biofuelwatch - World Falling Short On Emergency Food Aid: U.N. Body

Key quote:

While grain prices have since eased on world markets, food prices in most developing countries have continued to climb at a time when fewer people can afford them because of shockwaves from the economic downturn.

"The food crisis is not over in the developing world. In fact, the situation is more alarming in many countries than it was even a year ago," Sheeran said.


http://planetark.org/wen/53986

World Falling Short On Emergency Food Aid: U.N. Body

Date: 30-Jul-09
Country: US
Author: Roberta Rampton

A Somali mother feeds her malnourished six-month-old son at Dagahaley camp in Dadaab in Kenya's northeastern province, June 3, 2009.
Photo: Finbarr O'Reilly

WASHINGTON - The world is falling far short in feeding its most critically hungry, pledging only $3.7 billion of the $6.7 billion needed to fund the World Food Program for 2009, the head of the United Nations relief agency said on Wednesday.

The agency has so far received only $1.8 billion and has had to cut back rations and programs to the 108 million people it serves, said Josette Sheeran, its executive director.

The cutbacks will have a "destabilizing" impact in parts of the world reeling from dramatically higher food prices and less income due to the global financial crisis, Sheeran said.

"There's nothing more basic than food. If people don't have it, one of three things happen: they revolt, they migrate or they die," Sheeran said.

More than 1 billion people in the world are chronically hungry, up from 860 million two years ago. The WFP helps feed those deemed most desperate -- about 10 percent of the total.

When food prices soared to record levels last year, prompting riots and hoarding in some countries, the WFP raised a record $5 billion in donations -- about $2 billion more than in 2007 -- to help feed 102 million people in 78 countries.

While grain prices have since eased on world markets, food prices in most developing countries have continued to climb at a time when fewer people can afford them because of shockwaves from the economic downturn.

"The food crisis is not over in the developing world. In fact, the situation is more alarming in many countries than it was even a year ago," Sheeran said.

Meanwhile, donor countries have spent trillions trying to stabilize the economy, and have had to tighten budgets.

This year the WFP has already had to cut rations in Kenya, where it helps about a third of the 10 million people identified as chronically hungry, and is now feeding only 70,000 children in a Bangladesh program, down from 300,000.

Sheeran said the United States has "stepped up" to boost its emergency food aid funding this year, but declined to name countries that have not.

She appealed to rich countries at the recent G8 meeting in Italy to help make up what she called an "unprecedented" shortfall, and will ask the G20 group of nations for help when they gather in Pittsburgh in September.

In Italy, leaders agreed to spend $20 billion over three years helping small farmers feed themselves and their neighbors.

The food security initiative could help end chronic hunger in the long term, but donors also must keep up support for emergency food aid in the meantime, Sheeran said.

"The challenge will be going ahead as a plan of action is put forward," she said. "Everyone says, 'This is additional money, this is not taking from existing programs.' But we will remain vigilant to make the case," she said.

The Obama administration will roll out more details in the next several months of its agricultural development aid plan, a senior administrator at the U.S. Agency for International Development told a gathering of Capitol Hill staffers, lobbyists and diplomats on Wednesday.

The plan, tentatively called the "Seeking a World Without Hunger" initiative, will invest in boosting farmers' productivity and improving storage, processing and transportation infrastructure in coordination with recipient countries and other donors, said Franklin Moore of USAID's Africa bureau.

The plan will not mean the U.S. government steps back from emergency food aid, Moore said.
"I do not view this as 'either-or,'" he said. "The world will be dependent on the U.S. role as an emergency food supplier for quite some time."

(Editing by Christian Wiessner)
© Thomson Reuters 2009 All rights reserved

---

biofuelwatch - NY Times: Biodiesel Plucked From Poultry

Hello all,

The shift to 'waste' animal parts based biodiesel is clearly becoming serious. You've seen my report about the Darling rendering plant in San Francisco. Last week there was the report about arctic shark and other 'by-catch' being used as biodiesel feedstock, and now see below, the recent NY Times report on chicken plucking renderings.

These are not isolated incidents. The biofuel industry, seeing that we as organisers are successfully turning cities like Berkeley and Seattle away from obviously unsustainable plant based biofuels, is desperately grasping for a other feedstock that it can pawn off to the public as 'sustainable' 'waste' 'recycling'. It is clear they've decided that this feedstock is 'waste' animal parts and 'by-catch' from the incredibly environmentally destructive factory animal farming and factory fishing industries.

It is no longer acceptable for us to stand on the sidelines while this massive ramping up of the use of animals to create biodiesel continues. We must start actively and aggressively reporting, and organising, to stop this latest ploy of the agro-fuels industries from gaining any further dangerous traction and marketshare.

I urgently implore those of you who run BioFuel Watch UK to put up a new web page, links and studies on these new animal based frankenfuels so that we can begin countering the industry rhetoric on them immediately.

thank you

Eric Brooks
San Francisco Green Party

Here is the NY Times report:

July 28, 2009

Observatory

A Recipe for Biodiesel, Plucked From Poultry

By HENRY FOUNTAIN

Those researchers in the department of chemical and materials engineering at the University of Nevada in Reno are at it again. Last year they showed the world that it was possible to make biodiesel fuel from coffee grounds. This time, it’s chicken feathers.

In a paper in The Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, Mano Misra, Susanta K. Mohapatra and colleagues describe how they extracted fat from chicken feather meal and converted it into good-quality biodiesel.

Feather meal, which is commonly used as fertilizer or animal feed, is a byproduct of large-scale poultry production and often includes blood and offal. It can contain up to 11 percent fat.

The researchers extracted the fat by boiling the meal in water and converting it to biodiesel by a process called transesterification.

They say that there is enough feather meal produced in the United States alone to create about 150 million gallons of biodiesel a year. That’s just a drop in the bucket, really, but the researchers note that most current production of biodiesel uses vegetable oil, and as demand for the fuel grows there is likely to be competition for the oil between food uses and fuel uses.

Thus it’s important, the researchers say, to seek alternative sources for biodiesel production — with the goal, as they put it, of “food for hunger, waste for fuel.”

Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company

biofuelwatch - UK firm scouts Georgia for wood chips

Further to Andrew Boswell's post earlier today, #3249.

According to research for the UK Environment Agency (http://tinyurl.com/lhlz26, final slide) if such steady sourcing could be achieved from existing forest it would be likely to achieve a severalfold CO2 saving on the equivalent coal-electricity, though CO2 savings severalfold better still would be achievable with the same biomass.

http://atlanta.bizjournals.com/atlanta/blog/interbiz/2009/07/uk_firm_scouts_georgia_for_wood_chips.html

UK firm scouts Georgia for wood chips

Saturday, July 18, 2009, 12:15pm EDT

UK firm MGT Power Limited is scouting the Southeast, including Georgia, for a steady source of wood chips for a massive new biomass electricity plant.

MGT recently got the nod from the British government to proceed with the development of the $815 million Tees Renewable Energy Plant to be located in northeast England. The plant will use some 2.65 million tons of wood chips a year. The plant will be one of the largest of its kind in the world, generating enough electricity to meet the needs of about 600,000 homes, according to a company release.

"The Government's consent is welcome news as we are at an advanced stage with the forestry establishment for fuel sourcing and power plant procurement," said Chris Moore, director of MGT Power. "We can now appoint our banks, conclude the financing and reach agreement with our preferred technology bidders. We are moving toward an early construction start with a high degree of confidence."

The Tees Renewable Energy Plant will begin commercial operation in late 2012.

"Other similarly sized biomass plants are proposed in other parts of the country, but our Teesport project is currently two years ahead of the pack and likely to be one of the first to be operational. It comes at a time when replacement UK energy generation capacity is urgently needed," Moore said.

MGT's plan is to source woodchips from the Southeast, as well as other locations throughout North America and South America and the Baltic States. While no supply agreements have been formalized, the company is having advanced discussions with suppliers and shipping facilities throughout the Southeast US as part of its efforts to formulate specific plans, a company spokesperson said.

MGT has traveled to nearly all areas in the southern US that have both an ample supply of wood chips and easy access to ports that can export chips. Georgia is included in that area, the spokesperson added.

Forest2Market is acting as MGT's North American advisor for supply chain issues.

[Ends]

---

_

biofuelwatch - EU pledges incentives for crude palm oil producers | Palm Oil HQ

http://www.palmoilhq.com/PalmOilNews/eu-pledges-incentives-for-crude-palm-oil-producers/

The European Union has pledged to offer incentives to Indonesia’s palm oil companies that use ecofriendly ways to produce palm oil, which would slash emissions and help deal with climate change.

EU Ambassador and Head of Delegation to Indonesia and Brunei Darussalam Julian Wilson insisted Friday emissions cut targets would not harm those Indonesia’s exporters not producing palm oil through environmentally friendly methods.

“We won’t harm the [palm oil] industry in Indonesia,” Wilson said. “All palm oil exporters will continue to enjoy exactly the same access at the same tariff rate as before, regardless of how they produce and process the palm oil.”

The EU office invited the Indonesian government, palm oil producers and environmental activists to discuss the newly launched

EU Renewable Energy Directive (RED), which has a mandatory target of the use of 10 percent renewable energy, such as biofuel, in each member state.

Incentives, such as investment aid, tax exemption or refunds, would be an additional benefit to palm oil companies, who could slash emissions by a minimum of 35 percent, calculated from the total emissions, from cultivation, land use, processing and palm oil distribution, to carbon capture.

EU Natural Resources and Environment program manager Thibaut Portevin said the palm oil from
land containing high biodiversity value would not be eligible for the incentives.

“Nor would conversion of land with high carbon stocks,” he said, adding that each producer should be able to demonstrate actual emissions cuts before claiming incentives.

Indonesia produced about 17.4 million tons of palm oil from its 6.8 million hectares of plantations in 2007, making it the world’s largest palm oil producer. The sector, which contributed US$8 billion to the country’s total exports last year, employs up to three million people.

However, Indonesia has received persistent protests from activists and international buyers over its massive plantation expansion, which they say has destroyed many areas of forest habitat, including that of the orangutan, and are also accused of using fire to clear land, which exacerbates climate change.

Forest campaigner for Greenpeace Southeast Asia Bustar Maitar said EU policy had yet to answer
the real problem of deforestation in Indonesia.

“For Greenpeace, such EU policy is not strong enough to stop deforestation, because the unchanged demand for palm oil from member states encourages massive plantation expansion in Indonesia,” he told The Jakarta Post. He said European countries should focus on using the “energy revolution”, such as wind power, to help combat climate change and stop deforestation in forest countries.

Indonesia holds the global carbon emissions record for deforestation and is third behind the US and China for total man-made emissions.

--
Claudia Theile
Campaigner Biomass/Palmoil

Friends of the Earth
Netherlands
P.O. Box 19199
1000 GD Amsterdam
The Netherlands
T (+31) (0)20 5507 300
F (+31) (0)20 5507 310
www.milieudefensie.nl

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

biofuelwatch - biomass at Thetford (40Mw)

http://www.edp24.co.uk/content/edp24/news/story.aspx?brand=EDPOnline&category=News&tBrand=EDPOnline&tCategory=xDefault&itemid=NOED15%20Jul%202009%2020%3A08%3A15%3A017

Power plant plan for Thetford Forest

ADAM GRETTON

Last updated: 16/07/2009 10:46:00

A computed generated image of the proposed Thetford Renewable Energy Plant by Energy Power Resources (EPR), which plans to submit a planning application for the waste wood fuelled power station, near Thetford, in September

A computed generated image of the proposed Thetford Renewable Energy Plant by Energy Power Resources (EPR), which plans to submit a planning application for the waste wood fuelled power station, near Thetford, in September

A green energy company is set to submit plans for a new power plant on the edge of Thetford Forest after receiving a “positive” response during a public consultation exercise.

Energy Power Resources (EPR) unveiled proposals last month for a second biomass power plant off the A134.

The company, which has been running a poultry litter powered plant at Two Mile Bottom, near Thetford, since 1999, has now revealed that it aims to submit a planning application for a waste wood station in the autumn.

The news comes after 74pc of local residents supported the scheme at a two day public exhibition in Thetford last month .

Officials from EPR yesterday said that 46 out of the 62 people who completed a consultation questionnaire were “very supportive” or “supportive” of the plans. Eleven were “very opposed.”

The Thetford Renewable Energy Plant, which is proposed 1km away from the company's existing station, would generate 40 megawatts of electricity a year - enough to power almost 70,000 homes. EPR claims that the proposed plant would cut CO2 greenhouse gas emissions by more than 120,000 tonnes a year.

The station, which would provide around 36 full time jobs, is planned for farmland off the A134 between the A11 roundabout and Thetford Rugby Club.

Gary Coombs, business development manager for EPR, said the company hoped to submit a formal application to Norfolk County Council at the end of September.

“The exhibition went very well and it was an excellent opportunity for us to discuss our plans for a new biomass renewable energy plant and answer questions.

“We are pleased with the feedback we received and we are encouraged that so many people can see the benefits of developing a secure and sustainable energy source which would help towards the region's renewable energy targets,” he said.

The public is also being consulted on the design of the planned Thetford Renewable Energy Plant. People have until September 15 to complete EPR's questionnaire, which can be found at www.thetfordrenewableenergyplant.co.uk.

__._,_.___

biofuelwatch - Biomass on Teeside is a 'roller-coaster'

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/767be134-7a07-11de-b86f-00144feabdc0.html

Fortunes ebb and flow at northern ports

By Chris Tighe and Andrew Bounds

Published: July 26 2009 23:15 | Last updated: July 26 2009 23:15

A short stretch on the south bank of the river Tees exemplifies the roller-coaster ride the east-coast ports of the north of England are experiencing during the recession.

This land is part of Tees­port, the UK’s third-biggest port by tonnage, and has been chosen by MGT Power as the site for one of the world’s largest biomass plants, a £500m, 295MW colossus given the go-ahead this month.

It is a coup for PD Ports and gives Teesport’s owner stature in the fast-growing renewables sector. It adds 2.4m tonnes in imported woodchip fuel to the group’s annual cargo processing.

Nearby, Tesco will next month open a £100m, 1.2m sq ft import centre serving northern Britain, boosting Teesport’s container traffic and raising the profile of a port that aspires to develop a £300m deep-sea Northern Gateway container terminal. This project has planning permission and PD Ports wants to press ahead when the recession lifts.

But a mile or so along the Tees towards the river mouth, the Teeside Cast Products works, a huge site dominated by the Redcar blast furnace, awaits news from Corus, its owner, on whether it will continue operating beyond August or be mothballed.

TCP accounts for about 2m tonnes of steel slab exports annually through Teesport. Its iron ore terminal handles up to 8m tonnes of imported ore a year and 1m-2m tonnes of coal. Some other Teeside plants are also threatened with impending closure.

Babcock & Brown Infra­structure, which owns PD Ports, this year put the business, whose main focus is Teesport, up for sale, but the uncertainty surrounding TCP has caused delay.

Martyn Pellew, group development director of PD Ports, says TCP’s difficulty is a “big cloud on the horizon”. However, he insists that “long-term prospects remain remarkably good”. Other power station developments are possible and Teesport’s ambitions in offshore wind farming have been enhanced by this month’s opening of a manufacturing plant on Hartlepool port land by JDR Cable Systems.

Falling land prices in the downturn have also spurred investment. AV Dawson, a family-owned logistics business in Middlesbrough which has a wharf on the Tees and a railhead, is buying land near the river for expansion. “We have witnessed a number of once-in-a-working-lifetime property opportunities,” says Gary Dawson, managing director.

And Peter Stephenson, chairman of Able UK, has submitted plans to North Lincolnshire council for one of the UK’s biggest port-related developments. Able anticipates £100m investment over 10 years at a 1,500-acre site north of Immingham on the Humber’s south bank, creating transport depots, warehousing and business facilities.

Immingham and its three sister ports, Grimsby, Goole and Hull, run by Associated British Ports, together handle about 14 per cent of UK seaborne trade. That volume – 93m tonnes in 2008 – has fallen about 20 per cent, says John Fitzgerald, port director for Immingham and Grimsby.

Spread of trade – from coal to wheat and fertilisers – has helped, but he says it is difficult to forecast in the short term. The port has a bright long-term future and investment plans will go ahead, Mr Fitzgerald says, not least because of the low-carbon revolution.

“Ports and energy have always been linked. They developed in Victorian times to take British coal around the world to fuel the industrial revolution.”

There would be a ready trade in importing material to make biofuels and servicing offshore wind farms, he says.

Drax, the UK’s largest coal-fired power station, has announced plans for a biomass-fuelled plant at Immingham.

ABP also wants to build a cruise terminal at Hull. It would need some public funding, it says, but the economic case is strong.

Cruise passengers spend an average of £120 at each destination and Hull is home to top-flight football and rugby league clubs, and a giant aquarium called The Deep, and offers access to York and the Yorkshire Dales.

The port hosts P&O overnight passenger services to Zeebrugge in Belgium and Rotterdam in the Netherlands, and has deep-water quays where cruise liners could berth.

With cruise tourism contributing more than £5m annually to north-east England’s economy, the Port of Tyne, which was named European port of the year in 2007 and 2008, is developing its cruise business.

Like Immingham and Grimsby, the Tyne has had to cope with the downturn in car manufacturing. It handles exports from Nissan’s Sunderland plant and also Volkswagens imported into the UK. But diversification, backed by £100m investment during the past decade, has strengthened the port. And from struggling in the early 1990s as its traditional core business of coal exports dwindled, it has become a big coal importer.

Smaller east-coast ports have also showed adaptability. The port of Blyth in Northumberland recently announced plans for a £200m biomass plant by Renewable Energy Systems and the north dock of Seaham, once a Durham coal port, is being turned into a marina.

Flexibility and an east-coast location are big assets, but in a recession, Mr Pellew observes: “Bad news comes more quickly than good news.”

Planning law also needs to change. “It’s no good having a wish list for renewable energy and not getting on with it,” he says. “If we’re going to take this economy forward out of recession we need a planning system which helps investment.”

__._,_.___

biofuelwatch - More on Venter and GM

also UK Govt funding of biofuel research that might include GM:

http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2009/07/15/exxons-algae-to-join-biofuel-push

"ExxonMobil and Craig Venter, the pioneer of human genome research, have set up a $600m partnership to research the potential for making biofuels from algae. Mr Venter told the Financial Times that the joint venture was "critical for the whole world" but warned that commercial deployment could be 10 years away. "There has been so much hype and hope about the potential for algae that this announcement should act as a reality check for everyone," said Mr Venter…But while Mr Venter, like other biotech entrepreneurs and big oil companies including Royal Dutch Shell and Chevron, has been able to produce small amounts of oil from algae, no-one has yet managed to demonstrate the process at a large enough scale or a low enough cost…Mr Venter said he expected that the algae used would have to be genetically modified. Over time, engineered products will be essential to this project, said Mr Venter. "It's the only way we can change the yield far beyond nature, and make the algae resistant to virus attacks and so on."…"

In the United Kingdom, this work is being funded directly by Central Government, as witnessed by the tiny little footnote in the Low Carbon Transition Plan published on 15th July 2009 :-

http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/publications/lc_trans_plan/lc_trans_plan.aspx

http://www.decc.gov.uk/Media/viewfile.ashx?FilePath=White%20Papers\UK%20Low%20Carbon%20Transition%20Plan%20WP09\1_20090715190000_e_@@_DECCWPUKLCTransitionPlan.pdf&filetype=4

page 143
footnote 10
"This includes £20 million investment to launch the Sustainable Bioenergy Centre; £6 million for the Advanced Bioenergy Directed Research Accelerator investigating the potential of algae for biofuels; and an intention to provide financial support for the creation by industry of a biofuels demonstration plant, which would use organic waste material to produce bioethanol and renewable power."

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmhansrd/cm090212/text/90212w0002.htm

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

biofuelwatch - US 'Dead Zone' smaller but more severe: NOAA

http://planetark.org/wen/53946

US 'Dead Zone' smaller but more severe: NOAA

Date: 28-Jul-09
Country: US
Author: Timothy Gardner

WASHINGTON - The "dead zone" in the Gulf of Mexico, an area choked by low oxygen levels that threatens marine life, is smaller than expected this year but more deadly, the government said on Monday.

The zone, caused by a runoff of agricultural chemicals from farms along the Mississippi River, measured about 3,000 square miles or about 1.5 times the size of the state of Delaware, compared with estimates that it would measure up to nearly 8,500 square miles, scientists said.

"Clearly the flow of excess nitrogen and phosphorus from agricultural fields in the Mississippi drainage basin continues to wreak havoc with life in the Gulf," said Jane Lubchenco, the administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, told reporters in a teleconference.

Unusually strong winds and currents stirred the waters and brought oxygen back in, making the zone smaller than anticipated.

But Nancy Rabalais, a scientist from the Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium, who helped measure the zone during a week-long expedition, said it was more severe because the low oxygen levels are closer to the surface than in recent years.

The dead zone threatens Gulf fisheries worth nearly $3 billion per year.

Now marine life that normally feed close to the sea bottom, including eels and certain kinds of shrimp and crabs, are being found closer to the surface.

The dead zone is caused by fertilizers and nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus that wash off crop lands into the Mississippi, leading to the overproduction of tiny organisms such as algae in the Gulf of Mexico.

If the organisms are not eaten, they die and fall to the bottom of the ocean where bacteria rots them, sucking oxygen from the water.

The average size of the dead zone during the past five years has been about 6,000 square miles, or nearly the size of the state of Connecticut.

Federal and state agencies have worked together in the Gulf of Mexico and Mississippi River Watershed Nutrient Task Force since 2001 to control growth of the zone. It wants to cut it to about 2,00O square miles by 2015.

But some say progress on controlling runoff has been slow.

"Really relatively little has been done to implement the action plan," said Donald Boesch, a marine scientist at the University of Maryland. He said U.S. mandates for more biofuels made from corn contribute to chemical runoff and the zone's size.

For their part, biofuels companies say they are using fewer chemicals to grow corn every year.
Unlike other efforts in other regions that have dead zones, such as the Chesapeake Bay and the Baltic Sea, numerical goals have not been set for reducing nutrients from areas near the Mississippi basin, Boesch said.

A federal environmental regulator said the task force will meet in Iowa in the autumn to bring new leadership and ideas to tackle the problem.

(Reporting by Timothy Gardner; Editing by Lisa Shumaker)
© Thomson Reuters 2009 All rights reserved

---

biofuelwatch - SEATTLE TO QUIT BIOFUELS

http://greenertimes.wordpress.com/2009/06/15/seattle-to-quit-biofuels/

SEATTLE TO QUIT BIOFUELS
FOLLOWS KING COUNTY LEAD
by Duff Badgley
Duff driving his message home

Duff driving his message home

The City of Seattle has decided to "completely discontinue crop-based biofuels", according to a well-placed source in city government. This historic decision comes after King County — Washington's most populous county — quit all biofuels in 2008.

Now, both of the Northwest's largest government biofuel consumers have quit. Seattle's decision also marks the end of a period when Seattle and King County considered crop-based biofuels to be environmentally better than petrol.

Studies have shown crop-based biofuels trigger rainforest destruction greatly worsening climate change. By robbing land from food production, these same biofuels also cause hunger and starvation affecting millions. For this reason, crop-based biofuels have been called a "Crime Against Humanity" by a high-ranking U.N. official.

One Earth Climate Action Group and Seattle City Council President Richard Conlin were instrumental in Seattle's momentous decision to quit biofuels.

Since 2007, One Earth Climate Action Group has been staging street protests against crop-based biofuels use by Seattle and King County. One Earth testified twice before city council that use of crop-based biofuels meant Seattle was "knowingly participating in a Crime Against Humanity". One Earth's protests and testimony lead to direct negotiations with Conlin.

Conlin's Chief Legislative aide, Rob Gala, said, "We presented the argument that it (crop-based biofuel) was both worse in terms of climate changing emissions and more expensive for the City. OSE (Office of Sustainability and Environment) and the Mayor's office … indicated that they agreed and are planning to comply with our request."

This decision by Seattle will make the governments of the Northwest's biggest city and its county with highest population essentially biofuel-free. Washington State still stubbornly requires all gasoline sales be 2% ethanol and all diesel sales to be 2% biodiesel.

All crop-based biofuels, the only biofuels available for mass consumption, do two things:

(1) Cause hunger and starvation affecting hundreds of millions of humans. This why the U.N has called these biofuels a "Crime Against Humanity".
Sources:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7065061.stm
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/NEWS/Resources/risingfoodprices_backgroundnote_apr08.pdf
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=26289&Cr=food&Crl=prices

(2) Cause rainforest destruction releasing massive amounts of carbon dioxide and greatly worsening our Climate Crisis.
Sources:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1152747
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1151861
http://www.newsweek.com/id/110636

"We're changing Seattle's culture and infra-structure, the hardest and most essential things in climate activism", said One Earth founder, Duff Badgley. "If we are to have a Livable Planet, our success in causing structural change in Seattle and King County need to be widely repeated."

Seattle currently has been burning 700,000 gallons per year of American soy biodiesel. It previously burned palm and canola biodiesel.

Prior to June, 2008, King County Metro buses had been burning two million gallons per year of biodiesel made from Canadian canola or Malaysian palm oil. King County Metro operates the country's 9th largest public transport system.

In the past decade, diesel-powered government vehicles from Seattle and King County have burned crop-based biodiesel made by either Imperium Renewables or Cargill. In 2007, Imperium built a 100-million-gallon-per-year biodiesel refinery in rural Grays Harbor, WA. It stopped production in early 2009. Cargill is the world's largest private corporation with vast holdings in the rainforests of Brazil and Southeast Asia.

A public announcement from Seattle about its decision to quit crop-based biofuels is expected before the end of this month. Seattle will likely continue to research the feasibility of using waste-based biodiesel in its fleet vehicles.

Duff Badgley is the founder of the One Earth Climate Action Group and was the 2008 gubernatorial candidate for the Green Party of Washington State.

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

biofuelwatch - global biofuels market to reach 247 bil by 2020

Global biofuels market to hit $247 billion by 2020

Alex Salkever


Jul 24th 2009 at 3:30PM
Text SizeAAA

Filed under: Energy, Company News, Economy

tweet

The switch from traditional fossil fuels to greener biofuels is well underway and gathering steam, according to green and clean tech consultancy Pike Research. What's more, Pike anticipates that the global biofuels market will triple from $76 billion today to nearly a quarter trillion dollars in 2020.

That's an astonishing growth rate in a short time frame but Pike lays out in a report that a convergence of technology maturation and market demand that will take biofuels into the mainstream.

In particular, a troika of biofuel technologies are set to storm the market. Biofuels derived from waste grease collected at restaurants and boiled down from animal wastes, among other places, are set to start hitting the market in 2010. Biofuels extracted from jatropha, a prolific weed that has far better production economics than sugar cane or corn (the two prevalent fuel stocks for ethanol at present), will enter the market in 2014. But the biggest part of the tsunami could come from the entry of algae-based biofuels, which can closely mimic traditional petroleum products.

A number of heavy hitters are betting on these technologies, including genetics genius Craig Venter and oil giants Exxon Mobil (XOM) and Royal Dutch Shell (RDS.A). All three technologies have key political and economic advantages. None of them competes for resources with humans seeking food, as is the case with corn-based ethanol. Use of corn to make biofuels has become highly controversial. During the 2008 oil spike, corn was at or near historic high prices in part due to U.S. government subsidies for ethanol production. This lead food activists to blame ethanol for food shortages.

In contrast, humans don't eat jatropha or waste oil or algae. The lack of human consumption also removes some concerns about using genetic manipulation to augment yields from algae and jatropha. Lastly, ethanol is a notably corrosive substance. Many engineers and mechanics have worried that long-term use of ethanol could have seriously deleterious effects on pipelines, car engines and other metal products. Lastly, because all three of these new sources could produce oil-based biofuels rather than starch-based ethanol, these fuels could more easily be integrated into existing petroleum production and refining infrastructure.

Not that you'll be able to harvest your own biofuels from your backyard fish pond or recycle your bacon grease, but on a larger scale, that does seem to be the way biofuels are going. Politically, every government that is not a major oil-producing country is desperate to create alternative fuel sources to diminish its reliance on foreign nations for critical products. The folks at Pike believe this will be enough impetus to encourage continued government support from some of these alternative biofuels programs.

--  

Rachel Smolker
Biofuelwatch
Hinesburg, Vermont, U.S.A.
office: (802) 482 2848
mobile: (802) 735-7794
skype: rachel smolker
http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/

__._,_.___

__,_._,___

biofuelwatch - jatropha + Conttinental biofuel test flight

Article by Olaseinde Arigbede , a doctor, neuroscientist and smallholder in Nigeria listing objections to use of jatropha for biofuels. http://worldfamily.ning.com/forum/topics/lets-discuss-and-combine-to-1

Continental Airlines biofuel test flight, only a small percentage of algea used, 2.5 % in one engine

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/01/08/320795/end-in-sight-for-biofuel-trial-programme.html

Continental Airlines biofuel test flight reported 1 per cent improvement in fuel efficiency

http://www.aircargoworld.com/News/Continental-Burns-Green

__._,_.___

biofuelwatch - Monbiot on ethanol use in USA

The usual, expected, degree of clarity from Monbiot - thing that jumps out is the need to continue to promote broader understanding and acceptance of the concept of agrofuels as opposed to biofuels.
Glenn Ashton
Ekogaia Consulting

http://www.truthout.org/072209W?n

US Car Manufacturers Plough a Lonely Furrow on Biofuels
<http://www.truthout.org/072209W>

Wednesday 22 July 2009

by: George Monbiot | Visit article original @ *The Guardian UK*
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/jul/22/biofuels>

*/The US Environmental Protection Agency wants to boost the ethanol blend in fuels in a misguided bid to cut emissions./*

When the motor manufacturers are in dispute with the US Environmental Protection Agency, you wouldn't win much for guessing which side I'm likely to be on. But this time you'd be wrong.

The EPA has to decide whether or not to allow more ethanol to be blended with gasoline. At the moment the limit for ordinary motor gas (petrol) is 10%. The agency is inclined to raise this to 15%. The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers is trying to prevent or postpone it. I'm with the car makers, though not for the reasons they cite; ethanol's effect on a vehicle's performance is not what keeps me awake at night. Since 2004 I've been banging on about the impact of biofuels on the environment and global food supplies, and I've been horribly vindicated. In 2008 the expansion of biofuel production was directly responsible for the decline in global food stocks, which caused grain prices to rise, catalysing famines in many parts of the world. Cereal stockpiles declined by 53m tonnes; the production of biofuels, mostly by the US, consumed almost 100m tonnes, according to a piece in the Economist on 6th December 2007. As the UN's special rapporteur, Jean Ziegler says, turning food for people into food for cars is, "a crime against humanity."

It's also a crime against the environment. In almost all cases, biofuels made from grain or oil crops create more greenhouse emissions than petroleum. This is partly because they lead to an expansion in total crop production, which means that forests must be cut down, unploughed pastures must be tilled and wetlands must be drained to accommodate it. The carbon stored in both the vegetation and the soil is released and oxidised. Two papers in Science (here and here) show that when land clearance is taken into account, biofuels made from grain or oil crops cause a big increase in emissions.

It's also because grain crops require nitrogen fertilizers, which produce emissions of nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas roughly 300 times as powerful as carbon dioxide. All told - apart from used chip fat (which can supply only a tiny fraction of motor fuel demand) - we're better off using petroleum.

But while other countries are starting to re-assess their biofuel programmes, the US is still ploughing ahead. Fuel suppliers are legally bound to blend 9bn gallons of biofuels into gasoline every year. This will rise to 36bn gallons a year in 2022. The Waxman-Markey Bill, passed recently by the House of Representatives, leans heavily on biofuels to meet US greenhouse gas targets. This is only because their total greenhouse impact has been deliberately ignored by legislators.

The US is committed to ethanol not because of concerns about the environment but because of the power of the agricultural lobby. Big Farmer grows all the policies it wants in Washington, as cornbelt representatives rely on grain barons and crop chemical manufacturers for political donations. Ethanol is the best thing that has happened to US agro-industry in decades: it greatly raises demand for grain while disproportionately rewarding the biggest growers (there are no niche markets here). So stand back and watch the battle of the lobbyists: Big Motor versus Big Farmer.

» <http://www.truthout.org/articles/by-author/external/George+Monbiot>

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

IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107, THIS MATERIAL IS
DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PROFIT TO THOSE WHO HAVE EXPRESSED A PRIOR NTEREST
IN RECEIVING THE INCLUDED INFORMATION FOR RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. TRUTHOUT HAS NO AFFILIATION WHATSOEVER WITH THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS ARTICLE NOR IS TRUTHOUT ENDORSED OR SPONSORED BY THE ORIGINATOR.

"VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS ARE PROVIDED AS A CONVENIENCE TO OUR READERS AND ALLOW FOR VERIFICATION OF AUTHENTICITY. HOWEVER, AS ORIGINATING PAGES ARE OFTEN UPDATED BY THEIR ORIGINATING HOST SITES, THE VERSIONS POSTED ON TO MAY NOT MATCH THE VERSIONS OUR READERS VIEW WHEN CLICKING THE "VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS.

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

biofuelwatch - Mexico: Oil palm business at the expense of the poor

From World Rainforest Movement Bulletin, July 2009, www.wrm.org.uy

Since 2004 the Mexican government has been promoting the expansion of oil palm plantations. Presently there are 9 oil extraction plants in four states, 6 of which are located in Chiapas, the main palm oil producing state in Mexico. During 2009, the government of the state of Chiapas will reach a total of 44 thousand hectares planted with oil palm trees and its governor has announced that by 2012 the intention is to reach a total of 100 thousand hectares, with a future projection reaching over 900 thousand hectares.

What is clear is that palm oil production has been possible thanks to strong government support, making it a profitable business. Direct support to farm operators for productive reconversion has been given in addition to trade promotion programmes and fostering of exports, advice and training etc. The European Union, also interested in oil palm plantations for agrofuel has been promoting the plantations in Chiapas since 2005, and more specifically, in the Lacandona Forest buffer zone and the Montes Azules Biosphere Reserve buffer zone on the frontier with Guatemala.

Both the Federal and Chiapas governments affirm that the palm trees are being planted in areas that had previously been deforested by cattle raising and other activities that are no longer profitable. However, many activities are no longer "profitable" for the entrepreneurial market because the government's strategy to gain land for oil palm has been to decrease support to other sectors in order to give them over to these plantations. The government has abandoned rural areas and small farmers and, within the rationale of the Free Trade Agreements, it has focussed on the agribusiness market and not on food sovereignty. Small farmers, peasants and indigenous people are forgotten and very often obliged to enter these new dynamics and provide both cheap labour and their lands, thus subsidizing agribusiness profits. The oil palm business would not be profitable without the major subsidies granted by the government, the World Bank, and the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), with their funding of programmes such as Procampo, intended for investment in oil palm plantations.

As denounced by the International Declaration against the `Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil' (RSPO) (http://www.wrm.org.uy/temas/Agrocombustibles/Declaracion_Internacional_RSPO.html) monoculture oil palm plantations "replace tropical forests and other ecosystems, leading to serious deforestation together with loss of biodiversity, flooding, the worsening of droughts, soil erosion, pollution of water courses and the apparition of pests due to a breakdown in the ecological balance and to changes in food chains". Additionally, monoculture oil palm plantations "also endanger the conservation of water, soil, flora and fauna. Forest degradation diminishes their climatic functions and their disappearance affects humanity as a whole."

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Forests identified as causes of deforestation and forest degradation governmental policies to replace forests with industrial tree plantations – such as oil palm – in addition to the advance of the agricultural frontier, pushed forward by monoculture tree plantations. Nevertheless, in the Montes Azules region, where deforestation has reached 80 percent of the 220 thousand hectares of forest, the government is talking of creating "protection belts through high impact production projects, such as oil palm," among others.

Oil palm plantations have not improved the living conditions of the population but worsened them. One of the serious problems that they cause is related to water. Faced with no supply of drinking water, the over 11 thousand people who live in the municipality of Marques de Comillas in the Montes Azules Biosphere Reserve mainly consume water from wells from groundwater sources. Oil palm plantations, great consumers of water, jeopardize the availability of water in the region. They also use large quantities of agrochemicals: insecticides such as endosulphan and other chemicals, including rodenticides that end up in the water courses. Hurricanes make the problem more serious when they cause the rivers to overflow, as is the case in the Lacandona forest with the Lacantun River, which contaminates the local farmers' subsistence crops and scatters agrochemicals in an area of rich biodiversity.

According to studies by the Chiapas Produce Foundation, the income of "an average ejido farmer with seven hectares and an average production of 19 tons per hectare" is the equivalent of 274 pesos (21 dollars) per day, that is to say, less than the Mexican minimum wage per hectare. Within the annual investment to establish one hectare of palm trees, the technological package costs the farmer roughly 6,500 pesos (that is 17 pesos or 1.3 dollars per day): it includes sowing (preparation of the land, purchase of the seedlings, weed control, clearing of paths, application of weed-killers, manual plantation), fertilization, pest control, pruning, equipment and services. One third of the cost is allocated to weed-killers, fertilizers and rodenticides. Furthermore, for the first three years there is no production or harvest and only as from the eighth year can 100 percent be harvested.

The farmers working for an oil palm processing company are usually trapped in this situation. The Extraction Plant of the Palma Tica de Mexico company offered seedlings to the farmers, on credit, under the condition that they sold all their harvest to the company. In many cases the farmers have neither the training nor the appropriate tools to harvest; in other cases they do not have the training or the technical advice for overall cultivation, control and management of the plantations. Very often the indigenous or peasant farmers selling to oil processing companies are not protected by purchase contracts or agreements, or insurance. This implies that if the company does not want to buy their production, they are not obliged to do so. There are no price differences in relation to the quality of the product being delivered.

In 2008, a group of workers from the AGROIMSA oil plant in the municipality of Mapastepec were repressed by public forces and an advisor and several leaders were arrested, some of them remaining in prison. They were also laid off which led to a labour dispute.

Moreover, oil palm plantations exclude other types of production. In the municipality of Villa Comaltitlan, one of the main cattle raising areas together with other coastal municipalities, it has been confirmed that the drop in cattle raising "was not due to negligence on the part of the farmers, but rather to the arrival of other crops that cannot be combined with cattle-raising. For example banana and oil palm plantations have taken up space, implying a drop in cattle-raising." In Chiapas monoculture palm plantations have had disastrous impacts on honey production, on which thousands of bee-keepers depend. The crisis has become more serious as the plantations increase. hey also cause other damage: in the municipality of Acapetahua, Mr. Manuel Jimenez stated that "the main culprits causing the destruction of roads and highways are the heavy goods transporters, as they cause damage with their trucks loaded with stones, cane and oil palm fruit." At the Mapastepec municipal seat, "along the ditch made to introduce drainage the land subsided (...) in the 15 September neighbourhood and now traffic is obstructed and great clouds of dust arise, affecting the health of the neighbours." Gabriel Colon and Elio Ventura, who live in this neighbourhood, have demanded that the mayor's office mend the road that has a lot of traffic, mainly trucks loaded with oil palm fruit going to the oil processing plant.

There is no doubt that great business deals are made at the expense of the poor, on their lands and territories and at the cost of humanity's common assets. Enough of monoculture plantations!

Summarized and adapted from: "La palma africana en México. Los monocultivos desastrosos", Gustavo Castro Soto, Otros Mundos, AC/Amigos de la Tierra México,
12 June 2009. The complete article may be accessed at: http://www.wrm.org.uy/paises/Mexico.html#info

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

biofuelwatch - Press Release: NGOs Denounce Corporate Greenwashing

Press Release and Media Advisory

NGOs Denounce Corporate Greenwashing:

`No to Dubious Biotech-fixes for Climate Change'

Montreal, 16 July 2009. Several groups including Greenpeace, ETC Group and Biofuelwatch are warning that the biotech lobby will mount a major green-washing public relations exercise during the Sixth Annual Conference on Industrial Biotechnology and Bioprocessing that will be held at the Montreal Convention Center (19-22 July 2009).

During the Conference, the biotech industry will present various untested biotechnology innovations as solutions to climate change. "The biotech industry is seeking massive public and private investment for their untested technologies, whose health and environmental impacts have not been fully examined. Rather than be duped by yet another green mirage, governments should invest in real solutions to climate change and get serious about reducing CO₂ emissions and commit to solutions that we know work -- like energy saving," says Eric Darier, Director of Greenpeace in Quebec.

The new face of the biotech industry is being made over using nanotechnology and synthetic biology to produce cosmetically "clean energy" that will replace fossil fuels. "Technologies which transform plant cellulose into fuel are part of a massive industrial grab on `biomass' – basically all living matter now found in forests, agricultural land and even our oceans," claims Jim Thomas from the international new-technology watchdog, ETC Group. "The consequences on biodiversity, sustainable agriculture, farmers and forests world-wide are devastating."

"Proponents of these technologies assume there is enough biomass to feed and fuel an expanding population. But the demand for plant biomass will be so vast it threatens to defoliate the surface of the planet just as we are recognizing the critical role of ecosystems in regulating climate," explains Rachel Smolker, PhD, of Biofuelwatch. "The problems with corn ethanol, which NGOs warned about three years ago, were only the tip of the iceberg!"

Breakfast Media Briefing

Monday 20^th July 2009 - 7:30 am to 8:45 am

Éric Darier (Greenpeace) Strategic Technological Assessment before it is too late

Jim Thomas (ETC Group) The Techno-hype of the New Sugar-based Economy

Rachel Smolker (Biofuelwatch) The Ecological Consequences of Industry's Assault on Biomass

Location: very near the Convention center

(exact location will be given after registration that is mandatory)

Reply to: Eric.darier@greenpeace.org

__._,_.___

biofuelwatch - 11 leading national experts reach consensus on beneficial biofuels

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-07/uom-eln071609.php

Public release date: 16-Jul-2009

Contact: Patty Mattern
mattern@umn.edu
612-624-2801
University of Minnesota

11 leading national experts reach consensus on beneficial biofuels

"Done right," biofuels can be produced in large quantities and have multiple benefits, but only if they come from feedstocks produced with low life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions, as well as minimal competition with food production. This consensus emerges in a new journal article by researchers from the University of Minnesota, Princeton, MIT and the University of California, Berkeley.

"The world needs to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy, but recent findings have thrown the emerging biofuels industry into a quandary. We met to seek solutions," said the U of M's David Tilman, a noted ecologist and lead author of the paper. "We found that the next generation of biofuels can be highly beneficial if produced properly."

The article, "Beneficial Biofuels—The Food, Energy and Environment Trilemma," will appear in the July 17 issue of Science. Tilman, a resident fellow of the U of M's Institute on the Environment, said the paper resulted from a year of conversations and debate among some of the nation's leading biofuel experts.

In addition to Tilman, the article contributors include the U of M's Jonathan Foley and Jason Hill; Princeton's Robert Socolow, Eric Larson, Stephen Pacala, Tim Searchinger and Robert Williams; Dartmouth's Lee Lynd; MIT's John Reilly; and the University of California, Berkeley's Chris Somerville.

The paper coincides with climate change policy debates in Congress, and tackles land use issues that have generated much controversy in recent years: Specifically, the greenhouse gases released when land is cleared to grow biofuel crops (or when other lands are cleared to compensate for food crops displaced by biofuel crops) can—for decades to centuries—exceed those from petroleum use.

"It's essential that legislation take the best science into account, even when that requires acknowledging and undoing earlier mistakes," said Princeton's Socolow, co-director of the Carbon Mitigation Initiative.

"Careful scientific reasoning revealed accounting rules that separate promising from self-defeating strategies," added Socolow. "Future carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere will tell us when we're kidding ourselves about what actually works. For carbon management, the atmosphere is the ultimate accountant."

To balance biofuel production, food security and emissions reduction, the authors conclude that the global biofuels industry must focus on five major sources of renewable biomass:

• Perennial plants grown on degraded lands abandoned from agricultural use
• Crop residues
• Sustainably harvested wood and forest residues
• Double crops and mixed cropping systems
• Municipal and industrial wastes

These sources can provide considerable amounts of biomass, at least 500 million tons per year in the United States alone, without incurring any significant land use carbon dioxide releases.

"We need to transition away from using food for biofuels toward more sustainable feedstocks that can be produced with much less impact on the environment," said the U of M's Hill, a resident fellow of the Institute on the Environment.

The U of M's Foley, director of the Institute on the Environment, said the consensus reached in this article is remarkable. "Technology experts, energy systems analysts, climatologists, ecologists and policy experts all agreed: Biofuels 'done right' have a bright future in solving our energy and environmental challenges. Both new and existing biofuel strategies have the potential for being among the green energy solutions we need today."

###

---

biofuelwatch - Planes 'should fly on biofuels'

[Re previous Policy Exchange report see posts ##2557, 2558]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8162305.stm

Page last updated at 02:24 GMT, Wednesday, 22 July 2009 03:24 UK E-mail this to a friend Printable version

Planes 'should fly on biofuels'

Virgin Atlantic are among airlines to trial flight powered by biofuel Biofuel research should focus on planes and not cars, the think tank Policy Exchange has said. A crop area the size of the USA would be needed to biofuel all the world's cars and alternatives, such as electricity, exist for them, it added. Instead, it said the EU should fund research into using plant-based fuel for aviation to help cut emissions. Sceptics say some biofuels create more carbon than they save and push up the price of food for the poor. Most biofuels are derived from crops such as corn, sugarcane and rapeseed. Bioethanol is usually mixed with petrol, while biodiesel is either used on its own or in a mixture. The UK government, which is funding a £27m research centre to find economically viable alternatives to fossil fuels, says 25% of greenhouse gas emissions come from transport. In April 2008, it introduced a "Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation", requiring 2.5% of all fuel sold at petrol stations to be biofuels, having revised its target from 5%. Escalating emissions The EU also changed its stipulation that 10% of transport fuel had to be from crop-based fuel, instead saying the targets could be met by any renewable source, including fuel cells, hydrogen or solar power. Policy Exchange has previously said the government should spend its £550m annual biofuel subsidies on halting the destruction of rainforests and peatland, which remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Now the centre-right think tank says the EU should switch policy to subsidising development of biofuels for aviation because planes cannot run on other sources of energy. Airlines including Virgin Atlantic have trialled flights using up to 20% biofuel to power the engines, although climate change campaigners say use of the fuel is not sustainable. Policy Exchange claims using biofuels is the only way in the foreseeable future to meet people's desire to travel without escalating emissions of greenhouse gases. Airlines should be mandated to blend biofuel with kerosene in increasing quantities from 2020, it believes. By this time new generation crop-based fuels should have been developed which do not compete with food crops. Green groups have been critical of the destruction of rainforest to create the fuels and the resultant loss of habitat for rare species. They also say that with more farmland being turned over to grow profitable biofuels, food production has fallen and pushed up global prices, affecting supplies for the poorest people.

[Ends]

---

biofuelwatch - Better Article On Shark 'Biofuel'

Hi all,

Here is a different article that you can share with others that contains the same alarming subject matter on 'biofuel' from sharks, without the inane quotes from WWF that sharks are 'mammals'...

http://www.greendiary.com/entry/artek-plans-to-produce-biofuel-from-shark/

Researchers at the Arctic Technology Center in Sisimiut in Western Greenland are on their way to producing biofuel from sharks’ oily flesh. A lot of research and experiments are being undertaken for this purpose. The pilot project funded by the EU in Uummannaq will use shark’s meat blended with wastewater and macro-algae to form a fish mince to be further used to produce biofuel. Thousands of Greenland sharks already lose their lives being trapped into the deadly nets of the anglers. Hence, it’s a sensible way to utilize the decaying bodies.

In order to utilize these dead beasts in a better way, Joegensen will perform tests at the organic waste treatment plant. ARTEK’s innovative solution will produces biofuel from sharks and other sea products, which could provide 13 percent of energy consumption in the village of Uummannaq.

Although it is claimed that the Greenland sharks are not in danger of extinction but the International Union for the Conservation of nature and the Danish branch of the Worldwide Fund for Nature do not quite agree to this. Therefore, using sharks to produce biofuels does not sound like a very good idea. It would rather be better to look for some other sustainable energy alternatives.

###

__._,_.___

biofuelwatch - Energy crops for biogas - developments in UK

http://www.edp24.co.uk/content/edp24/business/farming/story.aspx?brand=EDPOnline&category=Farm&tBrand=EDPOnline&tCategory=xDefault&itemid=NOED20%20Jul%202009%2008%3A06%3A00%3A943

Amaziing maize from Norfolk could set records

MICHAEL POLLITT, RURAL AFFAIRS EDITOR

Last updated: 18/07/2009 11:01:00

New varieties of purpose-bred energy maize are on trial across eastern England, including at a site near Norwich.

The trials involve plant breeders KWS and Masstock and will examine varieties' potential for biogas production.

Maize specialist John Burgess said the German plant breeder has had a specialist energy maize breeding programme for nearly a decade. Initially, it involved gigantic, South American material with delayed flowering, capable of producing high yields and 10,000 cub m of methane per hectare.

Farmers in Germany, who have more than 4,000 on-farm biogas plants feeding their national grid, have drilled the crop with enthusiasm. Every hectare of maize provides the electricity to power five houses per year.

Mr Burgess said: "Our aim in the UK is to provide growers with the right types for their specific region, in line with renewable energy obligations, once they start to kick in."

The company claims that new types - now on trial at Taverham - can produce fresh weight yields of up to 70t/ha, or nearly a third higher than the best forage maize varieties. Most successful types are late maturing and have a large, but robust, plant structure. "We specifically select for hybrids displaying good stability, with buttress roots that are longer and stronger than others, preventing collapse," said Mr Burgess.

Fermentation studies show that highest biogas production comes from those varieties where the proportion of cob is at least 45pc of the total maize plant yield, as opposed to purely green stover.

KWS will be holding farmer open days later this summer. Details from John at john.burgess@kws-uk.co.uk

http://www.kws-uk.com/aw/KWS/united_kingdom/News_Top_Menu/Submenu_Topic/Maize_Press_Archive/~dbnz/GIANT_MAIZE_TYPES_IN_UK_BIO-GAS_TRIALS/

Giant Maize Types in UK Bio-gas Trials

16th July 2009

KWS-UK is trialling a range of purpose-bred energy maize varieties at a number of sites across the UK.

The work - in partnership with Masstock and a number of farmers in the East of England – aims to examine their potential for bio-gas production.

John Burgess with bio-gas variety Ronaldinio (right) and standard maize (left)

According to the company’s UK maize specialist, John Burgess, the German plant breeder has had a specialist energy maize breeding programme for nearly ten years.

The work initially featured gigantic, South American material with delayed flowering that produced very high yields and 10,000 cubic metres of methane/ha.

German growers have been quick to realise this potential and there are now over 4000 on-farm biogas plants feeding their national grid. Every hectare down to maize provides sufficient electricity to power 5 houses per annum.

“Our aim is in the UK is to provide growers with the right types for their specific region, in line with Renewable Energy Obligations, once they start to kick in,” says Mr Burgess.

The company claim that new types – currently in the trials – can produce fresh weight yields of up to 70t/ha - 30% higher than the best forage maize varieties.

Most successful types are late maturing and have a very large, but robust plant structure. “We specifically select for hybrids displaying good stability, with buttress roots that are longer and stronger than other, preventing collapse,” says John.

Fermentation studies show that highest bio-gas production comes from those energy maize varieties where the proportion of cob is at least 45% of the total maize plant yield, as opposed to purely green stover.

Pictured is the variety Ronaldinio – (left) equivalent to NIAB Group 4/5, alongside a standard forage maize. The company also has hybrids equivalent to Group 3 and Group 6 maturity classes in trial.

Masstock trials are specifically looking at the optimum seed rates for maximum bio-gas production from these giant maize varieties.

KWS continues to test standard forage maize varieties across the UK and will be holding a range of farmer open days later this summer. For more information, contact John Burgess at john.burgess@kws-uk.co.uk

__._,_.___

biofuelwatch - shark fuel

(sharks are NOT mammals!)

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jZYaPI6X7WN8mk_GAsM1-YGzW_ZQ

Greenland shark may become new source of biofuel
By Slim Allagui (AFP) - 13 hours ago

SISIMIUT, Greenland - The Greenland shark, one of the largest species of sharks, is a nuisance to fishermen and its meat is toxic to humans, but researchers now hope the flesh can be used to create a biofuel for Inuits.

Native to the cold Arctic waters, thousands of the sharks get caught and die in fishermen's nets off Greenland every year. The beasts -- which can be compared to the Great White Shark in size at seven metres (23 feet) and can weigh up to a tonne -- are thrown back into the sea.

But at the Arctic Technology Centre (ARTEK) in Sisimiut in western Greenland, researchers are experimenting with ways of using the animal's oily flesh to produce biogas out of fishing industry waste.

"I think this is an alternative where we can use the thousands of tonnes of leftovers of products from the sea, including those of the numerous sharks," says Marianne Willemoes Joergensen of ARTEK's branch at the Technical University of Denmark.

Joergensen, in charge of the pilot project based in the Uummannaq village in northwestern Greenland, says the shark meat, when mixed with macro-algae and household wastewater, could "serve as biomass for biofuel production."

"Biofuel is the best solution for this kind of organic waste, which can be used to produce electricity and heating with a carbon neutral method," she said.

Biofuel based on sharks and other sea products could supply 13 percent of energy consumption in the village of Uummannaq with its 2,450 inhabitants, according to estimates.

The project could help the many isolated villages on the vast island to become self-sufficient in terms of energy.

Joergensen plans to run tests next year at an organic waste treatment plant in a project financed by the EU in Uummannaq, using shark meat mixed with wastewater and macro-algae to create a fish mince that can be used to produce biogas.

In Uummannaq, the Greenland shark represents more than half of the waste disposed of by the local fishermen.

"Entire trawlers are sometimes full of sharks and they are caught everywhere, especially off the east and west of Greenland, to the fishermen's great dismay," says Bo Lings who used to work on a big trawler.

"It's a large predator that devours fish, squid, seals and other marine life, and it also ruins the lines and nets of the halibut fishermen," adds Leif Fontaine, the head of Greenland's fishing and hunting association.

Fishing is Greenland's biggest export industry, with halibut its second-biggest product after shrimp.

The shark, which Inuits once hunted for its razor-like teeth that they used to make knives and for its liver oil that was used to light homes, has "become a problem for the environment."

"There are too many sharks in the nets and they just get thrown back," explains one of ARTEK's founders, engineer Joern Hansen.

Greenlanders usually dispose of fishing industry waste and household wastewater by throwing them into the sea.

In the Uummannaq municipality, over half of all the waste contains large amounts of fat that are suitable for producing biofuels in the future, and Hansen says that waste should be put to good use.

"All you have to do is set up installations in the fish processing centres, like in Ilulissat where the shrimp and halibut plant is partly heated by fish waste," he said.

Aksel Blytmann, a consultant at Greenland's fishing and hunting association, says the shark could turn out to be an "unexpected energy source."

He explained that Uummannaq once paid a 200-Danish-kroner (26-euro, 38-dollar) reward to fishermen for a shark heart in order to keep their numbers down. Other municipalities in the northwestern and western parts of Greenland still continue this practice, he said.

The species "swarms in the Arctic waters and is not in danger of extinction," Blytmann claimed.

But the International Union for the Conservation of Nature disagrees, as does the Danish branch of the Worldwide Fund for Nature.

Anne-Marie Bjerg, a WWF specialist on ocean mammals, says the shark-for-biofuel project "is not a good idea, not at all," and wants to see other sustainable energy projects undertaken instead.

"We know very little about the Greenland shark, which lives in a limited geographic zone, the Arctic," she said.

Contrary to the fishermen's own accounts, she insisted the mammal "does not pose big problems to Greenland's fishing industry."

"We are opposed to the commercial use of marine mammals, such as the Greenland shark, which is not universal and whose population size is unknown," she said.

--  

Rachel Smolker
Biofuelwatch
Hinesburg, Vermont, U.S.A.
office: (802) 482 2848
mobile: (802) 735-7794
skype: rachel smolker
http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/

__._,_.___

biofuelwatch - Land rights disputes rage on Kenya river

http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=304040&version=1&template_id=39&parent_id=21

Latest Update: Sunday19/7/2009July, 2009, 10:41 PM Doha Time

Land rights disputes rage on Kenya river

By Francois Ausseill, AFP/Tana River Delta, Kenya Joseph Mwakazi, a farmer in the Tana River delta, plows a piece of land leased to him by the Tana River Development Authority On the fertile lands around Kenya's longest river, a battle is raging - between farmers, conservationists and investors keen to turn the rich soil into swathes of commercial farmland. The 800km Tana river sustains a rich biodiversity and thousands of residents who rely on it for fish and on its sedimentary deposits for farming and pasture. In December, the residents won a court injunction temporarily halting the country's biggest sugar company, Mumias, from growing cane there for biofuel, but the case has since stumbled on legal technicalities. With the case still unresolved, Kenya announced in December it was planning to lease 40,000 hectares (100,000 acres) of land near Tana to the Gulf state of Qatar to grow fruit and vegetables in exchange for the construction of a port, road and railway. Despite the potential revenue that the projects can generate, residents here reject the sugar firm's plan since it will displace 22,000 people and dry up the soil. "We can be evicted anytime... They would have to dry the area and all. What will be left for us will be our poverty," local resident Bernard Onyango, a fisherman from western Kenya who relocated to a village near Tana 15 years ago. Not only is the prospect of eviction a major worry, huge herds of cattle from the parched regions of northern Kenya that rely on the grassland around the delta will be starved of pasture during dry spells. "In absence of all that, where will they go? They have nowhere else to go," said Roba Albado, pointing to a small lake near his village. Maulidi Kumbi Diwayu, who heads a local environmental watchdog, said that if the projects are allowed to go on, the loss of pasture and land will lead to dangerous conflicts between humans and wildlife. "The cattle will have nowhere to go but the stretch of land between the river and the project," he said. "Crocodiles will be concentrated in the river, creating danger for cattle and human lives." Such tussles expose the sensitive question of land tenure in Kenya, where it is categorised as either government land, freehold or trust land. Government land is that which belonged to the British colonial government and was handed to Kenya's government after independence, while trust land is in the hands of county councils. Trust land is communal and the council holds it in trust for the benefit of its residents. Most of the Orma and Pokomo communities living in the Tana river delta do not have title deeds and a government agency claims ownership of the land, but locals say the land was handed to them by their ancestors. Among the few residents who have title deeds is Worede Dela, a village elder in his seventies who said he inherited the document from his ancestors. The deed was handed to the family in 1923 by the British colonial administrators, he said. Little stands in the government's way to start projects in the rich delta except a slim chance that the area could come under the regulation of the 1971 Convention on Wetlands. The convention does not expressly ban large-scale agricultural use of wetlands but calls for the "conservation and wise use of wetlands and their resources." According to Judith Nyunja, an official with the state-run Kenya Wildlife Service, the convention could bar single-crop growing in wetlands such as the Tana river delta.

[Ends]

---

biofuelwatch - Boca Raton woman banks on biofuel venture, Article on Florida jatropha farm

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/services/content/business/epaper/2009/07/16/a1a_jatropha_0717.html?cxtype=ynews_rss

Boca Raton woman banks on biofuel venture

Click-2-Listen

By SUSAN SALISBURY

Palm Beach Post Staff Writer

Thursday, July 16, 2009

Just a couple of years ago, Teri Gevinson, a Boca Raton land developer, had never heard of jatropha. Now she owns 9,500 of the tropical oil-producing trees planted in the Agricultural Reserve west of Delray Beach.

Ag-Oil LLC, a company Gevinson formed last year, hopes to be crushing jatropha seeds and producing biofuel at its site by 2011. Its goal is to eventually produce 15 million gallons a year to help ease dependency on foreign oil.

See more photos


Graphic: The energy tree (Click to enlarge)


The 103-acre farm at the corner of U.S. 441 and West Atlantic Avenue is the first jatropha grove in Palm Beach County.

"This is more of a research project that's turning into reality," said Gevinson, 38. "I believe we are going to make a difference."

Previously, Gevinson's company, Ascot Development, leased the land to pepper growers, but they were asking for a rent reduction and other development plans were falling through.
Her dilemma didn't escape daughter Sloane, then a fifth-grader at Pine Crest School in Boca Raton.

"She came home from school and said, 'We talked about energy plants that produce oil. Why don't you take your land and grow something?' We Googled jatropha," Gevinson said.

Though not a scientist or a farmer, Gevinson invested more than $200,000 in the venture and found some of the "best minds in the field" to help the project succeed.

Art Kirstein, agriculture economic development coordinator at the Palm Beach County Cooperative Extension Service, helped her obtain seeds from India, Mexico, Indonesia and Haiti under a University of Florida import permit.

"You can grow jatropha in Florida," Kirstein said. "It doesn't like cold weather."
Dylan Bailey is a palm tree grower who manages the jatropha farm for Ag-Oil. He says a variety from Haiti is performing best. "The plants put in the ground in January are 4 to 5 feet tall, and another 10,000 plants will go in soon," he said.

The company received a $2.5 million state grant this year and is seeking a $25 million federal grant in conjunction with its research collaborators, including Southern Illinois University, the University of Florida, United Environment and Energy and Argonne National Laboratory.

A mechanical harvester used to pick crops such as blueberries will be deployed, because picking by hand is too expensive. Ultimately, Ag-Oil plans to use algae to convert byproducts of jatropha oil production to biofuel, thus increasing the oil output.

For now, the company is working to determine which jatropha varieties will produce the most oil so it will be a viable crop.

The technology it plans to use in biofuel production will give it an edge, said project manager Brian Weprin, and the demand for the fuel already exists. There's also an outreach effort to get farmers and landowners interested in growing jatropha.

The seed-processing facility remains to be built, but Weprin is confident the company is already working with an economically viable variety.

George Philippidis, associate director at Florida International University's Applied Research Center, said a lot of work remains to be done with jatropha.

"There may be potential," Philippidis said. "We should set our expectations at a reasonable level. There are a lot of unknowns."

Some citrus growers are experimenting with jatropha. But Mark DuBois, operations manager at Callery-Judge Grove near Loxahatchee, said he hasn't planted any yet.

"We can't really formulate a business plan with jatropha that seems to work right now. We are still a little bit wary of it," DuBois said.

With diesel fuel prices down, Kirstein said, the economics of growing jatropha for fuel are borderline. Weprin said a $1-per-gallon tax credit for biofuel producers helps.

"You have to give them credit," Kirstein said of Ag-Oil. "Many people talk about being green. Very few people are actually doing anything."

[Ends]

---

biofuelwatch - BP to get out of jatropha; EU biodiesel output up 35 percent

1. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/6533823.html

BP exits jatropha biofuel project to focus on ethanol

Bloomberg News

July 17, 2009, 6:37AM

BP Plc, Europe's second-largest oil company, will exit its jatropha biofuel project with D1 Oils Plc to focus on production of ethanol in Brazil and the U.S. and advance biobutanol development.

"To ensure the success of these investments, BP is concentrating new business development in these areas and will no longer be directly involved in the jatropha as a biofuel feedstock," Sheila Williams, a London-based company spokeswoman, said today in an e-mail.

D1 Oils said today it agreed to acquire BP's 50 percent interest in their joint D1-BP Fuel Crops Ltd. venture, set up in June 2007 to develop jatropha, a drought-resistant tree whose seeds contain oil used mainly in biodiesel production.

BP and D1 Oils had failed to find a third investor for the project. They began talks this year on dissolving the venture and bringing planting and plant-science operations under D1's control. London-based D1 said last month it would be able to maintain the business at lower cost until market conditions allowed the injection of new capital.

The partners had planned to plant 1 million hectares of jatropha over four years, of which 220,000 hectares had been planted by April.

BP Alternative Energy has earmarked $8 billion for project investment in the decade through 2015. BP, which expects biofuels to account for 11 percent to 19 percent of the world's transport-fuel market by 2030, supplied about 10 percent of global biofuels last year, according to company estimates.

The British oil producer is cooperating with U.S. universities to spend about $500 million over 10 years on biofuels research. It's also working with DuPont Co., the third- largest U.S. chemicals maker, to develop biobutanol, a gasoline- like fuel made from biomass.

BP last year agreed to invest in Brazilian ethanol venture Tropical BioEnergia SA and plans to spend $5 billion to $6 billion to boost production over 5 to 10 years. Brazil's Santelisa Vale SA and Grupo Maeda Ltda each hold 25 percent of Tropical BioEnergia, while BP has 50 percent.

"We believe that biofuels will make a major contribution to road transport fuels, reducing carbon emissions and diversifying supply," Williams said.

BP and the U.S.'s Verenium Corp. agreed in February to set up a venture to produce cellulosic ethanol, which, unlike sugar- cane ethanol, is derived from non-food crops such as switchgrass, corn cobs and wood waste.

Last year, BP teamed up with Associated British Foods Plc and DuPont to start building a $450 million wheat-based ethanol plant in Hull, northeast England. The partners may complete construction in the second or third quarter of next year, Philip New, head of biofuels at BP, said on March 17.

Europe's largest oil company is Royal Dutch Shell Plc.

2. http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-BusinessofGreen/idUSTRE56E2WC20090715

EU biodiesel output up 35 percent, capacity growing

Wed Jul 15, 2009 8:22am EDT

By Sybille de La Hamaide
PARIS (Reuters) - Production of biodiesel in the European Union rose by more than 35 percent in 2008 and capacity will grow again this year although half the plants are idle due to poor demand, the EU producers group said on Wednesday.

The Brussels-based European Biodiesel Board (EBB) said the European production of biodiesel, by far the main biofuel made in the bloc, had reached 7.76 million tonnes last year putting the EU's global market share close to 65 percent.

However, the EBB qualified the 2008 rise as "moderate" compared to the jump of 65 percent in 2005 and 54 percent in 2006 but the rise was only at 17 percent in 2007.

"In line with the trend initiated in 2007, the year 2008 saw a relatively small increase in EU biodiesel production, and even a reduction in two major producing Member States, Germany and Austria," the EBB said in a statement.

For detailed statistics of biodiesel output per country and estimates for the 2009 capacity, please click on

"This situation has to be understood primarily against the background of unfair international trade competition which has severely affected the profitability of EU biodiesel producers since early 2007," it added.

The EU last week endorsed a proposal by the Commission, the 27-member bloc's executive arm, to extend for five years its anti-dumping tariffs against cheap U.S. biodiesel imports. The move was welcomed by the EBB, which had complained that EU producers were being hammered by U.S. subsidies.

"This decision will help re-establishing EU producer's legitimate right to operate in a level-playing field," it said.

HALF EU PLANTS IDLE
In addition to a fall in demand mainly linked to strong U.S. competition, EU producers have also suffered from slumping margins as the fall in crude oil prices over the past year was not compensated by a similar drop in vegetable oils prices.

Even if the EU will have total biodiesel production capacity of close to 21 million tonnes this year -- a rise of 31 percent on the year -- the EBB said 2008 and 2009 statistics showed that at least 50 percent of existing plants remain idle.

"Unfair international competition has been the main driver of this trend, while the political discussions in 2008 on adoption of the Renewable Energy Directive have added to market uncertainty," it said.

In an interview with Reuters late May, the EU's largest biodiesel maker, France's Diester Industrie, said it was pausing in its investments until it knew the details, expected next year, of the implementation of the EU's target of 10 percent renewable energies in transport by 2020.
The share that will be allocated to biofuels to reach this target is still unclear.
(Editing by Peter Blackburn)

© Thomson Reuters 2009 All rights reserved

[Ends]

---

biofuelwatch - Tory leader flew to biofuel meeting

Tory leader flew to biofuel meeting

Friday, July 17 04:24 pm

Environmental campaigners have criticised Conservative Party leader David Cameron for using a helicopter to travel to a meeting with university biofuel researchers.

Related photos / videos

Tory leader flew to biofuel meeting

Mr Cameron flew from London to Norwich where he met experts from the University of East Anglia working on cutting-edge research aimed at turning crop waste into fuels.

His trip was aimed at boosting the Conservative hopes of winning the Norwich North constituency in a by-election on Thursday.

But the Green Party said Mr Cameron should have chosen the cheaper and greener option of travelling by train.

"How ironic that Mr Cameron, who claims to be committed to working to reduce climate change, should travel from London to Norwich in a helicopter instead of taking the opportunity to reduce his carbon footprint and use the train," said the Green Party's candidate Rupert Read.

"This kind of behaviour undermines any Green credentials the Conservative Party have."

A Green Party spokesman added: "The journey from London to Norwich takes about an hour and a half and the train service is good.

"The most environmentally friendly way of travelling from London to Norwich is plainly by train - the least environmentally friendly way is travelling by helicopter. It's doubly ironic that he's travelling to a university to discuss the development of environmentally friendly fuels."

Mr Cameron spent around 20 minutes discussing bio fuel research with academics at the University of East Anglia's biological sciences department.

The Norwich North by-election was called earlier this summer after Labour MP Ian Gibson resigned in the wake of the expenses scandal.

[Ends]

---

biofuelwatch - Branson interview claims on "clean fuel" and biochar

From http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/nothing-like-a-dame-how-vivienne-westwood-traded-a-couture-lifestyle-for-the-front-line-of-the-eco-war-1739905.html
 
Sunday, 12 July 2009
 
[Richard] Branson... is also developing travel beyond the Earth's atmosphere with Virgin Galactic, the first flight of which Lovelock is famously booked on to. "He keeps calling me and saying, 'Hurry up, Richard,'" he relates cheerfully, pleased to give a glimpse of Gaia from above to a man whose work has given us a glimpse of a future we must try to avoid.

Both [Vivienne] Westwood and Branson believe in the need for more information: that the Government and business owe it to the public – if not to Gaia herself, to use Lovelock's terms – to find practical solutions to the problem. "There has to be a sense of urgency," says Branson. "We put up a $25m prize for anybody who could come up with a way of extracting carbon from the Earth's atmosphere. Obviously rainforests extract carbon, but we need to come up with another method."

One such potential solution is "biochar", a charcoal created by decomposing biological matter, which is then stored in the ground, rather than released as carbon. Thus, waste products from farms, factories and homes are ploughed into fields, where they become fertiliser. "If every farmer did it, it would cancel out all the liquid fuels – so everything that planes, trains, cars and lorries emit would be put back into the Earth again," explains Branson. These sorts of ideas excite Westwood: "We have to deal with solutions – the actual, the technical and the practical things of what we are going to do. Some bright spark in America said that everyone should paint their roofs white to cool the Earth down. We don't know, but that might be such a simple, brilliant idea."

Simplicity is key to Westwood's ideology: she believes in scaling back the excess and focusing on quality, which sits happily with her label's brand ethic. Her autumn/winter 06 collection featured T-shirts with the motto "I am expensiv" [sic], which she has redesigned in red for Virgin's birthday flight. "There's this picture of a flower on it," she explains. "[It's] got this daft grin because all this consumption is killing it, but we just want more and more. We're just using up the world," she says firmly. "I don't think there's a future in quantity. Every time politicians talk about growth, they're lying. You have to somehow pull back and make only what's useful."

Time was when a Westwood piece was an investment – something ordinary people would save up to buy. But with the onset of fast fashion, such shopping habits have disappeared. And Westwood is happy to say "Don't buy clothes," and to speculate on whether fashion should even exist in a world of such imminent crisis. She wants to know whether Branson is as willing to play down his own business ' interests for the sake of the Earth's. What does he think of the third runway planned for Heathrow?

"If we can replace polluting fuel with clean fuel," he replies, "which I think we can within five years, it make sense to have it. If you hold Great Britain back from progression, you won't have the resources to build clean power stations and so on. It's a balancing act, but my gut feeling is that a third runway makes sense – with conditions of practice: that the planes flying on that runway are not polluting."

Westwood's view is that a third runway would be a "white elephant"...

 

[Excerpt]

 

 

---

biofuelwatch - Public Rejects Genetically Engineered Trees

For Immediate Release 16 July 2009

Public Overwhelmingly Rejects Genetically Engineered Trees

Hinesburg, VT (U.S.)--Nearly 17,500 public comments were sent to the US Department of Agriculture opposing their recommendation for approval of an ArborGen [1] proposal to plant over a quarter of a million genetically engineered (GE) eucalyptus trees. Only 39 favorable comments were received by the USDA. If allowed, the plantings would take place on 330 acres of land across seven states in the Southern U.S., to supposedly feed future cellulosic ethanol production.

All but one of the field trials would be allowed to flower and produce seeds. The trees are genetically engineered to be cold tolerant, produce less lignin and have altered fertility. When the USDA issued their draft Environmental Assessment (EA) in early May in favor of ArborGen's proposal, the STOP GE Trees Campaign [2] mobilized.

The collection of comments from people firmly opposing the large-scale release of GE eucalyptus trees was a combined effort of several different organizations that recognize the inherent danger in this industry proposal. Eucalyptus trees are known to be wildly invasive, extremely flammable and deplete huge quantities of ground water. They are also not native to North America. In many cases they have exacerbated drought conditions, which can set the stage for devastating wildfires. In a massive Australian eucalyptus wildfire earlier this year,173 people perished.

"Releasing a quarter of a million genetically modified trees that are allowed to both flower and produce seeds is irresponsible and dangerous," stated George Kimbrell, Staff Attorney for the Center for Food Safety. "USDA failed to analyze rigorously the foreseeable impacts of this unprecedented experiment on native environments, which could have devastating consequences," he concluded.

"The Organic Consumer's Association strongly opposes the release of any and all GMO trees into the environment," stated Craig Minowa, Environmental Scientist at the OCA. "Some of the projected social and environmental impacts from the release of GMO trees commercially include the increased use of toxic herbicides and pesticides and the contamination of native forests with GMO trees engineered for such traits as reduced lignin, insect resistance, or faster growth which would be devastating to forest ecosystems," he added.

With offices in the U.S., Brazil and New Zealand, ArborGen is shipping GE tree tissue from location to location. According to the draft USDA Environmental Assessment, the GE tree hybrid used to create the 260,000 GE tree clones to be planted in the U.S. originated in Brazil, where non-GMO eucalyptus plantations have long been causing massive social and ecological problems. The GE tree tissue was then sent to New Zealand where it was genetically engineered and then shipped to the U.S. for cloning and outdoor release. [3]

"Here in New Zealand ArborGen has been prevented from doing field trials of their GE trees because it is recognized that the risks associated with these field trials are simply too great," stated Co-chair and spokesperson Steffan Browning of the Soil & Health Association of New Zealand. "GE trees are prohibited from field trials in New Zealand, so ArborGen will export them to the USA or anywhere else they can get away with it. This scandal brings shame to New Zealand's clean, green GMO-free reputation," he added.

The USDA will be making a final decision soon. For updates on the current status of the application visit: http://nogetrees.org

Contacts:

Anne Petermann, Global Justice Ecology Project, +1.802.482.2689/ mobile: +1.802.578.0477

Scot Quaranda, Dogwood Alliance, +1.828.242.3596

NOTES:

[1] ArborGen is the global leader in the research, development and commercialization of genetically engineered trees. ArborGen is jointly owned by International Paper, MeadWestvaco and Rubicon.

[2] The Stop GE Trees Campaign steering committee includes the Global Justice Ecology Project, Dogwood Alliance, Sierra Club, Institute for Social Ecology, Canadian Biotechnology Action Network, ETC Group, World Rainforest Movement, Global Forest Coalition, TimberWatch and other groups that have united toward the goal of prohibiting the ecologically and socially devastating release of genetically engineered trees into the environment. This growing campaign has 144 partners in 36 countries around the globe. For more information visit: http://nogetrees.org. World Rainforest Movement is the southern hemisphere hub of the campaign and this month features "The Transgenic Trees Threat" on their website http://www.wrm.org.uy/.

[3] Page 27 of the EA http://www.regulations.gov/search/search_results.jsp?sid=1227AB60E014&Ntt=aphis-2008-0059&Ntk=All&Ntx=mode+matchall&N=8059&css=0&Ne=2+8+11+8053+8054+8098+8074+8066+8084+8055+11

--  

__._,_.___

biofuelwatch - Agrofuels, a Special Focus on Petén - PBI Guatemala

News item from PBI Guatemala

*http://tinyurl.com/mrkx8s*

Agrofuels, a Special Focus on Petén

/*"It is a crime against humanity to convert agriculturally productive land into land that is producing crops for the transformation into bio-fuels".*/
Jean Ziegler, United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food.

As a result of fluctuating oil prices, concerns over the future security of fossil fuels, and global pressures addressing climate change, policies for the use of renewable energies have developed. Governments have placed agrofuel and diesel policies at the top of their agendas, with the objective of increasing their use in years to come. Coupled with investment from international financial institutions, national and regional policies promote the development and expansion of monoculture production of agro-fuel crops. In Guatemala, sugarcane, African palm and jatropha are the crops intended for agro-fuels production. The production of agro-ethanol from sugarcane in Guatemala began in 1983 - agrodiesel from jatropha in 2007. At the end of 2008, Guatemala was preparing itself for a large scale production of agrodiesel from African palm.

Although the situation affects Guatemala on the whole, the department of Petén suffers added consequences as it is home to the largest and most diverse protected area in the country. It is a region rich in natural resources, all of which are increasingly exploited. Additionally, Petén is a destination for many campesino families seeking land access; including families from other departments who have sold their land to companies dedicated to the production agrofuel crops. Migration contributes to the deforestation and places additional pressure on Petén's protected areas.

It is widely known that sugarcane and palm plantations have expanded in recent years, though official figures do not yet exist. Estimations regarding the current situation have been made by various investigators and social organizations. The municipality of Sayaxché, Southeast of the department of Petén, is most affected by this phenomenon. It covers an area of 375 thousand hectares, and it has been calculated that between 40 and 45 thousand hectares have been sold to African palm and hydroelectric projects, displacing almost two thousand families. There are a number of cases in central and Southern Sayaxché where entire communities have sold their land and other cases where a considerable percentage of community members have ceded to this pressure, tempting the remainder to do the same. African palm plantations also occupy much of Sayaxché's Northern territory, and are extending towards the municipalities of Poptún and San Luis, in the West -taking advantage of land close to the river Pasión.

Who's buying?

* *Palmas de Ixcán*, is a subsidiary of Green Earth Fuels, United States transnational company, with national capital from the Arriola-Torrebiarte family and international capital from the Carlyle group and Goldman Sachs. In addition to owning plantations in Quiché and Alta Verapaz, they have acquired around five thousand hectares in the San Román area (see box), La Soledad, Las Delicias, El Roto Viejo, El Roto Nuevo and Tierra Blanca, in Sayaxché.
* *Hame S. A./Suprema S. A.*, receives capital from the Molina Botrán Group and owns large extensions of plantations, estimated at 33 thousand hectares, in the municipalities of Sayaxché and San Luis.
* *Beltranena Orive* owns plantations in La Cachimba an area on the border between the departments of Petén and Alta Verapaz.
* *The Campollo Codina and Köng Groups* also own plantations in Sayaxché.

Why Are They Selling?

The Social and Pastoral care branch of the Catholic Church, which, among other programs, works with communities in land legalization processes, became aware of a situation whereby families were receiving their land titles, and directly selling them off. Observing this situation, the Association for Development and Progress in Petén (ADECOP Iitzam) organized a workshop to address this phenomenon, asking communities why they were selling. The most frequent responses were: a) poor land productivity; b) economic necessity (with this in mind selling seemed an immediate money earning solution); and lastly c) pressure from economically powerful actors, including pressure from within communities by infiltrators or leaders "bought" by the same interested power.

Threats, coercion and violence have been used to acquire land from families, in Petén especially; similarly, Sums of money significantly higher than typical local prices have been offered. Furthermore, the lack of community organization and awareness creates vulnerability to coercion and pressure to sell. There are those who attribute weakness in campesino productivity to an absence of adequate rural agrarian policies promoted by the Government. As a result families do not attribute value to their land. Others are of the opinion that deficient social infrastructure gives them no reason to stay.

Social, Economic, Cultural and Ecological Consequences

One of the major concerns resulting from the selling of land in Petén and other in areas, particularly the departments of the Northern Transversal Strip, is migration into the North, where principal protected areas are located. The response from the State, according to Luis Solano, has been to carry out evictions. In 2008, the National Council for Protected Areas (CONAP), together with state security forces, evicted 20 families that had settled in the area around Aguateca Cultural Monument, a protected area in Sayaxché, after having sold their land to an African palm company. A further 30 people voluntarily left the Dos Pilas Cultural Monument in the same area after CONAP's intervention. Meanwhile, the pressure is felt in the Mayan Biosphere Reserve, located in the North of the department, with evictions of new settlements reported in Sierra Lacandón and Laguna del Tigre National Parks. According to the National Network for the Defence of Food Sovereignty (REDSAG), in a country with a long history of agrarian problems this situation can only generate more conflict. Furthermore, in relation to land access, the Land Fund (FONTIERRA), a state body that facilitates land access by means of credits for families and communities, explains that in recent years land has become difficult to come by, and due to a shortfall in state land they find themselves competing with private interests in a milieu of rising prices and limited by their own long and bureaucratic process.

The shift towards monocrops destined for the production of agro-fuels brings with it, according to the Institute of Agrarian and Rural Studies (IDEAR), the loss of local campesino food production such as corn, beans etc…. This not only has economic costs but also social and cultural costs -l ike changes in family, community and ancestral traditions in production. In 2008 the Inter American Development Bank (BID) observed a significant rise in food prices, and it has been documented that the global demand for agrofuels has contributed to this increase, as much in rural as urban areas. With this rise it is predicted that poverty will become more widespread in countries like Guatemala.

Although companies claim that monocrops will generate employment and wealth for the economy, IDEAR points out that in the area of Polochic, Alta Verapaz, palm and sugarcane generates much less employment per manzana, compared with the campesino agricultural produce. Furthermore, despite producing wealth at a national level, it does not filter down to a local level. In some cases families remain on land they have sold in order to work in the new plantations often under hard, badly paid and frequently temporary working conditions.

Monocrops are a fuel source thought to mitigate the negative effects of climate change; yet according to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FOA), when taking into account crop production methods and the process of transforming them into fuels, the mono-crops industry can in fact generate more greenhouse gases than fossil fuels.

There are also notable affects on the environment including the use of agrochemicals that contaminate the soil and water sources; deforestation, and the excessive use of water. Additionally, the areas dedicated to palm production have a threshold of between 20 and 30 years, from whence the land is rendered useless.

Responses and Resistance

Criticisms have been made at the lack of Government intervention, and in certain cases, at state institutions which open doors to mono-crop companies. According to Laura Hurtado from Action Aid Guatemala, companies access information from the Information Registry and FONTIERRA, facilitating their search and purchase of land and its regularization -a process that normally takes an average of two years, but in the case of such companies is reduced to six months36. Various social organizations in Petén, such as the Social and Pastoral Care Branch of the Catholic Church, Ixmucané, ADECOP Iitzam, Alianza para la Vida y la Paz, and the Coordinator of Campesino-Indigenous Organizations in Petén are adjusting the way they work with communities in reaction to this new challenge. They carry out workshops to raise awaeness, community organization and farming so that families learn to value fully and utilize their land, comprehending the negative consequences of selling. Martín Jiménez of Alianza para la Vida y la Paz, is hopeful for the future because, as a result of these workshops, the sale of land has ceased in the village of Las Camelias and in three other communities.

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

biofuelwatch - DfT has today published "Low carbon transport: a greener future"

Published today by UK Government Transport ministry

The DfT has today published “Low carbon transport: a greener future”

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/sustainable/carbonreduction/low-carbon.pdf

Improving public transport and other sustainable modes is one of three key themes.

The strategy is based on the following themes:

zzSupporting a shift to new technologies and fuels

zzPromoting lower carbon transport choices

zzUsing market-based measures to encourage a shift to lower carbon transport

Detail from report:

Sustainable biofuels

Promoting the use of sustainable biofuels is an important part of our strategy in the development of a low carbon transport system.

We are pursuing this through regulation – with the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation in the UK and through the Renewable Energy and Fuel Quality Directives in the EU. Through these instruments, we aim to guarantee likely demand and provide certainty to industry, as well as preventing unsustainable biofuels from being produced and consumed, through the application of minimum sustainability standards. We will set out our strategy for meeting our biofuels targets in a National Action Plan by June 2010.

We are also supporting research into new biofuels in the UK. This will feed into efforts by the European Commission to understand – and, if appropriate, create a methodology to account for – indirect land-use change. We believe that this is important for securing long-term investor certainty in the biofuels industry.

Sustainable biofuels

3.88 We are committed to ensuring that transport fuels are cleaner, greener and less carbon intensive. Biofuels are blended into the conventional transport fuels that we use today and therefore are a readily available renewable technology. They have the potential to emit 338-371 million tonnes of global CO₂ less each year than the fossil fuels they replace.³⁷ However, the 2008 Gallagher Review found that unless produced in the right manner, with appropriate crops, biofuels risk displacing existing agricultural production, which in turn may drive deforestation and the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services. This could cause both an increase in net greenhouse gas emissions (above those associated with conventional fossil fuels) as well as contributing to higher food prices and food shortages.

37 http://www.dft.gov.uk/rfa/_db/_documents/Report_of_the_Gallagher_review.pdf

57 Low Carbon Transport: A Greener Future

3.89 Promoting the use of sustainable biofuels is therefore an important part of our strategy to deliver a low carbon transport system. A sustainable biofuel is one that delivers high greenhouse gas savings and low social and environmental impacts. We are taking action in two main areas to support this:

zzUsing regulation to promote sustainable biofuels; and

zzSupporting innovative research into new biofuels.

Using regulation to promote sustainable biofuels

3.90 Long-term targets, set in law, are an important mechanism for ensuring development of the best biofuels. They guarantee likely demand and provide certainty to industry which, in turn, encourages innovative investment in new biofuels.

3.91 Regulations can also prevent unsustainable biofuels from being produced and consumed through minimum sustainability standards. In light of this, we have signed up to two ambitious targets under the European Renewable Energy and Fuel Quality Directives. Both contain binding mandatory sustainability standards for biofuels. Accordingly we want to deploy the most sustainable and cost-effective biofuels available by 2020 to:

zzReduce greenhouse gas emissions from transport fuels by 6 per cent; and

zzEnsure that 10 per cent of transport’s energy comes from renewable sources³⁸.

3.92 We will be putting new laws in place to meet these targets by December 2010. The existing Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation³⁹, will need to be amended or superseded to comply with European law.

3.93 The UK Renewable Energy Strategy (published in parallel with this strategy) sets out a range of scenarios for how much biofuel we will be using between now and 2020.⁴⁰ We will firm up these proposals in a National Action Plan, which we will be publishing in June 2010.

38 By the end of 2014 the Commission will undertake a review of, amongst others, the cost-efficiency of the measures to be implemented to achieve the target and the feasibility of meeting the target sustainably. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:140:0016:0062:EN:PDF

39 The Renewable Transport Fuel Obligations Order 2007 obligates fossil fuel suppliers to show that a certain percentage of their fuel comes from renewable sources. The obligation level will rise annually in stages until we reach a level of 5 per cent renewable fuel in 2013/14.

40 http://decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/what_we_do/uk_supply/energy_mix/renewable/res/res.aspx

58 Supporting a shift to new technologies and cleaner fuels

Supporting innovative research into new biofuels

3.94 Setting minimum greenhouse gas savings will help to improve biofuel sustainability. Yet there is more that we want to do to encourage the supply of the right kind of biofuels in the UK which generate genuine net greenhouse gas savings. That is why we are developing a comprehensive cross-government research and development strategy on sustainable biofuels. The strategy will be informed by a research scoping study that is due for publication in summer 2009.

3.95 Our research strategy will complement existing innovations. For example, in January 2009, the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council’s Sustainable Bioenergy Centre was launched to target research into the development of advanced bioenergy, representing a £20 million Government investment. The Department is also providing up to £6 million to the Carbon Trust’s Advanced Bioenergy Directed Research Accelerator, which is investigating the potential of algae for biofuels.

3.96 The Government intends to provide financial support for the creation by industry of a biofuels demonstration plant in England, which would use organic waste material to produce bioethanol and renewable power. Further details are expected to be announced later this year.

3.97 Our research will also feed into current efforts by the European Commission to understand and, if appropriate, create a methodology to account for indirect land-use change. We believe that this is important for securing long-term investor certainty and public confidence in the biofuels industry.

3.98 There may also be significant potential for biofuels to be used in aviation. There has been a considerable amount of research in this area. For example, the use of drop-in biofuels, which provide an equivalent replacement for kerosene, have already been tested on commercial airliners, and the results are encouraging, suggesting that they may not require modifications to use. Manufacturers such as Boeing have suggested that biofuel-powered aircraft could be certified for commercial use within the next three to five years, with blends of up to 30 per cent being commercially feasible. However, as there is only a limited availability of biofuels we will need to have a coherent strategy for utilising their sustainable deployment both in the air and on land.

3.99 We will continue to work with other governments to encourage and promote the use of sustainable biofuels within the aviation sector, and to ensure that issues relating to their supply can be overcome.

__._,_.___

biofuelwatch - Venter:Exxon algae venture

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/542f8336-709a-11de-9717-00144feabdc0.html

Exxon joins algae-based biofuel push

By Ed Crooks in London

Published: July 14 2009 19:21 | Last updated: July 14 2009 19:21

ExxonMobil and Craig Venter, the pioneer of human genome research, have set up a $600m partnership to research the potential for making biofuels from algae.

Mr Venter told the Financial Times that the joint venture was “critical for the whole world” but warned that commercial deployment could be 10 years away.

“There has been so much hype and hope about the potential for algae that this announcement should act as a reality check for everyone,” said Mr Venter. “We are not saying we are going to have millions of tonnes of algae next year.”

More at:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/542f8336-709a-11de-9717-00144feabdc0.html

__._,_.___

biofuelwatch - Tar Sands and Palm Oil in DR Congo

[ For background report see www.boell.de/downloads/Eni_congo_G8__final_.pdf ]

PRESS RELEASE 3 July 2009

Tar sands in Congo Basin poses huge risks for one of world's poorest countries and will worsen runaway climate change

On the eve of the G8 Summit, civil society groups meeting in Sardinia are calling for Italian oil company Eni to rethink plans to develop tar sands and agro-fuels in Africa's Congo Basin. Ongoing research by the Heinrich Boell Foundation, Campaign for the Reform of the World Bank (CRBM) and Rencontre pour la paix et les droits de l'homme (RPDH) highlights the potentially devastating impacts of the investment on the environment and local communities.1

The project also raises questions about the commitment of G8 companies and governments - specifically Italy, G8 host and Eni's major shareholder – to tackling climate change and improving access to energy for the world's poorest citizens, key themes at this year's G8. In May, energy ministers said that: "coping with the interlinked issues of energy investments, energy access and availability, and the climate change challenge is key to the future of our countries." They promised "resolute action" to address energy poverty, particularly stark in Africa, despite the continent's vast fossil fuel wealth and renewable energy potential.2

In 2008, Eni signed agreements to spend $3 billion on developing tar sands, palm oil for fuel and food, and electricity in the Republic of Congo, located in the Congo Basin, the second largest area of tropical forest left in the world and a vital carbon sink.3 Italy's G8 Action Plan includes a specific commitment to "safeguarding the forests of the Congo Basin".4 Congo is one of the poorest countries in the world, despite decades of oil production, with a history of corruption and conflict. Barely 25% of the population have access to electricity, and the country lacks any proper environmental regulation.

Barbara Unmüßig, President of the Heinrich Boell Foundation says: "This is the first tar sands project in Africa and its impacts on the local environment and communities, and on our climate, would be huge. Neither Congo nor the world can afford it." Tar or oil sands production is currently only occurring in Canada, where its environmental and social costs are well-known: they include water depletion and pollution, habitat destruction and deforestation, and the creation of vast, toxic tailing ponds. Production of a barrel of tar sands bitumen is 3-5 times more intensive in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions than a barrel of conventional oil.5 Monoculture palm oil has also been heavily criticized by civil society groups for causing deforestation, higher GHG emissions, threats to food security and to indigenous groups.6

Local communities in Congo have long complained about the social and environmental impacts of oil, especially the health impacts of gas flaring at Eni's M'Boundi oil field. According to Christian Mounzéo, President of human rights organisation RPDH, "there has been no meaningful consultation with local communities, which contradicts Eni's human rights policies. Turning flared gas into electricity could be a good step, but the flaring must stop urgently, and Congolese people also need guaranteed access to the electricity."

CRBM campaigner Elena Gerebizza says "Eni and the Italian government are putting profit above the environment and poverty eradication. As host of the G8, promoting protection of the Congo Basin and a new development partnership with Africa, Italy' s support for this project undermines its international credibility". Civil society groups are calling on Eni to:

• Disclose full information about the impacts of its investments in Congo, including current gas flaring levels at M'Boundi, and the detailed timetable for the tar sands and palm oil development.
• Organise meaningful consultation with affected communities, as per Eni's own environmental and human rights policies. Local communities and indigenous groups must give free, prior, informed consent before any development takes place.
• Stop further development of the tar sands and palm oil investments until their potential risks have been fully assessed, including their impact on greenhouse gas emission levels, and a credible risk management plan adopted.

Notes

1. For more background, see "Eni's new investment in tar sands and agro-fuels in the Congo Basin" by Heinrich Boell Foundation (Germany's Green Political Foundation), Campaign for the Reform of the World Ban (Italy), and Rencontre pour la paix et les droits de l'homme (Congo), and supported by non-governmental groups from throughout the G8 and Africa; www.crbm.org or www.boell.org. An international civil society discussion is being held on 3 July 2009, on the extractive sector, natural resources management and climate justice, as part of an alternative G8 meeting taking place in Sardinia from July 1- 5 2009. See www.gsotto.org.
2. JOINT STATEMENT BY THE G8 ENERGY MINISTERS, THE EUROPEAN COMMISSIONER AND THE ENERGY MINISTERS OF ALGERIA, AUSTRALIA, BRAZIL, CHINA, EGYPT, INDIA, INDONESIA, KOREA, LIBYA, MEXICO, NIGERIA, RWANDA, SAUDI ARABIA, SOUTH AFRICA, AND TURKEY, 25 May 2009. See http://www.g8energy2009.it/pdf/Session_II_III_EC.pdf
3. Eni 2008. "Eni and the Republic of Congo launch a new integrated model of cooperation". 19 May 2008; http://www.eni.it/en_IT/media/press-releases/2008/05/19-05-2008-integrated-model-congo.shtml.
4. "G8 Africa's Goals for 2009"; http://www.g8italia2009.it/G8/Home/G8_africa/G8-G8_Layout_locale-1199882116809_G8_Africa_Presidenza.htm.
5. See http://nonewoilsands.wordpress.com; Polaris Institute, 2009. Moratorium Now! 6 Good Reasons why there should be a Moratorium Now on the expansion of the Alberta Tar Sands, www.tarsandswatch.org/files/Polaris_Tarsands_Moratorium_Declaration.pdf. Also BP and Shell: Rising Costs in Tar Sands Investments, Greenpeace UK, Platform and Oil Change International, September 2008 & "The Viability of Non-Conventional Oil Development" Innovest Strategic Value Advisors, Research Note, March 2009, www.innovestgroup.com.
6. See for instance http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/forests/palm-oil; Declarations against the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO): In defence of Human Rights, Food Sovereignty, October 2008, http://www.wrm.org.uy/index.html & "Halt Climate Change — Halt Forest destruction — Halt Plantations", http://www.redd-monitor.org/2009/06/10/halt-climate-change-halt-forest-destruction-halt-plantations/

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

biofuelwatch - SF Mayor/Port's Hazardous Animal Biodiesel Plant Proposal - Update

Hi all,

Update on the San Francisco, CA Mayor and Port Authority proposal to allow the environmentally criminal Darling International corporation to expand its noxious factory animal agriculture rendering plant in San Francisco's Bayview neighborhood, to produce even more hazardous biodiesel out of toxic factory farm animal parts:

Below is a report from an attendee of the June 25 public meeting on the plant proposal, and a response from Port representative Richard Berman, which clearly show that the Mayor and the Port are in full disrespect, deception and extortion mode to push this plant hard onto the Bayview Hunters Point (BVHP) neighborhood, which is 40% African American and has a large low income population.

Here is the June meeting report, and the reply from Berman:

Posted by Kristine Enea kristine@indiabasin.org Fri Jul 10, 2009 8:15 pm

Summary of 6/25 meeting on Darling plant

Hi all, here's a summary of the 6/25 meeting about the Darling biodiesel plant from a BVHP resident who attended, and a response from RichardBerman at the Port.

-

Hello everyone,

I am sorry it has taken me so long to post a synopsis of the meeting that took place on June 25th about Darling's proposal to build a biodiesel plant at their existing site. There were a lot of "official" type people there including the Mayor's office, 3 Darling executives, a rep from a clean air quality management company, etc.... About 25 of them in total and then the 5 of us fellow residents of BVHP-all of whom voiced our concerns about this proposed biodiesel plant.

We were heard but our questions were not answered as they simply didn't have the answers for us. For example, the representative from the clean air management organization did not know the answer to the question, "Is the air around a biodiesel plant safe to breathe?" Apparently there hasn't been any studies on this. They also couldn't answer the question of what emergency plans would be in place in the event of a spill and how they would effectively notify residents.

There were a few "officials" who were down right insulting and condescending in how they spoke to us. I asked them all if they would live next door to this proposed biodiesel facility and the room fell dead silent. Then I asked them, "Then help me understand why the residents of BVHP should live by it?" That question went unanswered as well.

Below I have copy and pasted a email that I received the following day from Richard Berman of the Port Authority. Please read and let me know your thoughts.

I am awaiting announcement of when the next meeting will be. Before then I would like to know what all of you think of this proposed plant. I am against it. The Port Authority and The Mayor's office contend that this is good for the neighborhood and the city because it will finally put provisions in Darling's lease that will make them comply with controlling odor emissions, etc.....

My response is that as a community we can put enough pressure on them to be good neighbors, to control that disgusting and daily odor, that we don't need to simply accept the addition of a biodiesel plant to our neighborhood. That logic is illogical to me. But what do you think? I think it's another example of putting something in our neighborhood that nobody else would want nor accept in their backyard.

Richard Berman <richard.berman@sfport.com> wrote:

Dear Community Meeting Attendees,

Thank you all for your attendance and thoughtful participation last evening. You asked some very important questions, most of which I hope we were able to answer. I recognize that not all of these questions were answered as well as they could have been. In particular, your concerns about air and odor emissions from the Darling plant and their effects on community health require a more informed response by the Port and the regulators. We are committed to providing that to you. Additional issues that we will address are:

- How Darling's connection to the combined sewer system would affect the SE Plant?

- How we might develop a community notification system similar to what PG&E did for the power plant, and the Navy did for the Shipyard?

- Disclosure of how many facilities in the 94124 zip code are regulated by Department of Public Health-Hazardous Materials Unified Program Agency

- Opportunities for public review of Darling's Operations Plan - As I stated last night, the Port believes this project is a worthwhile one with several benefits, including the additional improvements to control emissions from the plant beyond those required by regulation or the current lease. Even so, we recognize that the types of concerns that you raised must be addressed, which is why we invited staff from the US EPA Environmental Justice Program to the meeting and will continue to request their participation in future meetings. Staff at the Port recognize the importance of these issues and we heard very clearly the concerns that were expressed last night.

We will schedule the next meeting for sometime in early July. I look forward to seeing you there and I also look forward to the opportunity to present a more informed response to the concerns that were raised last night. In closing, I want to confirm with you that the Port takes very seriously these issues and works hard with our neighbors and tenants to address them.

If you have any questions prior to the next meeting, please feel free to contact me.

Richard Berman

-

--
"I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The people liberate
themselves." – Che Guevara

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

biofuelwatch - what biomass looks like

note: a few days ago, a pile of "hog fuel" in Oregon caught fire: it was 6 acres piled 80 feet deep (for one electricity generating facility...)

Enviromentalists decry clearcutting to produce biomass fuel
Thu Jul 9, 7:23 AM

A Nova Scotia environmental group is worried that the demand for more biomass to fuel pulp mills and power plants will lead to more clearcutting on a recreation area east of Caribou Mines in Halifax County.

Kathy Didkowsky, of the Save Caribou Committee, said she was stunned in May when a hiking trail to Rocky Lake was obliterated because the forest had been clearcut.

"Its hard to even find a stump. So, everything is basically torn, ripped, shredded. I call it purposeful massacre," she said Wednesday.

Northern Pulp Nova Scotia Corp. owns the land in the Musquodoboit-Sheet Harbour area. The biomass will be used to fuel its pulp and paper mill in Abercrombie. It said it plans to cut more than 485 hectares in a lake-filled wilderness area east of Caribou Mines.

The branches and bark of the clearcut trees have been ground up and heaped into mounds that are three to four metres high. Pulp mills burn this biomass to reduce their energy costs.

Nova Scotia Power is looking at a new plant that would require cutting 50 per cent more wood in the province to produce more green electricity.

Ross Watson, also a member of the Save Caribou Committee, said its time that the provincial government took a stronger stand on clearcutting because the pulp mills are taking and grinding up more wood than ever to reduce their operating costs.

"There's been clearcutting in this area for a lot of years, but this is totally different. Before we were used to seeing brush, tree trunks, some debris left. As you can see here, there is virtually no brush," Watson said.

"I think that there has to be some guidelines in the province in regards to how much can be taken in these clearcuts. I think there has to be a certain percentage of the fibre left on the forest floor."

The province is reviewing a draft of new forestry regulations.

Didkowsky said she is even more worried about the size of the biomass mounds lining the logging roads.

"Well, these piles are heating up. This is compressed woodchips biomass and its hot. Like wet hay in a barn, it stands the risk of spontaneous combustion," she said.

In a statement, Northern Pulp said the company plans to eventually move the biomass piles. In the meantime, the company said the piles aren't large enough to be considered a high risk of starting a forest fire.

--  

Rachel Smolker
Biofuelwatch
Hinesburg, Vermont, U.S.A.
office: (802) 482 2848
mobile: (802) 735-7794
skype: rachel smolker
http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/

__._,_.___

biofuelwatch - wood burning and cancer risk

Wood burning creates top cancer risk in Oregon's air, EPA says

Posted by ameunier July 08, 2009 17:10PM
Michael Mode/The OregonianClick on graphic to see full-size.
Pollution from burning wood in stoves, fireplaces and elsewhere is the top cancer risk in Oregon's air, according to a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency analysis.

Burning wood and other organic material creates a greater risk than even benzene, a carcinogen belched by cars and trucks in the tens of thousands of tons each year, the analysis indicates.

By contrast, the main toxins from incomplete combustion of burning wood -- a class of chemicals known as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (you can smell them) -- measure in the low hundreds of tons a year from Oregon's residential sources.

"The PAHs are nasty things," said Ted Palma, an EPA scientist who led the agency's latest National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment, released last month.

The EPA assessment, based on 2002 emissions data, ranked Oregon's air high in cancer risk. The state placed third highest in the nation in the number of people -- about 152,000 -- living in census tracts with a cancer risk of 100 in a million, the EPA's benchmark level of concern.

But that's largely because Oregon has done a far better job documenting the generation of wood smoke, Palma said, including surveying residents three times since 2000 to gauge actual wood stove and fireplace use.
Click on graphic to see full-size.

"If the other 49 states did as good a job as Oregon," Palma said, "Oregon wouldn't be at the top."
Based on the EPA's analysis, other states might want to start paying heed.

Pollution from wood burning helped push 45 census tracts in Clackamas, Jackson, Multnomah and Washington counties above the EPA's overall risk benchmark, accounting for a third or more of the overall air cancer risk in those counties.

Wood burning is particularly popular for home heating in southwest Oregon's Jackson County, the state's surveys indicate.

It's less popular in urban counties such as Multnomah but still adds up because of the higher population, close proximity of neighbors, and heavier use of fireplaces, which spew far more pollutants than stoves.

Citing technical reasons, the EPA didn't pin down the cancer risk of particulates from burning diesel fuel, which is dirtier than gasoline and which the agency said "is likely to be substantial." It also didn't gauge risks from forest fires, which dump big loads of pollutants but occur sporadically, or indoor air.

The EPA's risk benchmark is based on 100 cancer incidents among 1 million people exposed continuously over a lifetime.

By comparison, the EPA says one out of three Americans -- 330,000 in a million -- will contract cancer during their lives when all causes are taken into account, including smoking and poor nutrition. Also by comparison, the national risk of contracting cancer from radon exposure, also not included in the analysis, is about 2,000 in a million.

Oregon's Department of Environmental Quality backed successful bills in the 2009 Legislature to phase out most agricultural field burning in the Willamette Valley and require installation of less polluting wood stoves when a home is sold.

Over time, that should make a big difference, said Andy Ginsburg, DEQ's air quality administrator. All new wood stoves require EPA certification, and certified stoves release about 70 percent less pollution than older models, the agency says, in part by burning the wood hotter and more thoroughly.

DEQ estimates that more than half the wood stoves used in about 420,000 Oregon homes are older than the EPA's certification program.

Residents can limit open burning and cut pollution by using cleaner burning manufactured logs in fireplaces, according to the DEQ. Building small, hot fires instead of large, smoldering ones also helps. Dark smoke is a sign more pollution is being produced.

--  

Rachel Smolker
Biofuelwatch
Hinesburg, Vermont, U.S.A.
office: (802) 482 2848

mobile: (802) 735-7794
skype: rachel smolker
http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/

__._,_.___

biofuelwatch - Chinese agribusiness company in DR Congo to offer thousands of jobs for locals

Chinese agribusiness company in DR Congo to offer thousands of jobs for locals

www.chinaview.cn 2009-07-10 14:31:28

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-07/10/content_11686244.htm

by Tai Beiping

KINSHASA, July 10 (Xinhua) -- China's ZTE Agribusiness Company Ltd is aiming at a 1 million hectare palm tree plantation in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DR Congo) for biofuel production, and the project can offer thousands of jobs for the local people, the company's regional manager Zhang Peng told Xinhua in an interview on Friday.

"We will plant palm trees here and convert palm oil into biodiesel. The one-million-hecatre palm plantation will eventually provide thousands of jobs for the local Congolese people," Zhang said.

ZTE, an IT company from China, is expanding to the biodiesel sector to diversify its operations. The regional manager said that weather conditions in the DR Congo is very suitable for growing palm trees, which are cultivated for palm oil.

"Indonesia and Malaysia are traditionally major producers of palm oil, but after research we found that weather conditions herein the DR Congo is also very suitable for growing palm trees," he said.

Biodiesel has emerged as a big business amid strained energy supply worldwide, and palm trees could be a fair solution to ease the industrial world's thirst for energy.

According to Zhang, one hectare of palm tree plantation could yield five tons of palm oil, while some 90 percent of the palm oil could be converted to biodiesel.

Once completed, this project can not only satisfy the energy needs of DR Congo's industries, but also offer the Congolese lots of job opportunities.

"Palm tree plantation needs a lot of labor work, and we are going to hire workers locally. So the entire plantation will hire thousands of local workers," said the manager.

This kind of investment has benefited the DR Congo government and people a lot. DR Congo's government spokesman Lambert Mende told Xinhua on Thursday that China's collaboration DR Congo in such fields as infrastructure, education and energy development are beneficial to the African country.

He said the the DR Congo government is satisfied with cooperation with the Chinese side and reiterated the government's determination to stick to the cooperative ties with China.

China and the DR Congo have carried out a number of cooperation projects in such fields as infrastructure, education and energy sector, bringing benefits for both countries and their peoples.

The ZTE Agribusiness regional manager expressed gratitude to the DR Congo government's spport for facilitating investment here, and voiced optimism for the future of Sino-Congolese cooperation in various fields.

Special Report: Global Financial Crisis

--  

Orin Langelle

Co-director/Strategist

Global Justice Ecology Project

http://www.globaljusticeecology.org

P.O. Box 412
Hinesburg, VT 05461 U.S.
+1.802.482.2689 ph/fax

+1.802.578.6980 mobile

Skype: olangelle

GMT -4:00

The STOP Genetically Engineered Trees Campaign is a Program of Global Justice Ecology Project http://nogetrees.org

-------

Global Justice Ecology Project Mission Statement: Building local, national and international alliances with action to address the root causes of social injustice, economic domination and environmental destruction.

-------

__._,_.___

biofuelwatch - Wood Pellets Catch Fire as Renewable Energy Source.

BUSINESS
Wall St. Journal JULY 7, 2009
Wood Pellets Catch Fire as Renewable Energy Source
By RUSSELL GOLD

Some of the fastest growing sources of renewable energy in the world are the wind, the sun -- and the lowly wood pellet.

European utilities are snapping up the small combustible pellets to burn alongside coal in existing power plants. As a global marketplace emerges to feed their growing appetite for pellets, the Southeastern U.S. is becoming a major exporter, with pellet factories sprouting in Florida, Alabama and Arkansas.

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

biofuelwatch - Via Campesina: Stop! The UNFCCC is going off the rails!

www.viacampesina.org/main_en/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=745&Itemid=1

Stop! The UNFCCC is going off the rails!
Friday, 03 July 2009
Via Campesina Call to mobilise for a Cool Planet – Copenhagen December 2009

Don't trade off Peasant's agriculture for rights to pollute

While scientific predictions of climate catastrophe continue to grow, world leaders will gather in Copenhagen on 7-18 December 2009 for the United Nation Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The solutions being discussed by the UNFCCC continue to allow big energy consumers to pollute with impunity while paying others to implement projects supposed to capture carbon. The Kyoto protocol and the market mechanisms it implemented have failed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to slow down climate changes(1).

Notwithstanding the urgency of the situation, this convention has failed to radically question the current models of consumption and production based on the illusion of continuous growth. Instead, they have invented new business opportunities for the private sector to continue to make huge profits at the expense of the destruction of the planet. Carbon has become a new privatised commodity in the hands of speculators who use it as a new product in the non-real economy that has lead to the current economic crisis.

Agriculture is now at the centre of the climate talks. According to the statistics, agricultural practices contributed about 17 per cent of global emissions between 1990 and 2005. Moreover, the increased pressure on agricultural land is likely to be one of the main drivers of deforestation, an other major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions.(2) Actually, forest destruction as well as environment degradation from the agricultural sector mainly come from industrial agriculture. Large agribusiness extensions and vast monocultures make an intensive use of oil-based chemical fertilisers, pesticides and machinery, they convert carbon-rich forest and prairie into green deserts and they are based on a long and unnecessary chain of secondary processing and transport links.

On the other hand, small scale sustainable family farming is a key solution to Climate Change. It contributes to cooling down the earth and plays a vital part in the relocalisation of economies which will allow us to live in a sustainable society. Sustainable local food production uses less energy, eliminates dependence on imported animal feedstuffs and retains carbon in the soil while increasing biodiversity. Native seeds are more adaptable to the changes in climate which are already affecting us. Family farming does not only contribute positively to the carbon balance of the planet, it also gives employment to 2,8 billion of people(3) – women and men - around the world and it remains the best way to combat hunger, malnutrition and the current food crisis. If small farmers are given access to land, water, education and health and are supported by food sovereignty policies they will keep feeding the world and protecting the planet.

For peasants around the world, the false solutions proposed in the climate talks, such as the REDD initiative (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation), the carbon offsetting mechanisms and geo-engineering projects are as threatening as the draughts, tornadoes and new climate patterns themselves. Other proposals such as the biochar initiative, no till agriculture and climate resistant GMOs are the proposals of agribusinesses and will further marginalise small farmers. The heavy promotion of industrial monoculture plantations and agrofuels as solutions to the crisis actually increase pressure on agricultural land. It has already led to massive land grabbing by transnational companies in developing countries, kicking farmers and indigenous communities out of their territories.

It is unfair to use the benefits that small farmers provide to the environment as an excuse to keep polluting as usual. The UNFCCC is currently discussing mechanisms to include agricultural land in carbon trading mechanisms, a move that could leave farmers with no other support than dirty money from polluters. These mechanisms are bound to fail, because they are not focused on reducing use of fossil fuels or reducing emissions in industrialised countries.

Therefore La Via Campesina calls all its members, friends and allies to mobilise in Copenhagen and around the world during the UNFCCC conference in December 2009. A special action day on agriculture will be declared as part of the mass protests by hundreds of social movements and organisations.

Towards Copenhagen: What you can do at national and local level

1.Collect data and information related to the impact of climate change on small farmer agriculture and small farmer livelihood

2.Collect data and information related to the impact of market based solutions/ false solutions to climate change on small farmer

3.Bring information from the grass-roots level on how small farmers' agriculture has been conserving ecosystems.

4.Persuade your government to reject market-based and pro-business "solutions" and to promote real solutions to the current crisis such as the protection of small scale sustainable agriculture and food sovereignty.

5.Join the mobilisation! Together with other social movement we will participate in various parallel activities in September in Bangkok during the UNFCCC last preparatory meeting towards Copenhagen.We will also mobilise for social and climate justice during the expected WTO meeting and the FAO food Summit in October/November 2009.

We reject the false business solutions of the UNFCCC!

We demand an urgent reorientation of the world's economy towards a people - centred economy where peasant's agriculture and local food systems play a major role.

People and the planet are more important than profit!

Don't make business out of an environmental catastrophe!

Small scale family farming and food sovereignty cools down the earth!

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

(1) Peter Atherton of Citigroup who was heavily involved in Carbon Trading has said about the world's biggest Carbon market - " The European Emissions Trading Scheme has done nothing to curb emissions...Have policy goals been achieved? Prices up, emissions up, profits up...so no, not really" . (Citigroup Global Markets (2007), quoted in L. Lohmann in Governance as Corruption, presentation, Athens, November 2008; www.thecornerhouse.org.uk/pdf/document/ATHENS%2010.pdf
(2) Address by Yvo de Boer, Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change , 14 May 2009

(3) Le Monde, 23 April 2009.

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

biofuelwatch - EU Seen Meeting Renewable Fuel Targets With Blends

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/03/obama-russia-climate-change

EU Seen Meeting Renewable Fuel Targets With Blends

Date: 06-Jul-09
Country: GERMANY
Author: Michael Hogan

An ethanol E10 fuel pump is seen at a petrol station in Pierrelaye, near Paris, April 15, 2009.
Photo: Charles Platiau

HAMBURG - The European Union is likely to achieve its target of generating 10 percent of transport fuels from renewable sources by 2020 by blending biofuels with fossil fuels, a leading EU researcher said.

Most blending is likely to use first-generation biofuels produced with food crops, said Giovanni De Santi, director of the Energy Institute at the European Union Commission's Joint Research Center.

The EU plans to source 10 percent of transport fuels from renewable sources by 2020 to combat global warming.

All EU countries must now prepare plans to show how they plan to reach green energy targets.

Second generation biofuels produced from a wide range of non-food crops from wood to grass and algae are not likely to make a significant contribution to biofuel production for another ten years, De Santi told Reuters at the European Biomass Conference in Hamburg on Thursday.

"Of the 10 percent target about 80 to 90 percent will probably be biofuels and the majority of this will be achieved with blending," he said.

EU states were likely to start imposing or increasing compulsory blending of biofuels in fossil fuels at oil refineries to achieve this target, he said.

"Blending is quite easy to introduce and would not mean very much upheaval," he said.

The majority of blending would still need to be done using first generation biofuels produced from food and animal feed crops, he said.

Steen Riisgaard, CEO of Danish company Novozymes A/S, said commercial production of second generation bioethanol fuel is imminent and that political factors were key to achieving rapid commercial production.

Novozymes aims to begin large scale deliveries of the enzymes needed for second generation bioethanol from biomass next year.

De Santi expected the first major commercial output of second generation bioethanol to take place in the U.S. from 2011.

With second generation biofuel plants often needing investment of around 100 million euros, investors must be confident of a market for their products, he said.

The EU needed to make the political decision to provide this market for second generation fuels, possibly by production quotas for second generation output, he added.

(Editing by Peter Blackburn)
© Thomson Reuters 2009 All rights reserved

biofuelwatch - Sustainable Palm Oil

Hi
How sustainable are 'sustainable palm oils'?I still think that a lot of it is Greenwash.I'm helping to campaign against a biofuels plant here in Newport,and having trouble answering that question.Any help/advice would be most welcome.

Cheers
Dave
Newport Friends of the Earth.

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

RSPO-certified palm oil imported into the EU is reportedly increasing considerably, explaining the wide price range of offers for PME in Rotterdam last week.

Prices ranged from ICE + $230/mt to ICE + $275/mt and could signal the emergence of two PME markets, 'unsustainable' and certified sustainable, according to market reports.

_______________

http://www.rspo.org/

There is an argument for the sustainable use and development of Palm Oil. One should remember or keep in mind that all Africa and a great deal of Asia is import dependant on Palm Oil as a major food and dietary requirement. The use of Palm Oil for Bio Diesel production is frequently challenged. The truth is that it is not economically viable to produce from new Palm Oil even when the price per tonne is quite low.It is still cheaper for the big companies to import USA Bio Diesel for blending in the UK as there are there are subsidies both sides of the water. However, the use of used Palm Oil (any veg oil) reclaimed from city sludge (sewage systems) or restaurant waste grease can be sustainable and worthwhile.

If the biofuel plant owners are trying to import Palm Oil for the production of Bio Diesel in UK they will go broke. If they have long term forward value contracts for Rape Oil they might be able to keep their head above water.

As an aside, only a very small % of Palm Oil is set aside or used for Bio Fuel at this time; value is in the food oil sector where a high price per tonne is gained.

The stranglehold on the food oil market, especially across Africa, was obtained by having huge concessions from the international donor aid community to import shortfalls to cover failing African agriculture from the early 1970 into the late 1990's and beyond in some cases. Within a short period of time, and to this date, it became impossible for African agriculture to produce food oils and be competitive with cheap imported Palm Oil. The small pressure from using Palm Oil to make Bio Fuels could be significant enough to raise the price of Palm Oil to a level whereby oil seed agriculture in Africa is stimulated.

Never allow the sentiment for the Orangutans to cloud ones view of SE Asia/Indonesia. Sure there are some very flashy looking big cities and tourism spots but the communities are at risk and in poverty. Their governments want conservation but they must have income from agricultural commodities. Palm Oil is the most demanded of edible oils but this is not why the rain forests got (are getting) chopped. European demands for timber have been the most impact of primary drivers on this. Planting Palm for Oil was a way to restore tree cover; of course now the industry drives in where logging is carried out.

Sustainable ? One has to think from so many angles. There are no easy solutions.

Clive.

___________

Please,
Don't forget serious concerns about "sustainable palm oil" and RSPO, better known als the best greenwashing of the century, clearly expressed by more than 260 organisations from around the world, including important organisations from Indonesia, PNG or Colombia, the most affected countries by the monocultures expansion.

English:
http://www.wrm.org.uy/subjects/agrofuels/International_Declaration_RTSPO.pdf

Defenitly, the sentence "Planting Palm for Oil was a way to restore tree cover" doesn't belong in a space like the biofuelwatch discussion group, because it is out of any discussion there is definitly no comparation between a monoculture tree plantation and the tree cover that represents a rainforest or a natural ecoyistem. Not even the FAO classes oil palm plantations as forests.

And because no sustainable ways of large scale palm oil production are to be found anywhere and for sure you won't find them any where any time, it seems only to be left "the use of used Palm Oil(any veg oil) reclaimed from city sludge (sewage systems) or restaurant waste grease can be sustainable and worthwhile."

Please, let us be serious. Once again: large scale palm oil monocultures are not, and will never be sustainable. Stop trying.

Guadalupe Rodríguez

--
Guadalupe Rodríguez
Salva la Selva /Rettet den Regenwald

www.salvalaselva.org
www.regenwald.org
www.stop-agrocombustibles.nireblog.com

Berlin, Germany

biofuelwatch - PARAGUAY: President and Congress Face Off Over Agrochemicals

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=47488

By Natalia Ruiz Díaz

ASUNCIÓN, Jul 1 (IPS) - "Silvino was riding his bike on a dirt road near our home when he was poisoned by toxic agrochemicals, sprayed on a nearby field of soybeans. He died soon afterwards. He was 11," said his mother, Petrona Villasboa, a rural activist in southern Paraguay.

Silvino Villasboa died in 2003 in the village of Pirapey in the southern province of Itapúa, an area of large soy plantations.

His mother is a leader of CONAMURI, the umbrella group of organisations of indigenous and rural women, which is opposed to a draft law on the use of pesticides and herbicides that would override a presidential decree that set health and environmental standards for the use of agrochemicals.

Because of the discrepancy over the issue between the executive and legislative branches, it is not clear whether President Fernando Lugo will sign or veto the draft law.

The bill, passed by Congress in May, is opposed by organisations of small farmers and environmental groups and supported by the rural associations representing large agribusiness interests.

The controversial legislation contravenes the decree issued in April by the centre-left Lugo, who lacks majority support in parliament. The decree outlines specific measures and controls to ensure the appropriate use of agrochemicals.

Among other things, the presidential decree requires the participation of the National Service for the Health and Quality of Plants and Seeds (SENAVE), the Ministry of Public Health and Social Welfare, and the Secretariat of the Environment in overseeing spraying and monitoring the areas sprayed.

Under the draft law, by contrast, only SENAVE would be involved in the registration and monitoring of the use of agrochemicals, thus eliminating the participation of the Health Ministry and the Secretariat of the Environment.

"All three institutions have to be involved, like in other countries, because the issue has facets linked to human health as well as the environment," Hebe González, head of the agroecology programme at the non-governmental organisation Alter Vida, told IPS.

The presidential decree also establishes a 100-metre protective buffer of forest to separate water sources and inhabited areas from fields where agrochemicals are sprayed.

The draft law, on the other hand, allows the buffer to be reduced to 50 metres in some cases and provides for more flexible regulations for spraying toxic chemicals.

Under the law, "because it is not obligatory for the authorities to be present during the spraying, there is no control over how the products are used," said González.

A study carried out by the BASE Investigaciones Sociales (BASE-IS), a local social research organisation, shows that most of the soy grown in Paraguay is the genetically modified Roundup Ready (RR), produced by the U.S. biotech giant Monsanto. The herbicide used on RR soy is Roundup, whose active ingredient is glyphosate.

In 2006 and 2007, Paraguay was the fifth-largest producer of soy in the world, accounting for 2.2 percent of the total, and the seventh largest in terms of the number of hectares planted in transgenic soy, according to the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA).

Soy cultivation began to expand in this land-locked South American country in the mid-1960s and boomed in the late 1990s with the introduction of GM soy.

The area under soy in Paraguay doubled in seven years, reaching 2.4 million hectares by 2007, and accounting for 38 percent of the country's total agricultural output, according to the Ministry of Agriculture.

Large-scale soy production has pushed aside traditional economic mainstays like the logging industry, cattle ranching and cotton farming. Once the country's main export crop, cotton production dwindled from around 500,000 hectares in 1990 to 160,000 hectares in 2006.

The expansion of monoculture plantations has led to the expulsion of small farmers from the countryside, with rural families finding themselves hemmed in by soy fields, and the resultant spraying of toxic chemicals, which takes a toll on their crops, livestock and health. Many end up selling their land at low prices to agricultural companies, and flocking to the slums surrounding Asunción and other large cities.

Paraguay is the Latin American country with the greatest concentration of land ownership. The last national agricultural census indicates that 77 percent of farmland is owned by just one percent of the population.

And according to a study by BASE-IS, 70 percent of Paraguay's farmland belongs to foreign landowners, mainly Brazilian companies.

The land is in the hands of agribusiness, people who have access to land because they have the economic resources to purchase it, said González. "The countryside does not belong to small farmers," said the activist.

Herminio Medina, executive director of the Unión de Gremios de la Producción (UGP) agribusiness association, said the presidential decree outlines regulations that are impossible to live up to, but that the draft law is in line with the standards followed in the rest of South America.

Soy producers argue that the decree would reduce farmland. "The decree establishes an excessively large buffer area where agrochemicals cannot be used," he told IPS.

Large-scale producers argue that some of the positions expressed against the use of pesticides and herbicides are out of touch with the mechanised agriculture that is expanding in Paraguay.

But social organisations complain that the draft law passed by Congress represents a major setback in creating regulations for the use of toxic agrochemicals.

"The global tendency is to create safer conditions, but this law represents a step backwards in terms of health safeguards," said González.

Studies show that children in soy-producing areas suffer from skin ailments, headaches, nausea, vomiting and other health problems, and that rates of congenital deformities, cancer and miscarriages are unusually high. Local residents and activists blame the health problems on the indiscriminate use of agrochemicals on surrounding soy plantations.

The legislators "said `no' to life and `yes' to death when they passed the law. And I feel bad when I think about our children, because they have the right to a healthy life," said Villasboa, who pointed out that no one went to jail for her son Silvino's death. (END/2009)

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

biofuelwatch - Fears for the world's poor countries as the rich grab land to grow food

www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/03/land-grabbing-food-environment

UN sounds warning after 30m hectares bought up
G8 leaders to discuss 'neo-colonialism'

John Vidal, environment editor guardian.co.uk, Friday 3 July 2009

The acquisition of farmland from the world's poor by rich countries and international corporations is accelerating at an alarming rate, with an area half the size of Europe's farmland targeted in the last six months, reports from UN officials and agriculture experts say.

New reports from the UN and analysts in India, Washington and London estimate that at least 30m hectares is being acquired to grow food for countries such as China and the Gulf states who cannot produce enough for their populations. According to the UN, the trend is accelerating and could severely impair the ability of poor countries to feed themselves.

Today it emerged that world leaders are to discuss what is being described as "land grabbing" or "neo-colonialism" at the G8 meeting next week. A spokesman for Japan's ministry of foreign affairs confirmed that it would raise the issue: "We feel there should be a code of conduct for investment in farmland that will be a win-win situation for both producing and consuming countries," he said.

Olivier De Schutter, special envoy for food at the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, said: "[The trend] is accelerating quickly. All countries observe each other and when one sees others buying land it does the same."

The UN's food and agricultural organisation and other analysts estimate that nearly 20m hectares (50m acres) of farmland – an area roughly half the size of all arable land in Europe – has been sold or has been negotiated for sale or lease in the last six months. Around 10m hectares was bought last year. The land grab is being blamed on wealthy countries with concerns about food security.

Some of the largest deals include South Korea's acquisition of 700,000ha in Sudan, and Saudi Arabia's purchase of 500,000ha in Tanzania. The Democratic Republic of the Congo expects to shortly conclude an 8m-hectare deal with a group of South African businesses to grow maize and soya beans as well as poultry and dairy farming.

India has lent money to 80 companies to buy 350,000ha in Africa. At least six countries are known to have bought large landholdings in Sudan, one of the least food-secure countries in the world.

Other countries that have acquired land in the last year include the Gulf states, Sweden, China and Libya. Those targeted include not only fertile countries such as Brazil, Russia and Ukraine, but also poor countries like Cameroon, Ethiopia, Madagascar, and Zambia.

De Schutter said that after the food crisis of 2008, many countries found food imports hit their balance of payments, "so now they want to insure themselves".

"This is speculation, betting on future prices. What we see now is that countries have lost trust in the international market. We know volatility will increase in the next few years. Land prices will continue to rise. Many deals are even now being negotiated. Not all are complete yet."

He said that about one-fifth of the land deals were expected to grow biofuel crops. "But it is impossible to know with certainty because declarations are not made as to what crops will be grown," he said.

Some of the world's largest food, financial and car companies have invested in land.

Alpcot Agro of Sweden bought 120,000ha in Russia, South Korea's Hyundai has paid $6.5m (£4m) for a majority stake in Khorol Zerno, which owns 10,000ha in Eastern Siberia, while Morgan Stanley has bought 40,000ha in Ukraine. Last year South Korea's Daewoo signed a 99-year lease for 1.3m hectares of agricultural land in Madagascar.

Devinder Sharma, analyst with the Forum for Biotechnology and Food Security in India, predicted civil unrest.

"Outsourcing food production will ensure food security for investing countries but would leave behind a trail of hunger, starvation and food scarcities for local populations," he said. "The environmental tab of highly intensive farming – devastated soils, dry aquifer, and ruined ecology from chemical infestation – will be left for the host country to pick up."

In Madagascar, the Daewoo agreement was seen as a factor in the subsequent uprising that led to the ousting of the president, Marc Ravalomanana. His replacement, Andry Rajoelina, immediately moved to repeal the deal.

Concern is mounting because much of the land has been targeted for its good water supplies and proximity to ports. According to a report last month by the London-based International Institute for Environment and Development, the land deals "create risks and opportunities".

"Increased investment may bring benefits such as GDP growth and improved government revenues, and may create opportunities for economic development and livelihood improvement. But they may result in local people losing access to the resources on which they depend for their food security – particularly as some key recipient countries are themselves faced with food security challenges", said the authors.

According to a US-based thinktank, the International Food Policy Research Institute, nearly $20bn to $30bn a year is being spent by rich countries on land in developing countries.

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

biofuelwatch - Email action against European Commission funding for aviation biofuels R&D

There is a new email alert which calls for an end to European Commission support and funding for the development of aviation biofuels:

www.regenwald.org/international/englisch/protestaktion.php?id=428

The European Commission is funding an industry study to facilitate the development and take-up of 'alternative aviation fuels', primarily biofuels. This study is entirely carried out by industry and some research institutes with industry links and is supposed to result in a 'roadmap' for policy makers. Industry is thus being paid by the Commission to come up with policy proposals for the EU.

Aviation biofuels could be used commercially in aircraft within the next 1-5 years and initially vegetable oil is the most likely source, with Neste Oil suggesting that they could convert the world's biggest palm oil biofuel refinery which they are building in Singapore to produce jet fuel.

__._,_.___

The detail as below:

European Commission must stop funding aviation biofuel development

Since 30.06.09 590 people have participated in this protest action.

AAA (Action Against Agrofuels) and Plane Stupid at Heathrow airport

The aviation industry hopes to continue growing at 3 – 4% per year over coming decades, and is set to become a new vast market for agrofuels as it struggles to be seen to curtail fossil fuel use. During the past 16 months, four airlines have, technically successfully, tested agrofuels from vegetable oil for flights and those fuels could be licensed for use in aircraft as early as next year. Agrofuels are being seen by the aviation industry as the salvation, providing the impossible solution for which they desperately hope – the means of continuing to grow and pollute and claiming that this growth is ‘carbon neutral’. They can make this claim only because none of the emissions from deforestation, wetland destruction, agro-chemical use, etc linked to agrofuel production are attributed to those who use them.

Aviation agrofuels will create more greenhouse gases, more climate change, hunger (as food is displaced and food prices pushed up), deforestation and displacement of rural communities, as well as more of the local environmental damage created by expanding airports and increased numbers of flights.

Companies are also researching aviation fuels from wood, crops and other solid biomass. Much of this research involves genetically engineered microbes and algae, with unknown and potentially very serious impacts on the environment. In the short term, palm oil is the most likely feedstock: Neste Oil say that they could easily convert the world’s biggest palm oil biofuel refinery, which they are building to produce fuel for aircraft.

Emails:

Antonio Tajani, Vice President, Commissioner for Transport
CAB-TAJANI-WEBPAGE@ec.europa.eu

Andris Piebalgs, Energy Commissioner
cab-piebalgs-archives@ec.europa.eu

Stavros Dimas, Environment Commissioner
stavros.dimas@ec.europa.eu

The European Commission has started funding a study into ‘alternative fuels for aviation’ which primarily means agrofuels (though ‘alternative’ fuels from coal and natural gas also exist, but these are worse for the climate than kerosene). The aims are to devise a ‘roadmap’ for their use, and ‘informing policy makers’ – not to discuss the overall impacts of using even more agrofuels. The study costs the EU 5.1 million Euros and it is entirely run by industry and research institutes with industry links. They will discuss ‘environmental and social sustainability’ – without even a single civil society organisation being involved, let alone the views of any affected communities being considered. It is coordinated by the French Aerospace Lab, ONERA – hardly experts in agrofuel impacts. The European Commission say on their website that they support ‘renewable fuels’ for aviation.

For communities, biodiversity, forests and climate, an additional large agrofuel market will be disastrous. Please write to the European Commission and ask them to immediately abandon this biased study and to address the unsustainable growth and plans of the aviation industry, rather than allowing it to keep expanding with agrofuels.

Dear Sir,

I am deeply concerned about the impacts of European biofuel policy on the climate, communities, food, biodiversity and rainforests. I am also very aware of the aviation industry’s ever growing impact on climate, air pollution, biodiversity (through airport expansion) and communities. I believe the proposals by the aviation industry to attempt to resolve their carbon emissions problems through massive use of biofuels in future is a matter for grave concern.

I was therefore shocked to learn that the Commission is paying 5.1 million Euros for an industry study to facilitate the development and take-up of ‘alternative fuels’ and in particular biofuels for aviation. The only other ‘alternative fuels’ available in the medium term are fossil-fuel based ones, with a worse greenhouse gas balance than kerosene. This ‘SWAEFA’ study (“Sustainable Ways for Alternative Fuels in Aviation”) is entirely carried out by industry: Aviation companies and airlines, fuel companies, consultancy firms and research institutes with industry link. They are supposed to look at ‘environmental and social sustainability’, yet there is no civil society representation at all. The industry is thus being paid by the European Commission to draft a ‘roadmap’ to advise policy makers on aviation biofuels which I consider undemocratic and unacceptable.
Yours faithfully

biofuelwatch - Greens win support for sustainable biofuels

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0907/S00016.htm

Greens win support for sustainable biofuels Wednesday, 1 July 2009, 1:15 pm Press Release: Green Party

1 July 2009

Greens win support for sustainable biofuels on Green Day

The Green Party is optimistic about the future of biofuels now that the Government has signalled support for the Green's Sustainable Biofuel Bill being introduced tonight.

"Without sustainability standards, National's biodiesel subsidy has the same problem that Labour's biofuel sales obligation initially had - no protection for the world's hungry or for the environment," Jeanette Fitzsimons, Green Party Energy Spokesperson said today.
"I am delighted that the Government will give this bill an honest hearing."

Last year the Labour Government introduced a bill to require companies selling motor fuel to sell a small proportion of biofuel. The Green Party negotiated an amendment to ensure that the biofuel was from sustainable sources. The amendment ruled out fuels made from food crops, made by destroying biodiversity, or which did not significantly reduce carbon emissions.

The incoming National Government repealed the legislation a few months after it was passed, preferring a subsidy for biodiesel to a mandatory obligation, but also dropping the sustainability standards.

This Member's Bill re-instates the legal framework for selling sustainable biofuels in New Zealand without violating World Trading Organisation (WTO) obligations. It does not distinguish between imported and locally produced biofuel, but requires both to meet the sustainability standard.

The core provisions have already been through both the Select Committee process and Parliament. They remain unchanged in Ms Fitzsimons' bill.

"Today is Green Day in the House, as every single bill being considered today is a Green Party bill," Ms Fitzsimons said.

"I am proud that two of today's bills are mine, tackling different ways of adapting transport in the light of climate change.

"Two of the votes on other bills today will be personal votes for all MPs, indicating the gravity of the bills that the Greens bring to the House," Ms Fitzsimons said.

Jeanette's sustainable Biofuel Bill can be downloaded at:
http://www.greens.org.nz/node/21326

ENDS

---

biofuelwatch - Medco seeks 1m hectares on Papua for plantations, ½ for agrofuel

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20090630/tbs-medco-biofuel-7318940.html

Indonesia's Medco eyes food crop, biofuel projects in Papua

Reuters - Wednesday, July 1

By Aloysius Bhui

JAKARTA, June 30 - PT Medco Energy International Tbk <MEDC.JK>, a leading Indonesian oil and gas firm, said on Tuesday it plans to develop vast plantations for food crops and biofuel feedstocks in Papua to meet higher demand in future.

Hilmi Panigoro, Medco Energy's chairman, told a biofuel conference that the group is looking at 1 million hectares of land on Indonesia's easternmost island, half of it for feedstocks and the rest for food crops.

Indonesia needs to expand biofuel capacity because of the threat of higher prices for fossil-based, petroleum fuel, a trend which makes the development of biofuel projects more attractive.

"The oil price drop now is only temporary. We still think that in two to three years' time, oil will still go back to three digits," he said.

The biofuel industry has beens struggling to survive as its feedstocks have become more expensive after the price of crude oil fell more than 70 percent earlier this year.

However, now the oil price <CLc1> has bounced back and is on track to post a near 50 percent increase in the second quarter, the highest quarterly percentage gain since 1990, on hopes for an improving economic outlook.

Medco currently produces ethanol at its Medco Ethanol Lampung unit in the southern Sumatran province of Lampung. The raw material is sourced from 13,000 hectares of cassava, of which about 70 percent is owned by local farmers.

The unit can produce 60 million litres of ethanol a year and is ready to process ethanol into biofuel but is still waiting for a fair price formula, which has been agreed by the industry and the government, but is yet to be implemented.

However, Panigoro said that Medco would prefer to have its own large-scale feedstocks plantations so that it can manage the operating costs and boost productivity.

"We should not leave management of feedstock to farmers," he said.

He said Medco has developed a 200-hectare plantation as a pilot project in Papua, where it is trying to grow rice, jatropha, soybean and other crops.

[Ends]

---

biofuelwatch - Protestors disrupt biofuels Mayfair summit

[A somewhat sensationalist headline, as the protesters didn't enter the building although there was music and dancing outside. More pics at: http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2009/07/433677.html]

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23714627-details/Protestors+disrupt+biofuels+Mayfair+summit/article.do

Protestors disrupt biofuels Mayfair summit

Felix Allen
02.07.09

Scotland Yard had to explain why this constable was pictured without his ID number. The Met said he had taken off the vest waiting in the heat, and was deployed too soon to return the ID from his shirt to the epaulettes. He also faces trouble over his hair. Rules state it "must be worn above the collar".

Climate activists clashed with police in central London as they tried to storm a five-star hotel and disrupt a"biofuels" industry summit.

Around 60 protesters were repeatedly pushed back as they attempted to rush past about 70 officers who were blocking the entrances to the Millennium Hotel in Grosvenor Square, Mayfair.

Several demonstrators from pressure group Climate Rush were knocked to the ground during the scuffles, but there were no arrests or reported injuries.

The hotel was hosting a gala dinner for delegates at the World Agri Invest Congress, as business leaders and investors met growers and buyers in agriculture - including biofuel crops such as palm oil, according to protest groups.

The protesters had planned to storm the ballroom suite and disrupt last night's conference, but were beaten back by ranks of police outside the hotel, close to the US Embassy.

Police were forced to close the road for an hour as the activists, many in Edwardian dress and one in an orang-utan costume, danced and sang outside.

Activists including Tamsin Omond, left, in bloomers

They marched at police lines chanting "food not fuel", but were forced to retreat after several minutes. The protest had dwindled out by 9pm.

Tamsin Omond - one of the five Plane Stupid protesters who scaled the House of Commons in February 2008 - said she was undeterred. "Climate Rush is going to carry on disprupting any conference that's pushing false solutions for climate change," she said.

"People are getting rich from agri-fuels and they use the excuse that they help fight climate change. But chopping down the rainforests, the world's biggest carbon sink, is really not the answer."

Maryla Hart, of allied campiagn group Food Not Fuel, said: "Growing crops for biofuels at a time of climate crisis is criminal."

No serious disruption was caused to the delegates, it is understood.

Speakers at the three-day conference were due to include pension fund managers, the director of trade at the UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation and executives from Premier Foods, Nestle and Mars.

Organisers Terrapinn was unavailable for comment. The Millennium Hotel declined to comment on the protest or the conference.

A Scotland Yard spokesman said "an appropriate policing operation was in place" after commanders learned of the planned demonstration.

Campaigners say the rapidly expanding market for "agri-fuels" -- encouraged by EU targets -- is adding to global warming as it leads to widespread destruction of precious rainforests.
Deforestation for crop growing also threatens the survival of endangered species including orang-utans in Borneo, a major producer of palm oil.

[Ends]

---

biofuelwatch - FoE and Environmental Audit Committee attack biofuel targets

Friends of the Earth (England Wales and Northern Ireland) and the Environmental Audit Committee continue to attack biofuel targets as one of the drivers of deforestation.

http://foe.co.uk/resource/press_releases/environmental_audit_committee_report_29062009.html

Press release

Carbon markets won't save the rainforest - we must tackle the route causes of deforestation

2 July 2009

Responding to the launch of the Environmental Audit Committee's report on how to stop emissions from deforestation, Mike Childs, Head of Campaigns at Friends of the Earth, said:

"Money is important - but money alone won't save the rainforests, which are crucial to the health of our planet.

"The Environmental Audit Committee is right to rule out the use of carbon markets and carbon offsetting to stop deforestation. Proposals to allow rich countries to buy chunks of forest whilst continuing to pump out emissions should be off the table -they will trigger a land grab leaving millions of people worse off.

"Ministers must urgently tackle illegal logging, remove perverse targets for biofuels, and fix the food chain to end intensive farming that drives forest destruction."

Friends of the Earth is demanding that the Government changes its approach to climate change with its Demand Climate Change campaign. The green campaign group is asking everyone to sign its international petition to world leaders at www.demandclimatechange.org.

Notes to editors:

1. The report shows that stopping deforestation is an immensely complex problem, and one that cannot be solved by money alone. Friends of the Earth is also calling for increased finance for governance reform of at least $550 million (with upper estimates of up to $3.7 billion necessary).

2. Tackling the drivers of deforestation including the production of soya feed for intensive livestock production in Europe; biofuels production to reach EU and UK targets and illegal logging for timber exports - the UK is one of the world's largest importers of the commodity - should also be a priority.

3. Friends of the Earth is part of Stop Climate Chaos Coalition, the UK's largest group of people dedicated to action on climate change and limiting its impact on the world's poorest communities. The coalition's supporter base of more than 11 million people spans over 100 organisations, from environment and development charities to unions, faith, community and women's groups. Together we demand practical action by the UK to keep temperatures well below an average 2 degree rise. For further information visit www.stopclimatechaos.org

If you are a journalist seeking press information please contact the Friends of the Earth media team on 020 7566 1649.

http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/environmental_audit_committee/eac290609.cfm

Environmental Audit Committee Press Notice

Urgent effort at home and abroad by UK government must secure stronger protection for rainforests

The UK and other developed countries must change patterns of consumption to reduce demand for products that directly and indirectly cause deforestation, say MPs in a report on deforestation and climate change published today.

Deforestation remains a huge threat to the global climate. An area of forest the size of England is lost each year and deforestation is the third largest source of greenhouse gases globally, producing more emissions than transport. In its Fifth Report of Session 2008-09, Reducing greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation: No hope without forests (HC 30), the Environmental Audit Select Committee warns the UK Government that any post-Kyoto agreement at next December’s UNFCCC climate change negotiations in Copenhagen must include commitments and measures to:

• remove the economic incentives that currently drive deforestation in the rainforest nations by curbing demand for commodities that contribute to deforestation;
• support rainforest nations to develop both the capacity and programmes to ensure their development path does not drive or depend upon deforestation;
• create a mechanism to pay developing countries for maintaining, and in some cases re-creating, their forests.

Launching the report, Committee chairman Tim Yeo MP said, “Giving rainforest nations money for protecting forests is simply not enough, yet so far negotiations have focused almost exclusively on the design of a payment mechanism.

“Rainforest nations deserve far more support to ensure their own development path does not drive forest degradation.

“Any international agreement must include practical measures to curb the supply and demand-side causes of deforestation. Developed nations in particular must commit themselves to taking steps that will stop business profiting from deforestation and will ensure consumers can choose more sustainable alternatives. Unless we do this, we will never dismantle the economic drivers that continue to fuel rampant deforestation. A failure to tackle deforestation could undermine all of the efforts that are being made to reduce emissions globally.”

To that end the Committee calls on the UK government to lobby for a global climate agreement in Copenhagen that will:

• reduce the economic drivers for deforestation
• provide a mechanism to support capacity building and effective governance in rainforest nations, particularly in terms of independent judicial systems and legal reforms, and the development of fiscal and land tenure systems that will help to halt deforestation
• protect the local communities that are dependant on forests for their livelihoods (and encourage rainforest nations to sign and ratify ILO Convention 169 on Tribal and Indigenous Peoples)
• identify and address the supply- and demand-side issues that drive rainforest deforestation
• include safeguards to prevent conversion of primary forests to plantations
• provide a mechanism to pay for reforestation, afforestation or avoided deforestation in developing and rainforest nations
• link payments under any mechanism to the reform of governance in rainforest nations
• provide safeguards to protect biodiversity

To reduce domestic demand for products that cause deforestation the UK Government must:

• bring forward legislation, as promised three years ago, to ban imports of illegal timber
• work with the rest of the EU to ensure those who place illegal timber and timber products onto the market face robust sanctions that are strongly enforced
• require its own departments, all local authorities and the wider public sector to adopt robust timber procurement policies
• begin work on a reassessment of global agriculture coupled with the development of sustainability standards for all agricultural products
• remove agricultural subsidies, biofuel subsidies and other damaging trade-distorting measures

Tim Yeo adds, “Under the current system, every time farm commodity prices escalate, so does the rate of forest clearance as pressure builds to turn forests into farmland or biofuel plantations. To break that cycle the EU and other developed nations urgently need to apply sustainability standards consistently to all agricultural food and biofuel commodities and help reform global agriculture. In the UK we must also look again at the Renewable Transport Fuels Obligation and the Renewables Obligation do ensure neither stimulates or accelerates deforestation.”

To strengthen capacity building and effective governance in rainforest nations the UK must:

• ensure that UK development assistance contributes to the development of a low-carbon global economy
• make clear what action it is taking to ensure that all strategies developed under the Forest Carbon Partnership will reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation by helping rainforest nations shift to more sustainable land use.
• maintain its support for both multilateral and bilateral organisations active on forestry related issues in significant rainforest nations but ensure that projects funded bilaterally or multilaterally—via bodies such as CDC and the World Bank—are in line with the need to halt deforestation and move towards a low-carbon economy.

Tim Yeo adds, "The Committee was worried by evidence that action being taken under the Forest Carbon Partnership could be undermining work done elsewhere to improve forest governance. We believe that eligibility for forest payments should be conditional on improvements in governance and the protection of local communities. These are essential if actions to halt or reverse deforestation are to be durable.

"We recognise that some development projects may lead to managed increases in emissions and deforestation and might be justified in that developing countries have a right to increase their emissions given they had no historic responsibility for greenhouse gas emissions. However, the Government should ensure that where possible development assistance contributes to the pursuit of a low-carbon pathway for national development and growth."

Notes for Editors:

• An area of tropical forest the size of England continues to be lost each year, giving rise to around 17 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions, more than global emissions from transport. Estimates in the Eliasch Review, Climate Change: Financing Global Forests, suggest that failure to act on deforestation could double the cost of avoiding dangerous climate change to 2030.

The report published today by the Environmental Audit Committee (EAC) is its Fifth Report of Session 2008-09, HC 30. Details of all the Committee's press releases together with its Reports, oral evidence and other publications, are available on the Committee's website at: www.parliament.uk/eacom/

Copies can be obtained from TSO outlets and from the Parliamentary Bookshop, 12 Bridge Street, Parliament Square, London SW1A 2JX (020 7219 3890) by quoting the House of Commons paper number given above. The text of the Report will also be available from approximately 00.01am onwards on its publication date, on the Committee's Internet homepage: www.parliament.uk/eacom/

For further information on the report, or to bid to interview the Chairman, journalists may phone the Committee's media officer, Hannah Pearce, on 020 7219 8430 / 07917 488 162.

FURTHER INFORMATION:

Membership:

Chairman: Mr Tim Yeo, MP

Mr Gregory Barker MP Mr Nick Hurd MP Mrs Linda Riordan MP

Mr Martin Caton MP Jane Kennedy MP* Mr Graham Stuart MP

Colin Challen MP Mark Lazarowicz MP Jo Swinson MP

Mr David Chaytor MP Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger MP Dr Desmond Turner MP

Martin Horwood MP Shahid Malik MP Joan Walley MP

* The Minister for the Environment has membership of the Committee in like manner to the Financial Secretary's membership of the Committee of Public Accounts.

---

biofuelwatch - World 'still losing biodiversity'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8130942.stm

Page last updated at 15:38 GMT, Thursday, 2 July 2009 16:38 UK

World 'still losing biodiversity'

Southern elephant seals are one of the species under threat Mammals facing extinction threat An unacceptable number of species are still being lost forever despite world leaders pledging action to reverse the trend, a report has warned. The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) says the commitment to reduce biodiversity loss by 2010 will not be met. It warns that a third of amphibians, a quarter of mammals and one-in-eight birds are threatened with extinction. The analysis is based on the 44,838 species on the IUCN Red List. "The report makes for depressing reading," said co-editor Craig Hilton Taylor, manager of the IUCN's Red List Unit. "It tells us that the extinction crisis is as bad, or even worse than we believed. "But it also shows the trends these species are following and is therefore an essential part of decision-making processes." The main policy mechanism to tackle the loss is the Convention for Biological Diversity (CBD), which came into force in 1993 with three main aims: To conserve biological diversity Use biological diversity in a sustainable fashion Share the benefits of biological diversity fairly and equitably Currently, 168 nations are signatories to the convention, which set the target "to achieve by 2010 a significant reduction of the current rate of biodiversity loss at the global, regional and national level". Demise of the devils and other mammals under threat Jean-Christophe Vie, deputy head of the IUCN's Species Programme, warned that the scale of "wildlife crisis" was far worse than the current global economic crisis."It is time to recognise that nature is the largest company on Earth working for the benefit of 100% of humankind," he said. "Governments should put as much effort, if not more, into saving nature as they do saving economic and financial sectors. "When governments take action to reduce biodiversity loss, there are some conservation successes but we are still a long way from reversing that trend." The assessment lists 869 species as Extinct or Extinct in the Wild. Overall, the report categorises at least 16,928 species as being threatened with extinction. "All of the plants and animals that make up Earth's amazing wildlife have a specific role and contribute to essentials like food, medicine, oxygen, water," said Mr Vie. "We need them all, in large numbers. We quite literally cannot afford to lose them."

---