For example,

1. Biofuel crops compete with food crops. Already the price of corn is up, driving up the price of tortillas in Mexico so much that it has led to a political crisis.

2. Although as Ron says, biofuel crops do not necessarily mean cutting down rainforests, they certainly do require bringing new land into production.

3. Intense cropping puts pressure on the soil, especially in the tropics, causing erosion and nutrient depletion.

4. Export-driven agriculture favors plantations and large producers -- not the sectors that I want to support.  

5. Biofuel production at an immense scale, as Ron proposes, is unsustainable. The appetite for liquid fuels continues to grow (especially as the middle classes in India and China buy cars by the millioins).  The interests of the poor and the environment are shunted aside in the rush.

As I am no Kenya expert, I can't really analyze the situation. I have more questions than answers, in fact, such as:

How much of Kenya's export agriculture is made up of the crops small farmers produce? Are they getting much of a share of the income this produces? What would this look like under a biofuels scheme?

I'd like to know how much this will affect small farmers vs. agribusiness and corporate exporters. My (cynical) gut tells me that Kenya's impoverished citizens (more than half the population, and rising), are probably involved in subsistance agriculture mostly, and the export crops are being produced on a much larger scale. Perhaps this is different for the fair-trade markets.

Our friend Vinod Khosla has talked at times about turning Africa and Latin America into fuel-producers for the global North. This sounds to me like good old colonialism at its best.

Rather than deepening Kenyan farmers' dependence on foreign markets by turning them into biofuel producers (and subsequently increasing their vulnerability to prices swings and, oh yes, changes in consumer preferences and perceptions that might cause biofuel imports to be suddenly banned), we should be supporting "food sovereignty" policies there that would develop national food production and market capacities.  

The idea seems to be this: Encourage farmers in the southern hemisphere to sell into the global commodity market, and with the foreign exchange they earn, they'll ... buy food on the global commodity market.

Why should Kenya grow biofuel for Europe -- is it in order to earn foreign exchange to buy petroleum from Saudi Arabia? The logic seems twisted. If biofuels are such a great energy source, why shouldn't Kenya produce biofuel for itself?

This is an incredibly complex topic, and Kenyans should decide for themselves what to do with their land. But it has to be acknowledged that western aid agencies have been nudging farmers in places like Kenya for a long time now to produce for the global market, and I think the results of these programs are dubious at best.

Victual Reality

Biofuels could make the situation worse. Given time, what will stop small farmers from being driven out of business by large ones?

http://allafrica.com/stories/200702050361.html

What is to prevent the whole industry from being controlled by large oil companies? I could also envision small subsistence farmers losing their land to corporations who need them to grow biofuel monocrops. Impoverished small farmers will become impoverished farm hands. But in the end, these arguments are all moot.

Feeding food crops to cars instead of people will require more land. Something has to give. A car will consume ten times as much food by weight than a person.

The bottom line: We cannot grow both food and fuel without putting more ecosystems under the plow. There are also three billion more people coming. Making biofuels from food crops is the worst idea ever. They are the wrong replacement for fossil fuels. The arguments that have been presented by biofuel enthusiasts over the past couple of years are falling like flies.

1. They will be locally produced.

2. They do not increase the cost of food.

3. They are environmentally friendly.

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2004/11/23/feeding-cars-n ...

We can ignore that argument and debate how many angels will fit on the head of a pin, but there isn't much point in it. I'm with Monbiot, biofuels produced from food crops, or those that displace food crops, will go down in history as the most envrionmentally destructive idea ever put into motion.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

Contrary to many others in this debate, they're quite nuanced and don't do the simplistic "fuels versus food" thing, nor the "all biofuels lead to deforestation" propaganda. They have sketched the complexity of the matter many times, quite correctly. Also, they were the only ones in my opinion who analysed the tortilla crisis correctly (not the result of biofuels as such, but of incredible U.S. subsidies and trade distortions which forced millions of Mexican corn farmers out of business years ago).

From experience, I know there is vast potential to produce biofuels sustainably in several parts of the world. In the CAR, where I have farmed, a lot can be done. Today, farmers there use hopelessly primitive techniques, simply because they don't have any income to invest in modern tools and technologies. The result: they slash and burn their way through. If a new market were to open up for them, they'd have the means to become more sustainable. They'd use fertilisers, increase yields, use up less land, rationalize water use, etc...

Anyways, I think the guys (and girls?) over at Biopact are the only "realistic" and "pragmatic" green idealists out there. Most of us rely on snobbish ideas, and project them on Africans, who, we think should all become organic farmers who live in an idyllic state of autarchy and who don't have the right to become a bit more prosperous, let alone have access to commodity markets (evil! evil!).

PS: shouldn't we be more careful with the concept of food miles? I just read that it is better for Europeans to import flowers from Africa, than to buy local ones which are grown in energy guzzling greenhouses:

Buy African flowers - UK minister
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6356383.stm
Romantics in the UK should woo their loved ones with flowers imported from Africa rather than those grown in Europe, a minister has said.

International Development Secretary Hilary Benn asked consumers to aid "social justice" on Valentine's Day.

Importing African flowers is better for the environment as they are not grown in heated greenhouses, he said.
-----

The same logic holds for biofuels, I think.

I really don't see you or the BioPact people addressing the issues that people are bringing up. I see assertions ("soundly based on the available science") and isolated insights.  

What really turns me off are the ad hominem arguments like:

Most of us rely on snobbish ideas, and project them on Africans, who, we think should all become organic farmers who live in an idyllic state of autarchy and who don't have the right to become a bit more prosperous, let alone have access to commodity markets

One thing that makes me suspicious about the initial post and congofarmer is that they echo the arguments found at BioPact, and congofarm uses the  same ad hominem arguments I've seen there.

I wonder what the connection is between BioPact and agricultural concerns in the Third World countries. It was hard to tell from their website.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Have you read the BBC article on the Kenyan farmers?

If you have, wouldn't you agree that it's not unreasonable to suggest that many of us (sorry, I like to speak in terms of "we, people from the West") use fuzzy concepts in a fuzzy way, just because we've read they're fashionable? Like food miles.

If we were to take food miles really serious, we'd have to have some kind of constantly updated, ultra-detailed database with very careful carbon and energy balances for each single product in our super markets.

This doesn't exist. We just guess a bit, and improvise. Because we read that food miles are a good idea. Often, they're not.

This confuses many people, including the farmers in Kenya. They were shocked to hear that British consumers and Tesco are thinking of banning some of the products they grow.

We in the West often don't realize the effects of our sudden outburst to do good.

Get over the ad hominem idea. I'm not attacking anyone personally, on the contrary, I'm talking about, us, the people who often think we know what's best for third world people... If you don't count yourself amongst them, good for you.

You don't need a laboratory and a science degree to see that we often use snobbish ideas. This is about politics and our cultural attitudes, more than about science.

I have no connection with the people from Biopact, but I'm highly sympathetic to their cause.

This seems like a backwards argument, sorry, Tom. In our economy, producing food can be for two reasons: for subsistence or for sale. Farmers that are complaining about the local movement are growing it for sale. They cannot sell the food to poor people, because they do not have any money to pay for it. The economists in the government may tax the producers either through monetary exchanges or through direct food give-aways. Both would work to feed the hungry, but if the goal of the economy to increase its GNP (which isn't necessarily right, but it is the model), then give-away is not the way to go about it.

By the way, most farms that I have seen (temperate) overproduce at certain times, and some of the overripe or unsellable food goes straight to compost, even if it is edible.

Biofuel crops compete with food crops. Already the price of corn is up, driving up the price of tortillas in Mexico so much that it has led to a political crisis.

No, from what I understand the rising price of tortillas in Mexico has nothing to do with biofuels, it has to do with corn export tariffs and ADM's influence (pushed through NAFTA).

Although as Ron says, biofuel crops do not necessarily mean cutting down rainforests, they certainly do require bringing new land into production.

To equal the amount of fossil fuels currently used, not necessarily to sell as a commodity.

Intense cropping puts pressure on the soil, especially in the tropics, causing erosion and nutrient depletion.

Right, and that's different from status quo, how? The only sustainable practice is small slash-and-burns left after 7-8 years of cultivation for about 50 years + .

Export-driven agriculture favors plantations and large producers -- not the sectors that I want to support.  

Kenyans might have a different opinion. And that may already be the case with current producers.

Biofuel production at an immense scale, as Ron proposes, is unsustainable. The appetite for liquid fuels continues to grow (especially as the middle classes in India and China buy cars by the millioins).  The interests of the poor and the environment are shunted aside in the rush.

I agree, but that's because 7 billion people living at our consumption rates is unsustainable. Period.

I'm not trying to attack you, Bart, but I am sure that you can come up with better arguments than those.

No, from what I understand the rising price of tortillas in Mexico has nothing to do with biofuels, it has to do with corn export tariffs and ADM's influence (pushed through NAFTA).

Tortillas are made from white corn but its price is indexed to yellow corn. The price of yellow corn is at a ten year high because of ethanol demand--pretty straightforward. Mexico was actually exporting corn last year, but you can bet they won't next year. With the price of imported corn being driven up, Mexico can grow more for domestic use, but if those farmers find it more profitable to grow yellow corn and sell it to ethanol refiners, you end up back at square one. You also end up there if the Mexican farmers can't grow it as cheaply as it can be imported. Give those Mexican farmers a bad harvest and the poor are really fucked. Agricultural interdependence via distant trading partners is how famine is averted in the modern world.

Higher prices driven by ethanol demand will mean higher corn prices and the poor are starting to go hungry, just as predicted by many, including Lester Brown and Monbiot to name a few. I find it interesting how people continue to insist that biofuels will not increase the cost of food even as the price of food that is used to make biofuels rises (corn, soy and canola oil).


In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/20 ...

Doesn't mean that corn ethanol is the only reason, but I'm sure it's a problem.

It's funny that you consider the idea of eating locally to be fashionable and snobbish. The idea has been around for a long time, and I can tell you from experience - it has not been fashionable!  At least not until very lately, and even then, it's only fashionable among certain groups. What has been fashionable is expensive, out-of-season produce from far away + processed foods.  

Besides, whether a practice is fashionable or not is irrelevant.  The question is - does it make sense?  

I read the BBC article about Kenya farmers. The problem I have with it is that it is not analytical. How is the farming sector organized? Who is involved in export agriculture?  I would guess that export agriculture is mostly the province of large producers - I believe this is the case with most Third World countries.

Without a picture of the agricultural economy, articles like the one from the BBC are prone to manipulation. It is easy to pick a few examples with human appeal that seem to support a particular point of view.

/ There are many other points we could discuss, but let me suggest something and get people's ideas.

Right now, the issue is First World consumer concern about air-miles and local produce. But what if this is only a harbinger of an economic reality to come? Isn't it likely that air freight will become more expensive due to higher fuel prices, and restricted due to concerns about climate change? What will be the consequences for Africans and others in the Third World who have become dependent on selling produce transported by air?  Even if you disagree with the premise, perhaps accept it as a thought experiment. What would happen?

/ For more on the argument about Biofuels, see Biofuels: A Disaster in the Making, a statement by Third World groups. A note at the bottom gives links to the BioPact reaction.  

Thanks for responding, congofarmer and atreyger.

-Bart

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Also, South America added 4000 square miles of cropland over the last few years. By trading the Amazon for crops, they have freed us up to feed our grain to our cars without starving people to death (for now at least). There is plenty more land where that came from, in Africa, Indonesia, wherever there are still rain forests. In my humble opinion, now that we have begun to feed  food crops to our cars there isn't much chance of saving those forests.

 

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

You can pay countries to keep their forests. And you can support farmers to grow biofuel and food crops on non-forest land.

The IEA has shown there is sufficient non-forest land to grow bio-energy worth two times the total amount of energy the entire world uses today, without threatening the food security of people.

A look at Africa's biofuels potential.

So in theory, it's possible.

But I'm afraid wealthy consumers like us are not courageous enough to redistribute some of our wealth.

Touch people's wallet, and their idealism disappears, suddenly they're no longer interested in conservation and biodiversity.

sorry - as seemingly the only other person in this debate that is actually in Africa, I have to say that congofarmer's contribution tastes worse than a rancid mopane worm at Robert Mugabe's birthday feast. I fear it's spiked with the self-interest of someone eyeing European CDM credits to line their bank accounts with. (I know, I know, I shouldn't get personal, but hopefully that's got your attention...)

1. Stop focusing on forests only. In Africa, natural grasslands are often the most threatened ecosystems. South Africa's totally rubbish new biofuels strategy aims to put somewhere between 500 000 and 1.5 million hectares of pristine grassland - our most threated biome - under the plough.

2. Look at WHY African farmers - and African rural communities - are poor before you start proposing solutions. It often has to do with a) lack of skills to grow anything but the most basic subsistence crops and knowledge of what the market wants (let's be frank) and b) lack of access to IN-COUNTRY markets. (If a farmer has no access to road or rail to bring his produce to the local city, how on earth is he going to get it overseas?)

3. Incentivising farmers to grow maize means raising the price - here in southern Africa we grow as much maize as the price will allow. The land area under maize is determined by the price. Land is taken out of production as the maize price drops, and marginal maize-land is 'marginal' not because one cannot grow maize there for biophysical reasons, but because one cannot profitably grow maize there. Raising or stabilising the price - by whatever means - to make additional maize-growing viable (for ethanol) means raising the price of food-maize and hurting food security by definition. You cannot grow maize for ethanol without either reducing the supply of food maize or raising the price. The fuzzy predictions of the South African Biofuels Study (which were seemingly tweaked frantically to make the impact on food prices look lower, and every painful page of which I have just waded through) are that opening a market ethanol maize will result in a real (i.e. above inflation) price rise of 5% per annum until at least 2013, which is where the study's mandate ended. Prices of other basic foods that are reliant on maize as inputs will rise more (chicken prices are projected to rise a mind-boggling 17% per annum - there goes the staple protein of increasingly-poor urban Africans).

4. The South African biofuels programme is rigged to benefit existing large-scale commercial farmers and SASOL, our gasoline-from-coal behemoth (who produce loads of excess ethanol that they cannot sell profitably,and want a market for). It is also rigged to benefit large multinationals. Monsanto has just concluded a behind-closed-doors agreement with a government agency to plant at least 500 000 hectares with Roundup-ready GM maize (for ethanol) in the one of the most impoverished areas of South Africa (the former Transkei). They are planning to do this on communally-owned land currently used for subsistence agriculture. The current occupants will get less than $450 per year per hectare in rental (presumably forced on them, as there is no other way that such a scheme could work) for the land that currently yields them far more. Government quietly admits that there is no viable way for small-scale rural farmers to produce the kind of volumes they need and get them efficiently to market, as transport infrastructure is so bad and the cashflow requirements too onerous for people who live day-to-day.

If you want to uplift rural farmers, give them skills and access to markets - local markets. If they want to, they can access foreign markets themselves. Keep big, predatory international agribiz OUT.

Cheers

(a fumingly angry)

Whiskerfish

PS biodiversivist, you may be a gringo, but you're right on this one!

I have farmed in the Central African Republic.

I said:
-the most damaging aspect of agriculture there is the lack of skills and tools; they're slashing their way through, with ultra-low yields
-if they were to use modern techniques, they'd have a lot of room to grow and they'd be many times more sustainable and destroy the environment far less
-investments in infrastructure are needed urgently: it is nice if you have a road if you want to bring your produce to market; if you do not have a road, it is a bit difficult

If these changes are achieved, Africa can produce a lot, both food, fiber and fuel, not only for itself, but for a wider market. I then referred to a study showing this technical potential.

This study shows the exportable potential. *Nobody said African farmers shouldn't produce biofuels for themselves first.* That isn't the discussion. The discussion is: if the technical barriers are removed (such as infrastructure), does it then make sense to export biofuels.

So don't put words in my mouth. You are talking about another matter. I was talking about the suggestions made in that article.

If a new market were to open up for them [small-scale African subsistence farmers], they'd have the means to become more sustainable. They'd use fertilisers, increase yields, use up less land, rationalize water use, etc...

First, using petroleum-based fertilizers isn't technically sustainable, and given enough demand, farmers will clear more land, use more water, etc... The reality is that all farmers must use pesticides to turn their land into a biologically impoverished death zone for biodiversity.

But, the weakest link in your argument is the near certainty that these small farmers will immediately be knocked aside by well funded, powerful agribusiness corporations, which in all likelihood will eventually be owned by companies that specialize in the refining and distribution of liquid energy sources (oil companies).

Your vision would require millions of small farmers joining together in a seamless and efficient cooperative capable of producing crops cheaper than industrial farms. That is very unlikely to happen. Each farmer seeks to maximize his income and that is why farm hands work are cheaper than farm owners.

Importing African flowers is better for the environment as they are not grown in heated greenhouses,

Horticulture exists in Africa because the free market found a niche for it. It is cheaper to grow flowers in Africa and export them than to heat green houses. Africa may become an exporter of biofuel stock if the free market finds a niche for it there also. I think that is highly probable given time and continued demand for liquid fuels.

Putting the biodiversity issue aside, will this be a good thing for small farmers or a disaster?  It has a low probability of long term success in a world starting to search for carbon neutral, environmentally benign energy sources. Growing crops, processing them into a liquid fuel and then burning that fuel in an engine that converts only 20% of the fuel energy into work is a brutally inefficient use of energy, which explains why I am such a big fan of using renewably generated electricity efficiently (URGE2). Converting carbon sinks, be they grasslands or forests into croplands is one of the biggest causes of CO2 release. In short, industrial crops are not environmentally benign. Crops are a necessary evil to feed humanity. Using crops to feed our cars borders on immoral.

There is a chance to save rainforests and to source biofuels from the tropics at the same time ...The IEA has shown there is sufficient non-forest land to grow bio-energy worth two times the total amount of energy the entire world uses today, without threatening the food security of people ...So in theory, it's possible.

This is a case where a theory clashes with reality. This is the reality, as is this, and this.

And you can support farmers to grow biofuel and food crops on non-forest land.

What does it mean to "support farmers to grow biofuel?" They will grow those fuels wherever it will maximize their return on investment unless forced to do otherwise, as the above links clearly document.

You can pay countries to keep their forests

...Touch people's wallet, and their idealism disappears, suddenly they're no longer interested in conservation and biodiversity.

You realize of course that these statements are contradictory. Which one is true? At the time of this writing, the second one is. The money we Americans spend in a few months on a useless and tragic war would be sufficient to buy up or lease enough ecosystems to protect most of the biodiversity of the planet (50 billion dollars). That is how ignorant and near-sighted the American government/public really is, and if you are counting on it to act otherwise in the near future, well, don't hold your breath. I fully agree that if we could pry that kind of money lose and actually preserve what remains with it, then much of the growing resistance to biofuels would end. The hard reality is that the expansion of palm oil, soy oil, corn and sugarcane is rapidly eating what remains of the planet's biodiversity, again as the above links clearly document.

The discussion is: if the technical barriers are removed (such as infrastructure), does it then make sense to export biofuels.

Whether or not it makes sense (whatever that means exactly) is irrelevant without good governance providing infrastructure. If we posit that this good governance existed and provided that infrastructure you can then ask if it makes sense, but even then that question makes little sense. Excluding the numerous and ruinous attempts by governments to manipulate markets, the free market determines what is grown where and what it will pay for it, not me, not you, not Biopact.


In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

Gringo

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

A couple of clarifications. Bart seemed to imply I was proposing something. I wasn't (other than a topic for discussion), and certainly not "biofuel production at an immense scale." And, in case anybody was wondering, I am not affiliated with Biopact. Indeed, if you look at their web site, you will see that I have commented on several of their articles, often critically. (See bottom of page, here, for example.)

However, like Congo Farmer, I respect their site, and I think that they genuinely care about the developing world -- unlike many politicians in Europe and North America who claim to have the interest of Africa at heart when they assert that their support for their own countries' biofuel production is all about creating export opportunities for other countries' crops, or breaking the impass at the WTO over agriculture.

Admittedly, Biopact's articles sometimes display a breathtaking naiivite and over-hopefulness, such as when they recently jumped on comments made by U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman and foresaw the end of U.S. ethanol subsidies tariffs on imported ethanol. But they are certainly not jingoistic, unlike most news services focussing on biofuels. And they provide a lot of interesting stories.

Regarding biofuel feedstocks grown in developing countries and their nutrient requirements, there are certainly some nitrogen-fixing crops -- notably Jatropha curcas -- that require little, and even seem to help restore degraded soils. And I have written on these pages about the possibility of using sap harvested from the fruit of nipah (mangrove) palms. But, yes, sad to say, there are also cases of native forests making way for palm oil -- not only for biofuels, but for margarine and a host of other uses.

I am glad we heard from a couple of African voices. We need more -- and from South Asia and Latin America. Although I have not been to Kenya myself (yet), I have spoken with many farmers from there, and from Uganda. They know all about producing for local consumption. But their comparative advantage lies in agriculture, not the production of microchips for export. These countries are not going to pick themselves up by their own bootstraps without trade.

Many Development Assistance agencies in OECD countries have actually worked closely with producers in those countries to try to encourage production using organic methods, including for export. But they have been frustrated by conformity assessment (certification, and accreditation of the certifiers) rules and regulations in the North that make it extremely difficult and costly for African producers to break into the market. Like Congo Farmer, I encourage readers of this blog to read that BBC interview. The view expressed by the interviewed Kenyans are very much in keeping with what I have heard from other African growers, at least from central and eastern Africa.

In answer to Tom's question, "if biofuels are such a great energy source, why shouldn't Kenya produce biofuel for itself?" The answer is that they ARE starting to, including from Jatropha curcas. But the absorption potential for biofuels, particularly ethanol, depends in part also on the local transport fleet (especially if it can only handle low-level biofuel blends). Once that market is saturated, producers will turn to exports.

Blind, biofuels-at-any-cost promotion of ethanol and biodiesel is dangerous, and there are all manner of distortions being created by heavy subsidization of biofuel production and consumption. But even in the absence of subsidies, a demand for biofuels could still exist, especially if oil prices increase again. The question then needs to be asked: are developing countries going to be shut out of this market also?

These are only my personal opinions.

J.S.

I teach environmental economics and blog at www.voicesofreason.info.

recent studies have concluded that it is highly likely to turn into a highly invasive alien plant in subtropical Africa. We have enough problems with invasives already.

There really is no free lunch!

Whiskerfish

Ron and Congofarmer, do you know who is behind Biopact? One reason for my distrust is that they are acting as a lobby, but it is not clear who they are.  

Two editors are listed, but a link to supporting members is broken.

My guess is that Biopact represents the views of people involved with national development - NGOs, agriculture, international bodies, and agribusiness. The group offers its services as consultants and publicists to "bioenergy projects in the South".

I note that today they quote with approval an attack on organic farming by Norman Borlaug that appeared in Reason, the Libertarian magazine.

I also note that they have attacked a coalition of groups concerned with the negative effects of biofuels on 3rd World countries.

As I mentioned earlier, I've also been turned off by their ad hominem attacks on people who disagree with them.  

I think it is a mistake to assume that they speak for people in the Third World, or that they hold values that many of us would consider to be environmentalist.

Bart

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Ron and Congofarmer, do you know who is behind Biopact? One reason for my distrust is that they are acting as a lobby, but it is not clear who they are.  

Two editors are listed, but a link to supporting members is broken.

My guess is that Biopact represents the views of people involved with national development - NGOs, agriculture, international bodies, and agribusiness. The group offers its services as consultants and publicists to "bioenergy projects in the South".

I note that today they quote with approval an attack on organic farming by Norman Borlaug that appeared in Reason, the Libertarian magazine.

I also note that they have attacked a coalition of groups concerned with the negative effects of biofuels on 3rd World countries.

Personally, I dislike their aggressive, non-analytical approach. I'm turned off by their ad hominem attacks on people who disagree with them; it reminds me of industry front groups in the U.S.  

I think it is a mistake to assume that they speak for people in the Third World, or that they hold values that many of us would consider to be environmentalist.

Bart

Bart
Energy Bulletin

please do not automatically characterize all biofuel production in developing countries as involving or necessitating the cutting down of rainforests.

So first we are to assume that fuel farming is GHG positive?  Buy the false premise and you have bought the false conclusion.  Wether the fuel farming is done on new cropland or old, it destroys the ability of the soil to sequester carbon.

It releases the carbon stored in areas converted to fuel farming from natural growth.  The chemical fertilizer used runs off into wetlands where it promotes aneroebic digestion, releasing huge amounts of methane, 23 times worse as a GHG than CO2.

Why  encourage this?  So gas guzzling can continue.  So the internal combustion engine can go on destroying the climate with it's 14% efficiency.  So auto companies do not have to produce plugin hybrids.

Dangerous mass delusional media propaganda.  To maintain the corporate monopoly game status quo.  

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

But, again, I think the debate is not helped by wholesale condemnation. In Madagascar, for example, local farmers have been using Jatropha curcas bushes as substrates for vanilla vines for years. The nut of the Jatropha bush (in some places called the "physic nut") is inedible, and it was not used. Now the oil from those nuts is being used, earning the farmers more revenue.

The characterization you make of biofuel feedstocks destroying "the ability of the soil to sequester carbon, ... releasing the carbon stored in areas converted to fuel farming from natural growth ... chemical fertilizer [running] off into wetlands where it promotes anaerobic digestion, releasing huge amounts of methane" very well describes, for example, the conversion of prairie land to corn farming.

But in some parts of the world, the local soils have long ago lost their fertility and ability to sequester carbon. There are tens of millions of hectares of land in India like that, for example. Part of what some projects are trying to do is to both restore that fertility, and ability to sequester carbon, AND produce a valuable crop at the same time.

Note to Whiskerfish: Thank you for pointing out the concern in South Africa over the potential for Jatropha to become invasive. Jatropha was, of course, introduced into Africa many years ago as a windbreak and natural fence. In looking to confirm your concern, I came across one site which says the tree was introduced into Africa several hundred years ago, and concludes "so there is none of the ecological risk which comes from introducing a new species". (Of course, just because a plant has been around for years does not necessarily mean it isn't invasive. Water hyacinths were introduced into the USA more then a century ago and definitely still are.) Another site, from South Africa, expresses caution and adds "a possible alternative to Jatropha is a plant called Maringa, though again there is little knowledge of this source. Early indications suggested that bio-diesel production may yield more oil from Maringa, though again [the KZN Department of Agriculture and Environmental Affairs] has insufficient information to make any valid assessment."

Judging from the succinct description of Jatropha in Wikipedia, however, it would be a pity if some way were not found to be able to take advantage of the plant's positive attributes while still keeping it from turning invasive:

Jatropha curcas, also called physic nut, is used to produce the non-edible Jatropha oil, for making candles and soap, and as a feedstock for the production of biodiesel. The cakes remaining after the oil is pressed can be used as feed in digesters and gasifiers to produce biogas for cooking and in engines, or the cakes can be used for fertilizing, and sometimes even as animal fodder, alternatively, the entire seed (with oil) can be used in digesters to produce biogas. Large plantings and nurseries of this tree have been undertaken in India by numerous research institutions, and by women's Self Help Groups, who use a system of microcredit to ease poverty among the nation's semi-literate population of women. Extracts from this species have also been shown to have anti-tumor activity. The seeds can be used as a remedy for constipation, wounds can be dressed with the sap, and the leaves can be boiled to obtain a malaria and fever remedy.

If none of this convinces any Grist readers on the need to take a more nuanced position with regard to biofuels and developing countries, and you are all convinced that biofuels should be banned -- all biofuels, everywhere (and I hope you would be consistent in applying that rule equally in Australia, North America and Europe as well) -- then I would be interested in your plan on how to bring that about. Truly.

We (the organization for which I work) are trying to shine a spotlight on subsidies for biofuels, in the hope that transparency will help bring about reform. But it is a long step from that to actually banning a legal product. (Would you also ban the production of ethyl alcohol from cane or grapes for use in beverages, or hospitals?)

P.S., In answer to Bart's comments on Biopact's web site, I guess I contrast it with the numerous other sites I see (and one of the industry newsletters I subscribe to), most of which are more single-minded and than the Biopact people. Note that on their site (at least today), they have a link (under "Oil Palm") to a study proving humans have pushed orangutans to the brink of extinction, coinciding with the establishment of oil palm plantations in Malaysia and Indonesia in the 1950s and 1960s.

These are only my personal opinions.

But in some parts of the world, the local soils have long ago lost their fertility and ability to sequester carbon.

That accurately describes chemically farmed cropland in the US.  

And that land, as well as land in under developed  nations, that has been destroyed can be revived with the organic fertilizer from biodigestion.  That is why, even though biodigestion yields less raw energy than combustion, it is still preferrable.  

And actually by using biogas in fuel cell/turbines to backup renewables, it yields more direct kwh, because of the 75% efficiency of the fuel cell/turbine, versus 30% for typical combustion based steam turbine power plants that burn biomass.  I know that a combined cycle can get 69%, but fuel cell/turbines are less complicated and less expensive.

They are so simple in fact, that landfills,sewage plants, food processors like breweries, and farms can invest in them with great financial reward.

Also the lower amount of cO2 emitted by the fuel cell/turbine using biogas can be sequestered more easily with algae in solar collectors , than the combustion productys of biomass.  Biogas used in a fuel cell is a lot cleaner and easier for the algae to deal with.

Harvesting those nuts classifies as serf labor,which is  even worse than slave labor. Serfs are expendable, slaves a valuable commodity.  

Just like the case with sugar cane.  The Fanta's and other GOP loving, sugar growing  corporatistas import serfs then keep them down on the farm with crack.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

You might find this February 2007 African Center for Biosafety report of interest:

OPENING PANDORA'S BOX: GMOS, FUELISH PARADIGMS AND SOUTH AFRICA's BIOFUELS STRATEGY
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=7565

Karen Orr
Florida

I believe they call it "fair trade" coffee for instance, when that is the case?

I'm not saying all crops  "in developing countries (are) controlled by large, evil corporations", only 95%.  Through monopolization of markets.

Take the case of cherry tomatoes.  Have you heard about that?  

And I also believe that harvesting commodity crops like sugar cane, to turn into fuel, done by hand is not a job fit for humans.  It is only fit for machines.  And even that would be assuming fuel farming is better than the alternative, plugin vehicles, which it is not.

Reducing fuel consumption to a small fraction of what it is now with plugins, both  full EVs and plugin hybrids, will make oil last long enough to get  much better batteries or capacitors that approach the storage density of liquid fuel and/or biofuel from algae grown in solar collectors, that also sequesters carbon.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

But in some parts of the world, the local soils have long ago lost their fertility and ability to sequester carbon. There are tens of millions of hectares of land in India like that, for example. Part of what some projects are trying to do is to both restore that fertility, and ability to sequester carbon, AND produce a valuable crop at the same time.

Fair enough. Before that, "Congofarmer" wrote:

Today, farmers there use hopelessly primitive techniques, simply because they don't have any income to invest in modern tools and technologies. The result: they slash and burn their way through. If a new market were to open up for them, they'd have the means to become more sustainable. They'd use fertilisers, increase yields, use up less land, rationalize water use, etc...

Here lies the problem: the Green Revolution package applauded by Congofarmer is precisely why in parts of India "local soils have long ago lost their fertility and ability to sequester carbon." So to the cure to the ravages of the Green Revolution is ... another dose of Green Revolution?

I know of no one who wants to "ban" biofuel production anywhere. I do wonder about the sustainability and justice of an arrangement wherein African soils, rather than being used to grow food for people to eat, are devoted to keeping European cars moving while maintaining Kyoto compliance.

Victual Reality

If none of this convinces any Grist readers on the need to take a more nuanced position with regard to biofuels and developing countries, and you are all convinced that biofuels should be banned...

• Whatever environmentalists think, biofuels are going to become very big both in the U.S. and the South (aka 3rd World). The economics are just too compelling as energy prices rise. The challenge is to avert the worst consequence and encourage the positives.
• To understand the complicated subjects of biofuels, agricultural economics and national development, we need sources of information we can depend on - sources that are fair, analytical and somewhat objective. Most of us are not experts and cannot verify the facts independently. Biopact is not such a source; hopefully better ones will emerge.
• The biofuels industry will lobby and propagandize for its own special interests just as the American Asbestos Manufacturers Association does. It's important to exert critical thinking on what they say.
• Biofuels in the South are different than corn ethanol in the U.S.A. Some biofuel crops, in some situations could make a lot of sense.
• Biofuels without controls can be destructive. A problem in the South is that governments are weak, vulnerable to pressure from corporations.  At worst, the biofuels industry could be a nightmare for the South, just as the oil industry is a nightmare for African countries with petroleum deposits.

I know that a combined cycle can get 69%, but fuel cell/turbines are less complicated and less expensive.

$60,000/kW.
iht.com/articles/2007/01/07/news/energy.php

The government in turn has used these tax revenues to help Japan seize the lead in renewable energies like solar power, and, more recently, home fuel cells. One way has been a subsidy of about $51,000 per home fuel cell. This allowed Kimura to buy his cell last year for about $9,000, far below production cost. His cell, which generates 1 kilowatt per hour, provides just under half of his household's electricity, and has cut his electricity bill by the same amount, he said.

The device converts natural gas into hydrogen, which the fuel cell then uses to generate electricity. Heat released by the process is used to warm water.

The first two fuel cells were installed in the prime minister's residence in April 2005. Since then, 1,300 have been sold, according to the Trade and Industry Ministry.

If none of this convinces any Grist readers on the need to take a more nuanced position with regard to biofuels and developing countries, and you are all convinced that biofuels should be banned -- all biofuels, everywhere

Ron, you have created a small straw man here, not intentionally I am sure. Nobody here says that biofuels should be banned. We insist that they not be environmentally destructive. Most of us also feel that they do not hold much if any hope for the poor of Africa. Africa's problems are much bigger than that. Look at what happened to the Sudan when oil was discovered there. Biofuels are oil. If America were to drop all tariffs and subsidies related to alcohol, we would probably stop using it. The main reason we use it is because our politicians are forcing it down our throats as an answer to energy security and to buy farm votes. Importing it would destroy the reason it exists. Dropping tariffs and subsidies would kill all demand for it.

But it is a long step from that to actually banning a legal product. (Would you also ban the production of ethyl alcohol from cane or grapes for use in beverages, or hospitals?)

Again, no one is saying ban biofuels. We are saying grow it sustainably of don't grow it at all. You have to grasp the magnitude of the disaster that is unfolding because of biofuels. Indonesia is a bigger CO2 contributor than the United States thanks to deforestation primarily for palm plantations. An American car would burn through about 360 times more alcohol annually than your average drunk.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

Some suspect there to be a 'lobby' behind our organisation-in-the-making, which is not the case. The Biopact is a volunteer effort, and soon our finances will be publicly available, as we are registering the group as a non-profit.

Please allow us to quickly sketch the context in which Biopact came into existence. It might take away some of the suspicion.

Biopact was created in late 2005 by a group of young academics in Belgium, who were doing work on the role of the extractive industries in Central Africa, most notably in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). As anthropologists they have had field work experience in the country.

Between 1998 and 2003, the DRC experienced the most underreported and most deadly conflict since the Second World War. The country fell prey to an obscene war over natural resources.

The young researchers however felt that against the background of such a tragedy, it is impossible to stick to mere academic analyses. Instead, a personal and moral engagement settled in. Meanwhile, the DRC opened a difficult stabilisation and reconstruction phase, which resulted in the first successful democratic elections the country has seen since 1960. Instead of analysing past resource conflicts, discussions now shifted to new opportunities that could potentially bring stability and economic growth. But the past works as a guideline.

At that time, early debates about biofuels and their global potential took place at the university from which the researchers stemmed. This university - the Catholic University of Leuven - has a longstanding relationship with its sister-universities in the DRC (Université Lovanium).

Soon the two subjects collided. Bioenergy was identified as a sector that could help alleviate poverty and revive the agricultural sector in the country, which had totally collapsed and brought farmers back to mere subsistence levels.

The DRC once was a large agricultural exporter, self-sufficient in food. Today, it is an agricultural importer, with people chronically and structurally undernourished. This is a real scandal.

It is against this background that talks begun with counterparts in the DRC to create some kind of a conceptual 'pact', whereby European and Central African actors would be informed about the pros and cons of investing in an export-oriented biofuels sector, which stands to bring in substantial amounts of income to both local farmers and the state, but which also entails risks that must be analysed carefully.

Meanwhile, the debate about biofuels from the developing world has become more mainstream. We regret the at times single-minded focus of some media on deforestation and food-versus-fuel. These issues are extremely important, but they should not prevent us from recognizing the equally important opportunity the biofuels sector holds for 'development' in the South.

Analyses by independent scientists (unless one would call the International Energy Agency or the International Institute for Environment and Development or the UN's Food and Agricultural Organisation "lobbies"), show that biofuels production in the South can precisely help tackle further environmental degradation, and that they can alleviate poverty and enhance food security on a large scale. Numerous articles on our website translate these scientific findings to a broader audience, we hope.

At times, we show our dissatisfaction with single-minded mainstream analyses and we rely on these more objective assessments instead, pushing them into a message that some do not like to hear because it deconstructs commonly held opinions.

Quite frankly, knowing what we know - that the average Congolese farmer survives on less than US$120 per year, the lowest income in the world, while he should be self-sufficient in food and could benefit from growing biofuels for export - we want to refrain from taking a principled 'ideological' position and we want to remain as pragmatic as possible. Any economic and development paradigm that can bring an extra dollar to Central-African farmers is worth looking into, no matter whether it comes from free trade afficionados or from socialists. We are against free trade if it diminishes the opportunity for the South to develop (see our numerous articles on subsidies, tariffs and Doha); we are in favor if it results in the contrary. But things of course are never that simple.

Those who have the time to scroll through our articles will see that we try to present many different perspectives. But we most definitely prefer nuance over a single-minded focus on the potential risks and benefits of biofuels in the South. The matter is highly complex, and only an ongoing debate and scientific analysis can set out anchor points for concrete action. We are glad to be a part of this debate, and we appreciate all points of view, provided they take into account the realities on the ground of people in the South.

Kind regards and thanks for participating in the discussion,

Biopact Team (a list of our 'members' will be available soon)

I have felt that in your rush to promote biofuels for Third World countries, you have presented a one-sided picture. I have not seen a wide variety of viewpoints on your site. The attacks on organic farming, the concept of food-miles and coaliton concerned about the negative effects of biofuels are examples of a sledge-hammer approach that I dislike. It may be prompted by your strong feelings about the tragedy in the Congo.

On the other hand, your recent posting seems more reasonable in tone, more "nuanced" as Ron says. If Biopact can become a dependable source of information about biofuels and the South, that would be in everyone's interest.

-Bart
Energy Bulletin

Bart
Energy Bulletin

This is by no means an easy question, nor does it have one answer. For example, if we calculate the carbon and energy costs of changing infrasructure and include costs of producing more insulation, construction in localized areas, deconstruction of old infrastructure, we might have a 'world' that runs efficiently but at a greater initial cost. And there would still be a need for an energy source, as it is pretty clear that we would still want to have a certain 'base' quality of life.

On the other hand, if we retrofit the existing infrastructure, etc., what would be the costs then?

And yet another question arises from Jevons' principle: increasing efficiency leads to greater use, thereby not changing the net benefit. I think some people have a feeling, somewhat unfounded but not without merit, that this is what 'carbon offsetters' do. The question in this case is: how might increasing efficiency influence use rates? This one would be nearlt guesswork in my opinion.

My position on this is that with this many people on the planet, and our knowledge of and strive for a 'base' quality of life and then some, we would still need an energy source greater than can be provided by fossil fuels alone, to sustain our civilization as we know it.

In that case, we will need all sources of renewable energy, not only to mediate global warming, but to have energy as oil runs out, which it is bound to, by definition.

I would like to find out more on what the claims are for the energy savings on 'conservation' alone versus developing newer sources of energy, which many NIMBYists and BANANAists (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything) are opposing. For a debate look no further than the Cape Wind discussion. So, if anyone has a link or a study, that reference would be greatly appreciated.

Transmission out.

It turns out, atreyger that we constantly tear down and replace our infrastructure in decade long intervals, so, it is a matter of having technology ready to replace old school stuff when it it is time to replace it, like fiber optics instead of copper wire.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

I really hope it falls out of the sky on my desk.

We regret the at times single-minded focus of some media on deforestation and food-versus-fuel.

It is a shame that you regret what you should be embracing, rational, reasonable critique that can make your ideas better. It will help you shape your single-minded focus on using biofuels as an answer to Africa's many complex problems.

At times, we show our dissatisfaction with single-minded mainstream analyses and we rely on these more objective assessments instead, pushing them into a message that some do not like to hear because it deconstructs commonly held opinions.

Again, you should not be dissatisfied because critique is the way of the scientific method, without it the odds that your single-minded push for biofuels may pave a road to hell are lessened. You do not like to hear that because is deconstructs the commonly held opinion that biofuels are the answer to both global warming and poverty reduction.

But we most definitely prefer nuance over a single-minded focus on the potential risks and benefits of biofuels in the South.

Focusing on the potential risks and benefits of biofuels is single-minded? You prefer nuance over focusing on the potential risks and benefits? I'm sorry but the information that sentence was meant to convey got lost in translation somewhere, whatever it was.

The term "single-minded" was a bit overdone here especially considering that it is not really applicable to those offering critique. You need critique, we all do.

As we debate this topic, the President of Uganda is turning over legal forest preserves to corporations that are going to convert them into palm oil and sugarcane plantations. Note that he is not turning them over to poor farmers. There is obviously tremendous potential for this to happen all across Africa. Your plan to prevent that from happening should be aired as soon as you come up with one. I'm all for ideas and experiments to help the poor of Africa, just keep in mind that your ideas have as much potential for disaster as they do good, so walk lightly, and above all listen to your critics.


In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

Actually, I join Bart in preferring nuance, in general (N.B.!), and I am willing to give the Biopact people the benefit of the doubt, and allow that they are in fact doing some poor Africans some good, to the best of their ability.  Nevertheless, I appreciate your concerns, BioD, who are a leading expert on biofuels from tropical countries, as well as ATreyger's.

The Biopact representative was very courteous and considerate, I think, to give us this explanation of who they are, what they are doing and why.  But I am amazed, BioD, and in admiration, at the brilliance of your reading, that you were able to pick out those instances of "single-minded," used in a slightly odd way.

The style of the Biopact message is reserved and formal.  The grammar and spelling are nearly flawless, but about the style, there is something unnatural.  Not to sound too much like Zoltan Karpathy, and not that I am calling anybody "a fraud," but I think this message was written by someone whose first language is not English, and who knows English very very well, and can write it, formally, better than most native English-speakers.

"Single-minded" means something like "unable to be distracted from one's resolve," and I think it generally has a positive connotation, part of the character of a hero or leader or saint.  Synonyms include "obsessed," and "fixated," and "on a mission," but they generally have a negative connotation.  What about "driven"? -- somewhere in between?  What should we call Captain Ahab: single-minded?; obsessed?; driven?  I would opt for "obsessed."

Our writer from Biopact oddly uses "single-minded" in a negative way, which, that writer should understand, is distracting.  That writer uses it rather as we would more naturally use "too narrowly focused."  Notice  however that the writer kind of understands that, and in two of these cases, writes "single-minded focus," which however is not good English.

Given the Belgian origins of Biopact, and assuming our writer is Belgian, the first language of this writer might be either French, or Flemish (more or less = Dutch).  If it is Flemish, like English a Germanic language, there might very well be a similar compound adjective; but, alas, I do not know anything about that language.

If it is French, I can comment that there seems to be no one-word equivalent in that language.  The Penguin French Dictionary gives as the French for "single-minded," "qui ne vise qu'un but," or, "who aims at only one target/objective."  Pretty subjective, I guess, if that has a positive or negative connotation.  It does not really convey the really positive connotation of "single-minded."

So, in this case, the writer knows English very well, and has been impressed by this adjective, and knows what it basically means, but ever so slightly misses just how it works.

Under this writer's influence, BioD, or rather as a sort of self-conscious parody, you wrote the cute expression, "your single-minded push for biofuels," which of course is as unnatural, I think, as the cases you drew from the Biopact message.  Probably we would write something like, "your obsessive push," or "your relentless push."

On to substance: You are right, BioD, to insist that international questioning and criticism are in order.  It is as irresponsible of Biopact to suggest that international critics are not "nuanced," but rather are "single-minded," as it is of Stewart Brand, to say that he and those who agree with him are "scientists," while those environmentalists who disagree with him are "Romantics."

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

Yep Canis, bio-d rules!

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

What I'm saying is that Buy Locally is an economic argument outside of being an environmental concern. As a progressive, its nice to buy locally because I reduce income disparity AND pollution in one fell swoop.

But not all environmentalists are economic progressives. In taking this path, are we possibly making more enemies that could be allies? Exxon will never approve of reducing carbon emissions. Walmart might - unless we insist on linking reducing emissions to a progressive economic policy to 'buy local'. In which case we've made an enemy of most of globalized capital/ marketing/ shipping - along with, as we can see in this article, developing nations attempting to improve their current accounts balance.

What if instead we worked to make all 18-wheelers and cargo ships carbon neutral? Give 'em solar panels or something, I'm sure theres a technical fix.

Then we'd just have Exxon to contend with...

Congofarmer, will Plantation farming really decrease the number of poor who cannot afford to help conservation efforts? I think you are confusing "sustainable" with "capital-intensive." They have nothing to do with one another.

Increased yields, fertilizers, these are capital-intensive plantation farming methods. They  require large plots of land, and flood the market with cheap goods, resulting in consolidation of small farms into one plantation, and turning the mass of small farmers into seasonal laborers who are increasingly unemployed as plantation profits are plowed back into more imports of labor saving devices.

I would certainly argue that 'primitive' farming techniques are less polluting than the move to GM farming. Monocrops are great for yield, but they require large plots of land, pesticides, fertilizers and machinery. And they increase output by reducing most workers' purchasing power (aka firing them). Perversely, more food is produced, but no one can afford it, so workers still have to expand into "conserved" areas to plant or hunt in order to survive.

For humanitarian and environmental purposes it is useful to have a developing nation be self-sustaining in agriculture, and slowly move excess labor, and profits from agricultural exports (heres where western purchase of biofuels comes in) into manufacturing or service in urban areas. A quick transformation from 'primitive' - or labor intensive methods - into capital intensive methods destroys developing economies and environments.