Thursday, November 29, 2012

[biofuelwatch] Brazil's ethanol industry floundering




NATURE | NEWS

Growth of ethanol fuel stalls in Brazil

Shortages are a sobering lesson from a biofuels pioneer.

Brazil has struggled to sustain its production of biofuel from sugar cane.
RICKEY ROGERS/REUTERS

"A new moment for mankind." That was how Brazil's former president, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, described his country's biofuel boom in March 2007. Back then, Brazil was the poster child of ethanol fuel, its output second only to that of the United States. Fermenting the sugars in the country's abundant sugar cane produced a motor fuel that lowered carbon dioxide emissions, and many saw Brazil as a model for how the world could shed its addiction to oil, creating jobs along the way.

Five years on, Lula's vision has tarnished. Biofuels are falling from grace around the world as critics charge that devoting millions of hectares of agricultural land to fuel crops is driving up food prices and that the climate benefits of biofuels are modest at best. But the fall has been hardest in Brazil, where government policies have compounded the effects of the global economic downturn.

Domestic consumption of liquid ethanol this year has been 26% lower than for the same period in 2008. Forty-one of the country's roughly 400 sugar-cane ethanol plants have closed over that time. The price of pure ethanol at the pump is so high that in most states it is cheaper to fill up flexible-fuel cars with petrol blends that contain about 20% ethanol. The shift back to fossil fuels, combined with rapid growth in the number of cars on the roads (see'Fuelling Brazil's transport boom'), has worsened city smog and caused emissions in the transport sector to spike at about 170 million tonnes of CO2 in 2011, up from less than 140 million tonnes in 2008. "We are increasing the world's GDP: we are buying more oil and spending more on pollution-related health care," jokes Ildo Sauer, who studies energy policy at the University of São Paulo and is a former director of the state oil giant Petrobras.

Brazil's ethanol roller coaster is a sobering example of what can happen when climate and energy planning clash with economic decision-making. It began with the 2008 economic crisis, which staunched new investments in the sector just as it was expanding rapidly, and deep in debt. Rather than developing new plantations, the industry fell back on harvesting cane from older, less-productive sites, and average yields plummeted from 115 tonnes per hectare in 2008 to 69 tonnes this year. Combined with two bad harvests, this has forced Brazil to import some 1.5 billion litres of maize (corn) ethanol from the United States over the past 2 years.

SOURCES: UNICADATA (TOP/CENTRE); IEMA (BOTTOM)

But the killer blow came when the government decided to freeze the price of petrol and diesel to keep inflation under control, leaving biofuels less competitive. On the very night that current President Dilma Rousseff gave the closing speech of the Rio +20 conference in June — the final agreement of which promised to phase out fossil-fuel subsidies — the government said it would be reducing a federal fuel tax to zero. "We have taken away jobs from agroindustry, stalled growth and worsened the air of our cities for the sake of inflation control," says Luiz Horta, a bioenergy researcher at the Federal University of Itajubá.

Meanwhile, the government has tried to stimulate the economy with tax breaks on the sale of new cars. That, combined with the cost of pure ethanol, has meant that "the share of alcohol in our transport fuel matrix has dropped from 55% in 2008 to 35%", says André Ferreira, head of the Institute for Energy and the Environment, a think-tank in São Paulo.

According to Antônio de Pádua Rodrigues, technical director and acting president of UNICA, Brazil's sugar-cane industry association, the government knows that the situation is unsustainable. It has promised the industry that petrol prices will go up next year, and that the blend of ethanol will rise from 20% to 25%, the maximum allowed by law. But it will take time for the industry to bounce back from its poor fortune, and ethanol is likely to remain scarce and expensive for the next two years, say Rodrigues and Horta.

Now, Brazil hopes to tap into a new biofuel source: second-generation ethanol, produced from the tough cellulose in plant stalks. Cellulose is difficult to break down and ferment, but several facilities in the United States are on the verge of making commercial cellulosic ethanol — for example, by using specialist enzymes to break down the long-chain cellulose molecules — and Brazil doesn't want to be left behind.

In December last year, the Brazilian Development Bank launched a 1-billion-real (US$481-million) credit line to stimulate research and development in cellulosic biofuels and other advanced sugar-cane technologies. The Center for Sugarcane Technology, an industry-sponsored organization based in São Paulo, has taken up a 357-million-real loan to build a cellulosic ethanol plant next year, which would use waste plant matter from conventional sugar-cane fermentation. "We can double fuel yield per hectare when the technology is mature", says Oswaldo Godoy, a project manager at the organization.

The Brazilian Agricultural Research Company (EMBRAPA) is also throwing its weight behind bioenergy. Its president, Maurício Lopes, a geneticist who took office in October, has promised to build up research on biomass technology and double EMBRAPA's funding for that area, which today stands at a modest 24 million real per year. "I want to believe that the current state of the ethanol sector is a temporary blip," he says. Lopes says that Brazil will be "unbeatable" once cellulosic technology matures. "No other country has the logistics we have in place, or the number of different species we can derive ethanol from."

But cellulosic ethanol won't be a quick fix, says Horta. "Nothing shall compete with conventional sugar-cane ethanol until 2050."

Nature
 
491,
 
646–647
 
()
 
doi:10.1038/491646a

My Privacy...

[biofuelwatch] When did DECC sneak out this admission that burning whole trees is worse than gas??



When did they sneak this out?
http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/11/meeting-energy-demand/bio-energy/7014-bioenergy-strategy-supplementary-note-carbon-impac.pdf

The weird thing is I was only on the site because I wanted to cut and
paste the the EXACT same chart from the bioenergy strategy, and highlight
the exact same bit they have highlighted. Spooky!

How thoughtful, I only have to cut and paste now....

:-)

Kate de S


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

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuelwatch/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuelwatch/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
biofuelwatch-digest@yahoogroups.com
biofuelwatch-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
biofuelwatch-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

My Privacy...

[biofuelwatch] Calling Scottish Campaigners: Please email your MSPs on Big Biomass TODAY!





Dear all in Scotland

We urgently need our MSPs to get active on biomass. The government wants to introduce hidden subsidies for biomass which will reward companies for burning biomass in unlimited quantities, and at low efficiency levels. This will come in through changes to the Renewables Obligation Order which could go through Parliament as soon as early 2013.

In spite of the Government's promise to favour only efficient, small scale biomass, the changes to the law would see the likes of Forth Energy earn a financial reward of over 220 million every year to burn around 3.5 million tonnes of wood/year, sourced from anywhere in the world. 

The proposals pose a major threat to forests, ecosystems, people's sovereignty over their land, and climate.

Please write to your MSP to ask them to take Fergus Ewing to task on this - With Friends of the Earth Scotland, we've prepared a template letter which you can click through at this link: http://act.foe-scotland.org.uk/lobby/21  

If at all possible, try to meet with your MSP to have greater impact. 

Please spread the word and get as many of your friends and contacts to write to their MSPs as possible - we need to create more awareness about this in the Scottish Parliament!!

Best wishes

Emilia


__._,_.___


Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

My Privacy...

Wednesday, November 28, 2012

[biofuelwatch] Canadian pellet industry defends EU access for pellets from primary forests





[Note: Contrary to what the article below implies, no formal proposal for biomass sustainability standards has been published by the European Commission to date.]

http://www.pellet.org/home/46-protecting-markets-for-canadian-pellets 
A recent gathering in Quebec of international experts involved with bioenergy research and policy development was held in the hopes of ensuring that Canadian wood pellet producers continue to have access to the European market. According to Gordon Murray, executive director of the Wood Pellet Association of Canada (WPAC), who attended the event, the meeting was an attempt to find a solution to the impending European prohibition on biomass sourced from primary forests. 

By the end of the year, the European Commission Directorate General of Energy (DG Energy) is expected to release its sustainability criteria, which will supersede all EU national criteria and the potential exists that current rules prohibiting "primary forest and other wooded land" would have serious consequences for he export of Canadian wood pellets, including additional reporting requirements, an increase in costs and the inability to access the EU market. 

"The purpose of the event was discuss the sustainability of forest bioenergy with key stakeholders through field vistits, scientific presentations and moderated discussions," said Murray. "In particular, we wanted to demonstrate Canadian forest practices and sustainability." 

Some of the key messages from the Canadian Biomass Sustainability Field Tour and Workshop, held at Forêt Montmorency, were that only wood identified in approved forest management plans is available for harvest and biofibre harvesting, and it must follow the same strict standards that presently govern wood harvesting in provinces, including protecting biodiversity and soil productivity. Participants were also told that most of Canada's wood pellet capacity is supplied from ground and compressed wood fibre, which originates from sawmill waste (90%) or forest harvesting waste (10%) and are entirely composed of fibre obtained from sustainably management forests. 

Murray said participants obtained a first-hand view of Canadian forest management and that most were impressed with what they saw. He is also optimistic that a solution can be found. 

"This event definitely helped European regulators to understand the Canadian situation infinitely better than they could simply by sending letters or holding meetings in Europe," he said. "The result is likely to be that when the EU mandatory sustainability criteria for solid biomass are finally released, they will reflect the Canadian situation and be written in such a way that Canadians will be able to comply under existing practices. In particular, the regulators recognized that a blanket prohibition on biomass from primary forests as defined by FAO would be catastrophic for Canada and that a better approach has to be found." 

Some of the organizations who participated included, Natural Resources Canada, EU Directorate General of Energy, UK Department of Energy and Climate Change, UK Office of the Gas and Electricity Markets, Greenpeace, Drax Power, EON, Vattenfall and RWE Npower. 

Click here to read the full WPAC report.





__._,_.___


Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

My Privacy...

Tuesday, November 27, 2012

[biofuelwatch] New Video Repository: What Really Happens When Forests are Commodified





(Apologies for cross-postings. Please note there has been a change of schedule so the side event on bioeconomy, agriculture, forests and climate change will now take place on Wednesday 28 November, 11:30  - 13:00 AM, SIDE EVENT ROOM 8)

For immediate release, 27 November 2012 

Turning forests into fuel for the new 'bio-economy?'

What Really Happens When Forests are Commodified - Voices From Around The World 

A Video Repository [1]

Doha, Qatar- As Governments gathering for the 18th Conference of the Parties of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP18) continue discussions on the need to address the drivers of forest loss, the Global Forest Coalition [2], today launches a video repository that tells a powerful story about the commodification of forests as a key driver of climate change. This can only worsen as new industrial 'bio-economy' strategies come into play.

The repository brings together key videos produced and directed by a wide range of groups and communities, clearly demonstrating that Indigenous Peoples and local communities in countries right across the world are encountering and challenging the same problems with the rapidly expanding commodification of forest resources. Forests, their biodiversity, and their inhabitants are under attack as never before. In addition to existing problems, such as illegal logging and the clearing of forests to grow food crops for export, a variety of new policies threaten to escalate the situation dramatically. These include the production of biofuels, and the new industrial 'bio-economy' approach, which aims to replace fossil fuels with biomass (including from trees), both as an energy source and to provide the raw materials for a new phase of industrialisation [3].

In addition, governments' market-oriented 'green economy' approach includes a key policy that impacts on forests. REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation) is still being negotiated in the UNFCCC, but already unfolding on the ground, with sadly predictable impacts. It is explicitly premised on increasing the value of standing trees, leading to more and more land being grabbed from people living in or dependent upon forests.  Furthermore, REDD policies mistakenly equate diverse and ancient forests with plantations. This means that REDD permits funds destined for forest conservation to be used for the establishment of quick-growing and otherwise barren monoculture plantations[SL1] . This would place severe constraints on our collective ability to deal with climate change since plantations only contain a fraction of the carbon locked up in old growth forests.[4] 

Simone Lovera, executive director of the Global Forest Coalition, points out:

"Bio-economies spell big trouble for the world's forests. How can governments be planning a new industrial phase based on biomass, even though the UNFCCC is supposed to be protecting the world's forests for the sake of the climate? There is a clue though: timber and plantations companies stand to make a profit from both agendas."

The video repository, 'Turning forests into fuel for the new 'bio-economy?' What Really Happens When Forests are Commodified - Voices From Around The World'brings together a range of real cases where projects are impacting the lives and livelihoods of people around the world. These include Brazilian company ETH promoting large-scale sugar cane plantations for ethanol production in Mato Grosso do Sul, causing the displacement of 40,000 Guaraní Kaiowá; the Lutheran Church of Sweden and Norway funding gum tree plantations impacting local biodiversity and food security in Mozambique; the descent of 'carbon cowboys' on unsuspecting communities; and the negative impacts of carbon offset schemes in countries such as Uganda and Mexico.

Note: During UNFCCC's-COP18 the Global Forest Coalition, in cooperation with ICCA Consortium, is having a side event on November 28th, 2012 at 11:30 am in Room 8 on 'The Impacts of the Bioeconomy on Climate Change, and the Rights and Conservation Initiatives of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities'. GFC will also have an exhibition space during the first week of the COP, please come and visit us!

Contacts:

Simone Lovera, Executive Director GFC: (In Doha) +31-6-15345379

Isis Alvarez, Global Forest Coalition-Colombia: +57-3156484656

[1] Video research: Isis Alvarez; Edition: Ronnie Hall & Simone Lovera. Global Forest Coalition, 2012. http://globalforestcoalition.org/media/gfc-videos/web-based-video-repository

[2] Global Forest Coalition is a coalition of 54 NGOs and Indigenous Peoples' organizations from 39 countries striving for rights-based, socially just forest policies. See http://www.globalforestcoalition.org

[3] See also http://www.criticalcollective.org/publications/green-economy-3 for a collection of reports by GFC and others on the impacts of the Bio-economy

[4] Forests in a Changing Climate, Friends of the Earth International, December 2008, Issue 115.

http://www.foei.org/en/resources/publications/forests-and-biodiversity/2008/04-foei-forest-climate-english

 




__._,_.___


Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

My Privacy...

[biofuelwatch] Photos reveal destruction of Cameroon rainforest for palm oil





Photos reveal destruction of Cameroon rainforest for palm oil

Newly released photos by Greenpeace show the dramatic destruction of tropical forest in Cameroon for an oil palm plantation operated by SG Sustainable Oils Cameroon (SGSOC), a subsidiary of the U.S. company Herakles Farm.


__._,_.___


Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

My Privacy...

Monday, November 26, 2012

[biofuelwatch] Industrial Soy and Sugar Cane Fuel Native Land Conflicts in Brazil





http://upsidedownworld.org/main/brazil-archives-63/3978-industrial-soy-and-sugar-cane-fuel-native-land-conflicts-in-brazil

Industrial Soy and Sugar Cane Fuel Native Land Conflicts in Brazil
PDFPrintE-mail
Written by Fabiana Frayssinet   
Monday, 19 November 2012 20:05

Photo: Courtesy of CIMI/Cléber Buzatto

Photo: Courtesy of CIMI/Cléber Buzatto

Source: Inter Press Service

Brazil's Guaraní-Kaiowá people are no longer willing to wait quietly for the government to demarcate their land.

The threat of mass suicide by native Guaraní-Kaiowá people in southwest Brazil brought to light a new formula for worsening conflicts over indigenous territory: the expansion of the cultivation of soy beans and sugar cane, two top export crops.

The situation is the focus of a study, "Em terras alheias – a produção de soja e cana em áreas Guarani no Mato Grosso do Sul" (On other people's land: Production of soy beans and sugar cane in Guaraní areas of Mato Grosso do Sul), by Repórter Brasil, a local NGO.

Drawing on official data and research in villages of the southwestern state of Mato Grosso do Sul, the study mapped the cultivation of sugar cane and soy beans in six indigenous areas.

"When international commodity prices go up, it becomes more profitable to grow soy beans or sugar cane, and land values rise," investigative journalist Verena Glass, one of the authors of the study, told IPS. "With greater demand for land, large landowners arm themselves against the indigenous people, and conflicts surge, as happened last year."

In Mato Grosso do Sul, which is home to some 44,000 Guaraní-Kaiowá, conflicts broke out this year on cattle ranches. But the same logic is at work: there is "a dispute between commodities and lands claimed by indigenous people," she said.

When the report was presented on Oct. 24, the conflicts worsened. The study was carried out in July, when occupations by the Kaiowá to recover their territories led to confrontations and violent reactions by large landowners, including armed attacks on native encampments.

But the conflict crossed state borders when some 30 families of the Pyelito Kue Kaiowá community announced their "collective death" if they were driven off their land, which is currently in the process of being demarcated by government authorities as their communally owned territory.

Tired of waiting in encampments along the side of the roads, the native people occupied a small part of their ancestral lands that had been taken over by large landowners. But in October a court ordered their eviction.

When the news, interpreted as a threat to commit mass suicide, circled the globe by means of social networks, the government had the judicial decision revoked, so that the Pyelito Kue people could stay where they were until the demarcation process was complete.

The community was partly satisfied with the decision, Egon Heck, of the Catholic Indigenist Missionary Council (CIMI), told IPS.

They were happy, he said, because they would not be expelled from their land, but unhappy because they still have to live in overcrowded conditions on just one hectare, without being able to set foot outside it, for who knows how long.

"It's a situation of aggressive confinement that has been going on for years and was aggravated by the court verdict," said Heck, whose organisation is linked to the Brazilian Catholic Bishop's Conference.

He asked how nearly 200 indigenous people, "linked to their territory and natural resources as their way of life, are supposed to manage to survive on one hectare.

"Can it be that the interpretation of the constitution, which guarantees collective land to these people, is being distorted by the interests of private property?" he asked.

Maurício Santoro, a human rights adviser to Amnesty International in Brazil, told IPS that Mato Grosso do Sul has areas densely populated with indigenous people, but that these areas are scattered between soy bean plantations and cattle ranches.

"These lands have not yet been demarcated by the federal government, and the legal vacuum has fuelled conflict," he said.

Like Pyelito Kue, other communities were forced off their lands and are now living in camps by the side of the road, without medical services and constantly threatened by gunmen hired by local landowners.

"The waiting is killing people anyway," Tonico, a Kaiowá Indian, told IPS in September. "No one is making decisions. We are going to occupy all our lands, even knowing that there is no security and that we are going to die. The people have decided."

The rates of malnutrition, suicide and violence are extremely high in these communities, Santoro said.

According to CIMI, suicide has long been present among the Kaiowá and other Guaraní groups, particularly among young people. Between 2003 and 2010 there were 555 suicides.

Since 1991, only eight reserves have been formally approved for the Kaiowá-Guaraní people, who are the second-largest native group in Brazil but live in small territories.

The expansion of agribusiness, which has been heavily promoted by the state government, has exacerbated the situation.

The type of agriculture practiced, based on intensive use of pesticides, the destruction of soil microorganisms and the devastation of rivers and forests, has been a "major aggravating factor" in the historic process of expulsion and extinction of the Guaraní-Kaiowá people, said Heck.

Agricultural mechanization and the use of toxic chemicals have also reduced the employment of indigenous people as workers on large estates or in ethanol plants, where sugar cane is used to produce biofuels.

"Soon they won't even have this work, which may be in semi-slavery conditions but is practically the only income available, besides government assistance," since they don't have access to their own land, Heck said.

Repórter Brasil launched a campaign urging transnational corporations to boycott the produce of estates illegally located on indigenous lands.

"The idea is for big buyers to avoid purchasing products from indigenous lands, as a kind of punishment. That way, the producers are economically weakened, and the value of indigenous land is reduced," Glass said.

Two ethanol plants in the state, São Fernando and Raízen, have promised not to buy sugar cane from indigenous areas.

But others, like Monte Verde, which belongs to the Bunge company, buy grains from five estates on indigenous lands that are still being demarcated, according to Glass. The company argues that it is not infringing any rules as long as the estate owners are not legally compelled to leave the areas.

The government of President Dilma Rousseff has promised to accelerate the process of demarcation of native reserves. Meanwhile, rural producers are demanding economic compensation for leaving indigenous lands, and complain that one historic error is being paid for "with another historic error," namely, penalizing a productive sector.



__._,_.___


Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

My Privacy...

Saturday, November 24, 2012

[biofuelwatch] Scottish Government should heed warnings about sustainability of big biomass





Scottish Government should heed warnings about sustainability of big biomass
23 November 2012

Friends of the Earth Scotland and Biofuelwatch joint News Release

Environmental campaigners today (23 November 2012) called on the Scottish Government to pay attention to warnings against subsidies for inefficient and unsustainable large-scale biomass.

The warnings come in a report on renewable energy published by a Scottish Parliament Committee today , which urges the Government not to subsidise proposed biomass power stations without "substantive improvements to efficiency".

Emilia Hanna, Biofuelwatch, said: "The Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee report today sends a strong message to the Scottish Government that their current plans for subsidising large, inefficient biomass power stations pose a risk to climate and human rights and must be revised. Otherwise, we will see more biodiverse forests worldwide being destroyed and likely more communities being evicted to make way for tree plantations in countries such as Brazil, in order to feed Scottish power stations."

Andrew Llanwarne, Board member of Friends of the Earth Scotland, said: "Within the next few months, Forth Energy's biomass applications in Rosyth, Grangemouth and Dundee will be decided by the Scottish Government. If they are given the green light then we will see millions of tonnes of wood from the Americas being burnt, at a devastating cost to forests and climate and possibly human rights.

"Pouring hundreds of millions of pounds taken from all our electricity bills into this would defeat the purpose of the Scottish renewable energy target, and be contrary to the Government's own policy for biomass. We support the Committee's view that biomass has its place, and can be sustainable, if it is used efficiently in small local schemes to produce heat. This is the Government's stated policy and they should stick to it."

Under Government proposals, hundreds of millions of pounds of subsidies could be paid to inefficient biomass power stations,contrary to its own stated policy. The Committee's report also warns that the Government's proposed sustainability standards for biomass ignore human rights as well as key climate impacts. They would burn wood from plantations overseas, from which communities have been evicted, effectively exporting the Clearances to other countries. And far from reducing our carbon emissions, burning trees would release more carbon than coal. Yet they would be eligible for subsidies.

ENDS

Notes to editors:

1. The "Report on the achievability of the Scottish Government's renewable energy targets" was published by the Scottish Parliament's Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee earlier today and is available at www.scottish.parliament.uk/S4_EconomyEnergyandTourismCommittee/Reports/e...

2. Paragraph 273 of the report states: "The Committee shares the concerns of the Scottish Government and the wood panel industry with regard to the potential distortion of the wood market caused by increasing biomass generation. We are further concerned that sustainability criteria and certification schemes for feedstock fail to take account of issues of human rights, indirect land use change and emissions debt. Accordingly, the Committee supports the Scottish Government's proposals not to incentivise new, large scale plants dedicated solely to the generation electricity. The Committee would wish to see substantive improvements in the efficiency of proposed biomass plants before they could attract subsidy."

3. For background information about the Scottish Government proposal, please see Parliamentary Briefing: How Scottish Government proposals will support destructive, low-efficiency, large-scale biomass by Friends of the Earth Scotland, Biofuelwatch, Grangemouth Community Council and No Leith Biomass.www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/2012/scottish-parliament-briefing-rocs



__._,_.___


Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

My Privacy...

[biofuelwatch] Scottish parliamentary inquiry has concerns over biomass energy



The Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee reported 23 November on its Inquiry into the Scottish Government's Renewables Targets

Remit: An inquiry into the achievability of the Scottish Government's 2020 renewable energy targets, the merits of the targets and what the risks and barriers are to realising them.

www.scottish.parliament.uk/parliamentarybusiness/CurrentCommittees/46125.aspx

The report says:

272. During oral evidence, Biofuelwatch pointed out that certification schemes, such as the sustainable forestry initiative, are owned by the companies that are contracted to use the land and, therefore,we dispute the suggestion that reliance on certification schemes necessarily ensures sustainability. Biofuelwatch also highlighted concerns over the emissions which are released when biomass isburned and the fact that these are repaid only when trees (for example) are replaced, which can take from 20 to 200 years. The potential human rights impact of some types of large-scale wood production were raised by Biofuelwatch and it was pointed out that it is difficult to measure this type of impact. Biofuelwatch also argued that if Scotland is to meet its own stated target for heat we need to consider stronger efficiency requirements for biomass power stations.

273. The Committee shares the concerns of the Scottish Government and the wood panel industry with regard to the potential distortion of the wood market caused by increasing biomass generation. We are further concerned that sustainability criteria and certification schemes for feedstock fail to take account of issues of human rights, indirect land use change and emissions debt. Accordingly, the Committee supports the Scottish Government's proposals not to incentivise new, large scale plants dedicated solely to the generation of electricity. The Committee would wish to see substantive improvements in the efficiency of proposed biomass plants before they could attract subsidy.

274. The Committee supports the Scottish Government's intention to remove ROC support for large wood-fuelled stations which do not offer combined heat and power.








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

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuelwatch/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuelwatch/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
biofuelwatch-digest@yahoogroups.com
biofuelwatch-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
biofuelwatch-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

My Privacy...

Friday, November 16, 2012

[biofuelwatch] Fwd: US will not ease corn ethanol mandate





---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "FT Alerts" <Alerts@ft.com>
Date: Nov 16, 2012 8:19 PM
Subject: US will not ease corn ethanol mandate
To: <andrewboswell@fastmail.co.uk>

     
 
Financial Times
News Alert
16 November 2012
 
Keyword(s): biofuel
Frequency: Immediately
 
November 16, 8:02pm
US will not ease corn ethanol mandate
The White House on Friday rejected requests to halt a government mandate to blend billions of gallons of corn-based ethanol into US petrol supplies, keeping alive a big factor in the bull market for food commodities.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/55626020-3009-11e2-a040-00144feabdc0.html
 
 
  Advertisement
 
© THE FINANCIAL TIMES LTD 2012
ABOUT THIS EMAIL    You have received this email because you have signed up for this keyword/company alert on FT.com
Change Alerts  • Unsubscribe  • Change Email Address  • Privacy Policy  • About Us  • Help
The Financial Times Limited, registered in England and Wales number 227590. Registered office: Number One Southwark Bridge, London SE1 9HL. VAT number GB 278 5371 21.
Please do not reply to this email as the address is not monitored. If you are experiencing difficulties with FT Alerts, please contact customer service: help@ft.com
 
 


__._,_.___


Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

My Privacy...