What About Biofuels?

Thanks! It’s great to be here. Let me start with a disclaimer: I am not an energy expert; I am a conservation biologist. I’ve witnessed a great deal of change and deforestation in the Southern Amazon, where I’ve resided over the last two decades. Our concern at CI is that the processes that have led to deforestation will be exacerbated by the new and growing demand for biofuels. We all recognize that biofuels have the potential to be part of the solution to climate change. They also offer opportunities for economic growth and poverty deduction which are very important to developing countries. At the same time, they are a two-edged sword. If not properly regulated, or subsidized, they can end up leading to a new round of tropical deforestation.

A lot of people have expressed curiosity about ethanol, while others talk about diesel. These are both biofuels, but they come from different plans and they’re destined for different markets. Ethanol is largely being produced from sugar cane in corn and will largely replace gasoline. Bio-diesel comes from vegetable oil crops, like soil, African oil palm, and jatropha. And as the name applies, these will largely go to replace diesel, but also perhaps aviation fuel and kerosene.

Jatropha seems to be popular as a bio-crop in India, and it seems to be very resistant to drought – a very hardy plant. It does well in poor soils. As such, it would seem to be a good alternative for areas that have already been deforested and that have high population densities, particularly around the edge of what we call the tropical forest regions. I don’t see it as a particular threat to a hotspot; on the other hand, I would see this as an example of the type of plant that could be managed by small farmers and communities and produce economic benefit for them.

The problem might eventually come when available land that has already been deforested becomes scarce and producers start looking at native vegetation to expand their crops.

Yes, in two different dimensions. Most of them are relatively clean with respect to sulfur and other heavy metals, volatile compounds that characterize fossil fuels, like coal or diesel. Disel has lots of sulfur. Bio-diesel can be produced in a pure state, and we avoid the emissions that lead to smog and the other particulate matter that leads to smog, which is a problem in many urban areas. More importantly, biofuels are produced from carbon that is already in the atmosphere. When they’re burned, there is no net change or no new emissions into the atmosphere as occurs when we consume fossil fuels.

However, there is a third environmental dimension concern with biofuels. That has to do with pesticides and fertilizers. The intensive production of biofuels, particularly by large, mechanized farmers, employ chemical inputs and these consume energy, frequently fossil fuel energy, and then cause environmental problems, such as water pollution. Which I guess is another way of saying there’s no such thing as a free lunch. It’s like any large farming operation.

Yes of course they are adequate, and there’s a lot of them out there. In the Amazon alone, we estimate there is currently about 60 million hectares of land that has been deforested over the last three decades. Most of this land is dedicated to cow pasture, or as even just abandoned scrub land that’s used for nothing. Most, certainly not all, of this terrain could be put to productive use growing biofuels, which would have a number of beneficial aspects for landowners and society.

I guess the best way to convince someone that they should do this is to demonstrate that they can make more money growing biofuels than growing cows, or whatever else it is they are growing now. This will have to be done by a market mechanism, but no doubt governments will end up subsidizing or manipulating markets through regulations or taxes.

Wow! That’s a lot of good questions. Let’s start with cellulosic ethanol. What is it? Ethanol today is produced from grains or sugar cane, and I suppose sometimes sugar beets. This means, biochemically, it’s produced from storage carbohydrates or sugars, which are seldom represent more than 35% of plant biomass, if that much. (I’m guessing.) However, cellulose is the basic constituent of plants, be it fiber or structure, so if we can produce alcohol from cellulose, our potential for producing ethanol is much greater. The problem is that cellulose is a tough molecule and the transformation processes, biological or chemical, are expensive and not yet profitable.

Researchers are busy looking at cellulosic alcohol and eventually it will become the major way we produce alcohol. Some people refer to this as second-generation alcohol. Figures such as that 3% refer to our ability to produce alcohol from corn, and yes that’s true. Our ability to meet demand by transforming corn into ethanol is very limited. Not only because corn is food, but also because the process to turn corn into ethanol is inefficient.

Oil palm has a lot of potential. It’s native to Africa, but the largest plantations are in Indonesia and Malaysia. It’s also grown in Brazil, Colombia, and Ecuador. It is perennial. It’s adapted to high rainfall regions and poor soils. It produces approximately eight times more oil per hectare than soy beans does. It’s cost per production is also much lower. Unfortunately, it has been a major source of deforestation in Indonesia and Malaysia, where it’s grown as a food crop largely for export to East Asian markets as a vegetable cooking oil. Now, it is becoming the focus of research and investment as bio-diesel. In places like Tanzania, and the high rainfall regions of Tanzania, it might be appropriate. But I wonder if it’s a good crop for the savannah regions of Tanzania. I suspect not.

In South America, we are very much concerned about African oil palm because it has adapted environmentally to the rain forest region. In fact, most of the Amazon rain forest is prime real estate for oil palm plantations, and that worries us a lot. There are already 10,000 hectares of oil palm plantations in Amazonian Ecuador. And a similar amount, if not more, in the Choco hotspots of Colombia. In Brazil, the government and private industry view oil palm as the potential bio-diesel crop of the future.

Sugar cane is environmentally adapted to areas that were previously covered by dry forests and savannahs. That’s why when we think of sugar cane in the United States, we think of Florida and Hawaii. In Peru, according to Constantino, they grow it on the arid landscapes of the Pacific Coast. One would assume this is with irrigation. But in the northern part of Peru, which is part of the Choco biodiversity hotspot, dry forest might be in threat from expanded production of sugar cane. This is a concern in Brazil and Bolivia where sugar cane is an important crop in the Cerrado region, and in the seasonal forest of Sao Paulo. Most of the production of sugar cane in Brazil and Bolivia is expanding into pasture lands, and so is not an immediate threat to biodiversity. These lands were cleared decades ago. However, there could very well be an unintended secondary impact: the cattle industry is growing, not shrinking. If they’re displaced from areas appropriate form sugar cane, it’s highly likely that business model will migrate into the Amazon and cause more deforestation.

Hi, Rosimeiry! In fact, Mato Grosso is at a distinct disadvantage regarding all of its agricultural production because of high transportation costs, which are much more expensive than a place like Iowa. Nonetheless, mechanize is booming in Mato Grosso because land is cheap. Labor is cheap. And because the Brazilians have good technology. There are two things here we should talk bout: Brazil is investing heavily tot improve its transportation infrastructure, including highways that will transect the Amazon. Thus, opening up more areas to deforestation. The other issue is which biofuel? The northern part of Mato Grosso might be good for African oil palm, from the point of a producer. Whereas the southern part might be good for sugar cane. Either way, either production model will displace cattle ranching, which would probably migrate into the Amazon, taking advantage of the new highways that you refer to.

Hi Dan

I hate cutting the grass. I was reading the other day in a local newspaper that lawn mowers spew out 10X the amount of GHG emissions because of the low level of technology they use. I am a botanist and I think we shoulsd all grow wildflowers

I don’t know much about algae, other than they’re plants. But I saw your question, so I did a little homework. Apparently, this is one of those second generation biofuels I was talking about earlier. The technology doesn’t exist yet, but the biological potential is very interesting. There are some species of algae that are prolific producers of oil, so this is the potential bio-diesel crop. Also, apparently, they’re productive on a per hectare basis and some researchers actually propose that we grow them in sewage treatment ponds and use the CO2 effluent from coal fire plants to increase their productivity. So it’s an example of technological synergy. We can produce a biofuel using waste from urban areas – sewage. And CO2 which we’re harvesting from fossil fuels or from the air. And so, I don’t know how economically feasible this is, but certainly from a technological standpoint this is very interesting.

Yes, Christine. This is the cellulosic alcohol I was talking about earlier. This is good because it’s more efficient and it’s a non-food crop. There might be a downside to cellulosic alcohols. Many people propose that we use our marginal lands for producing biofuels, and preserve our primary or our first class lands to produce food crops. This certainly sounds logical and good and socially responsible, however, many of these marginal lands are currently covered by forests or natural grassland or they’re hilly or there’s something wrong with them so that we can’t use them for crops, so we’ve created a protected area there! Which brings us back to the main topic today, which is how are biofuels a threat to biodiversity. Again, it’s a question of how you do it and where you do it.

This is a really good question. This is all about poverty. And we need to think about poor people when we think about biodiversity conservation. This is an opportunity that we should take advantage of. To help people who are living on degraded landscapes to improve their lives, to add value to their production so that they can stop the downward circle of poverty and environmental degradation of shifting cultivation.

How do we make this happen? I wish I knew! But, I am fairly confident that it won’t happen through development projects or government intervention. It’ll happen when these people are incorporated into their national economies and given the opportunity to invest in their land and to sell their production in fair market places where they receive just compensation for their production and don’t have to compete with unfair subsidies and closed markets.

Hi Marianna,

In any agro-industrial process, there are environmental impacts. But there are more than 6 billion people on Earth, and somehow we have to feed, clothe, and provide them with energy. So yes, there will be impacts. We need to manage those impacts, and biofuels, especially industrial production of biofuels, will have impacts exactly like you mention. Our concern at CI is that we learn to manage these problems and concentrate our efforts and production in areas that are not biodiversity hotspots or that are not natural habitats in biodiversity hotspots and wilderness areas. We think biofuels are great. We are just concerned that they may lead to deforestation, habitat degradation, water pollution, and the like.

Hi Rita,

This is exactly what we’re concerned about. Biofuels are great in degraded landscapes, but if management is poor and governance is weak, biodiversity suffers and often times, local communities suffer too. The problem with successful business models, like sugar cane and African oil palm, is that entrepreneurs look to maximize their profits and in places like Brazil, Indonesia, Bolivia and Ecuador, one of the biggest cost factors is the cost of land. The cheapest land is usually the land farthest from the road, and so some of these entrepreneurs go and acquire this cheap land. If it’s far from a road, it’s probably forest. Thus, in an effort to maximize their profits, they end up deforesting landscapes.

Indonesia is a special case in that it is long been subject to deforestation as a direct consequence of oil palm. In fact, throughout the ‘90s we heard tales of unscrupulous businessmen who would obtain a concession of land so as to establish an oil palm plantation. But what they really did was go to the area, cut down all the trees, sell the wood, and walk away. This was a tragedy. However, now we have the opportunity to go back to these degraded landscapes and recuperate them for biofuel production. We should also learn from the past and work to improve governance so that this type of fraud and corruption does not distort the development of biofuels.

Eleanor,

This is another good question, and it’s a central point in the debate about biofuels. Will the cultivation of biofuels impact food supplies? How can it not? I was recently at a conference sponsored by the United Nations in Habana, Cuba, and a Cuban economist predicted that biofuels will change the nature of international commerce. The United States and Europe wills tart growing their own biofuels, he predicted, which will mean they will start having to import food. Which is one of the basic demands of many developing countries, such as Brazil for example. I don’t know if this is true. In fact, I think it’s just as likely that the reverse will occur. We’ll continue to subsidize our farmers for food and import our biofuels.

In any event, there is only so much arable land. I suspect that eventually the market will dictate that the best lands are used for food and the marginal lands will be used for biofuels, especially as the second generation of biofuels is developed and we have efficient means to produce fuel from plant fibers. However, in the meantime, international agencies are developing a set of guidelines to ensure that biofuel development does not negatively impact impoverished people in developing countries and simultaneously protect our wilderness areas. However, we all know that in the short-term, the market will allow unscrupulous people, or even just short-sided people, to make investments that benefit them personally but which do not benefit society as a whole.

The problem with hunger is not a lack of food, it’s an abundance of poverty and the unequal distribution of the food we produce. Biofuels could alleviate poverty, or they can exacerbate poverty, depending on how governments, corporations, and consumers choose to develop and use them. India’s efforts to promote the cultivation of jatropha trees as part of their biofuel policy is an example of poverty alleviation and rural development. While Indonesia’s unbridled deforestation in the ‘90s to produce African oil palm probably did little to alleviate poverty. I can certainly envision small farmers across the world growing African oil palms, jatropha trees, and other crops as part of a diversified production system, but I can also easily envision monocultural plantations that displace people, impact biodiversity, and degrade our water resources.

We at CI are trying our best to make sure that biofuel development is done in a socially environmentally responsible manner. I’m just one guy here. But we have several competent economists, energy specialists, climate change specialists, and other clever people who are studying this both in its upstream and downstream dimensions. And there are many other environmental organizations and social groups who are likewise concerned. Fortunately we live in a democracy, and it would appear that our democratic institutions are beginning to listen to us. Or at least let’s hope so.

It depends on what you consider to be carrying capacity. There are some individuals who would just as soon see massive plantations and development across the world. Unfortunately, I think the world could probably withstand that type of development, and I think human societies would probably eventually adapt to it. But I don’t want to live on a planet that looks like that, and I don’t think most people do either.

Our goal at CI is to make sure that the term carrying capacity includes organisms besides man, and that the biological heritage of the Earth is preserved in its totality for future generations.

Yes, this is precisely our concern. The differences is how you define marginal. Degraded lands are marginal from an agronomic, but then so is a forest on poor soils or steep slopes. However a forest on poor soils or steep slopes may be prime biodiversity habitat and that is a distinction we must drive home to investors and regulators involved in the emeeging biofuerls sector

I am amazed and pleased that so many people took the time today to send us their questions and to express their concern about the environment and this particular issue. It is certainly timely and important. Personally I think biofuels are good; they are an important part of the solution that we need to adopt over the short term. Over the long term is a little harder to predict. Technology, markets, and democratic decisions will eventually sort all of these uncertainties out. In the meantime, I think we can all look at our own lives and make some small changes to conserve energy, consume smarter, and vote right.

I’d love to join you again! We can talk about biofuels or we can talk about some other issue, such as the Amazon or the Andes or ecotourism. You name. I have lots of interest and I’m willing to do research on a topic if you think it’s worth discussing.