our important findings, which contradicts conventional wisdom, is that similar greenhouse gas emission reductions on a per ton biomass basis are anticipated for the production of liquid fuels and electricity via mature technology."

The researchers also found that the mature cellulosic biofuel technologies analysed:

• Have the potential to realise efficiencies on par with petroleum-based fuels.

• Require modest volumes of process water.

• Achieve production costs consistent with gasoline when oil prices are at about $30 a barrel.

Two other papers are also being made freely available by the journal until 31 May 2009.

• The introductory paper by Lynd et al, which outlines the RBAEF project and provides an operative definition of, and method for estimating, mature technology. It also looks at a rationale for choosing the model feedstock, a list of the conversion technologies considered and, as a point of reference, a brief overview of the energy flows through a typical petroleum refinery.

• A paper on the co-production of ethanol and power from switchgrass by Laser et al, which evaluates three process designs for producing ethanol and electricity from switchgrass. This shows that mature technology designs significantly improve both the efficiency of the process and the cost when compared to base case cellulosic ethanol technology. The resulting fossil fuel displacement is decidedly positive and production costs compete well with gasoline, even at relatively low prices.

"The RBAEF project has examined many potential biorefinery scenarios, but there are still aspects that we did not examine" says Professor Lynd.

"For example, a more extensive field-to-wheels life cycle assessment that incorporates the RBAEF process design results - including a comparison of alternative feedstocks - would be useful, as would an evaluation of chemicals co-production.

"Also, the papers in this special issue do not directly address the issue of gracefully reconciling large-scale biofuel production with competing land use and this clearly needs more study.

"Finally, it would be of great value to look at how we could find ways to accelerate progress towards the sustainable, large-scale production of cellulosic biofuels."

The journal's Editor-in-Chief, Professor Bruce E Dale, from Michigan State University, USA, believes that this special edition of Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining will be invaluable to researchers and policy makers alike.

"The journal is honoured to publish this special edition. We believe it sets a new benchmark in how we think about the potential of cellulosic biofuels to provide large-scale energy services, both in the USA and around the world" he says. "We sincerely congratulate Dr Lynd and his coworkers on the RBAEF project - particularly Dr Mark Laser of Dartmouth College who worked so effectively to pull the papers together. This is truly a landmark contribution."

"By making key papers in this series free we hope that this special issue of the journal will provide greater understanding of the exciting possibilities that biofuels can offer and help policy makers to make informed choices."

More information: Three papers from the special issue of Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining (Volume 3, issue 2) can be viewed free of charge on the journal's website (http://www.interscience.wiley.com/biofpr) until 31 May 2009:

• The role of biomass in America's energy future: framing the analysis. Lynd et al. 3:113-123 (2009). DOI: 10.1002/bbb.134

• Co-production of ethanol and power from switchgrass. Laser et al. 3:195-218 (2009). DOI: 10.1002/bbb.133

• Comparative analysis of efficiency, environmental impact and process economics for mature biomass refining scenarios. Laser et al. 3:247-270 (2009). DOI: 10.1002/bbb.136
Source: Wiley

Comments:

deatopmg - 11 hours ago
Using switchgrass and other cellulose/sugar sources for energy and fuel is a silly distraction no matter how efficient these "mature technologies" become! This because the proposed cellulose sources here in the US grow only part of the year - so the resulting annual photosynthetic efficiency is, at the very best, less than 1%. (plus ethanol is not a good choice for a home grown transportation fuel because of it's low energy density - though it is far, far better than the best imagined batteries.) Sugar cane in Louisiana thru Fla. though would be a more intelligent source of raw material.

Compare this to using solar to generate electricity vie heat or PV, or to grow liquid hydrocarbon fuel (biodiesel looks unlikely) directly using algae. All of these methods have much higher light conversion efficiencies than the best non-tropical land plants and will be cost effective energy sources long before the proposed cellulosic energy technologies mature.

How much more agricultural land will this cellulose to energy scheme use up?
jimroland - 1 seconds ago
"One of our important findings, which contradicts conventional wisdom, is that similar greenhouse gas emission reductions on a per ton biomass basis are anticipated for the production of liquid fuels and electricity via mature technology." This relies on their assumption that the biomass goes into a GTCC plant that runs around the clock displacing whatever is the the mix of electricity every hour, whereas it would best be used specifically to displace on-demand use of coal and some gas, which the economics of on-demand would also weigh strongly toward, even more so with a future carbon price. Co-firing directly with coal automatically achieves the best emissions saving, as well as being most economic, within many catchment areas.

In the meantime how many policy-makers are going to be 'blinded with science' by the above?

2. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126980.300-biofuel-limitations.html

Biofuel limitations

04 March 2009 by Jim Roland, London, UK
Magazine issue 2698. Subscribe and get 4 free issues.
For similar stories, visit the Letters Topic Guide

Nicholas Stern calls for support for the development and "scaling-up" of second-generation biofuels, "which do not directly affect food production" (24 January, p 26). Assuming such biofuels were only made from crop and forestry wastes and sundry biomass crops, this is in most cases a gross misuse of woody biomass compared with direct burning, for example, as a substitute for coal.

Doing this usually abates far more emissions and does so more cost-effectively. Most second-generation biofuels would stand no chance in the free carbon market that he advocates, even less than would most of the first-generation biofuels.

Has Stern read the OECD's 2008 Economic Assessment of Biofuel Support Policies?
The human and ecological harm now arising through the exploitation of marginal lands for biofuels could make last century's World Bank-funded dams look like millponds.

We could rig subsidies in favour of "second-generation" biofuels - and hope to lessen the damaging externalities - or we can abolish mandated levels of biofuel use altogether for the common good of the environment, the poor and the economy.

For Clarification

Wed Mar 04 23:55:21 GMT 2009 by Jim Roland

The letter I submitted read "in the name of 'marginal lands for biofuels' ". It was not my intention to perpetuate the notion of "marginal lands", that is being used as an excuse to take over productive or biodiverse land. The change to those words and meaning above has even made the text longer.

[Ends]

March 3, 2009 08:56 AM

http://www.enn.com/agriculture/article/39403

From: Duke University
Published March 3, 2009 08:56 AM

Study critiques corn-for-ethanol's carbon footprint

To avoid creating greenhouse gases, it makes more sense using today's technology to leave land unfarmed in conservation reserves than to plow it up for corn to make biofuel, according to a comprehensive Duke University-led study.

"Converting set-asides to corn-ethanol production is an inefficient and expensive greenhouse gas mitigation policy that should not be encouraged until ethanol-production technologies improve," the study's authors reported in the March edition of the research journal Ecological Applications.