Biofuel from Corn Ethanol Is Not Renewable, Does Not Address Climate Change ?

Caption: Massive toxic corn monocultures devastate ecosystems and provide little additional energy (link)

Regulators at the California Air Resources Board (CARB) are poised later this week to declare that biofuel from corn ethanol cannot help the state address climate change. In assessing the true environmental cost of corn ethanol, it was found this biofuel is worse than petroleum when total greenhouse gas emissions are considered. This is because as with all monocultures, corn ethanol for biofuels lead to numerous other indirect land use changes. Increased industrial agriculture results in rising land pressures and the loss of soil and forest carbon sinks elsewhere.

Such a declaration disallowing corn ethanol biofuel from counting as emissions reductions would be a considerable blow to the corn-ethanol industry in the United States and would likely set a national precedent. The regulation is part of California’s low-carbon fuel standard to reduce greenhouse emissions from transportation fuels by an average of 10 percent by 2020. Substantial research has shown converting corn to ethanol leads to more clearing of rainforests and other carbon rich natural habitats, meaning producing corn ethanol as a transportation fuel does little to slow global warming. This would be the first piece of regulation to account for such these "indirect land-use effects" of corn-based ethanol.

So called "next generation" advanced cellulosic ethanol fuels from non-food plants and plant parts, including forest biomass, will not resolve these problems. All industrially produced biofuel crops from biomass, edible or not, still require land, soil, water, fertilizer and other finite inputs. Biofuels based upon further expansion of unsustainable, industrial agriculture policies will intensify deforestation, toxic pollution and dependence upon fossil fuel based fertilizers worldwide. It is clear that industrial biofuels are not "renewable energy" given that soils, water, land and fertilizers are all in limited supply.

Ecological Internet and Rainforest Rescue are concerned with America's growing ethanol industry, and the precedent it sets for massive agricultural industrialization of the world's remaining rainforests and other natural wildlands. Please call upon the CARB to heed the overwhelming evidence that agrofuels worsen climate change through further deforestation and the destruction of other soils and ecosystems, drive food prices up, force more people worldwide into hunger and malnutrition, and decimate biodiversity and ecosystems.

• Email a Friend | Discuss Alert

Global warming will lead to infrequent rainfall in India ???

The rise in global warming will lead to major changes in rainfall patterns. In essence rainfall will decrease and become more erratic, said R K Pachauri, chairman of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

According to the noble laureate, global warming is happening at a very steep rate and its implication for South Asian continent means serious water problems for farmers.

"A large number of farmers in the continent are dependent on rainfall," he said, while speaking at a memorial lecture organised by Babu Jagjivan Ram Foundation on Climate Change here.

"India will experience heavy rains in a very short time similar to 2005 Mumbai floods,which left a million people homeless," Mr.Pachauri said, warning that the frequency of such flash floods will increase with time.

He cautioned that India will have to face water crisis as shrinking glaciers will lead to reduction in the flow of rivers, which would ultimately result in lower ground water levels.

Sunita Narain: Where is the green party?

Every major political party has a green agenda, but a green party and a green revolution aren’t the same thing.

There are always two questions that are asked as elections approach. When will India get a green party? And are environmental issues important in our elections? The answer to both questions is interlinked and relates to the nature of the Indian electoral system as well as the nature of India’s environmental concerns.

The fact is that our parliamentary democracy borrows its structure from the Westminster system of first-past-the-post, which makes it difficult for any pan-India issue-based party to succeed. It is no surprise then that the green party exists in Germany and even comes to power within a coalition but that doesn’t happen in the UK. This is when, during elections for the European Parliament some years ago, the UK green party got a substantial percentage of votes, even higher than the German greens.

But there is another issue that concerns the green parties of Europe and beyond. The fact also is that all mainstream parties have incorporated the green agenda as theirs. All parties, for instance, accept the need to protect the environment, to mitigate emissions necessary for climate change and even agree to invest in low-carbon technologies like renewables and hybrid vehicles. The question is whether these governments can bite the bullet to make the structural changes required in their economies to meet the imperatives of climate change. This is the green Waterloo.

It is, therefore, not surprising that the conservative government of Germany’s Angela Merkel took on the green party agenda so totally that it almost marginalised the green party. But now, as the government has to take some tough decisions about acting on climate change on the one hand, and moving fast on the economy and job-losses, on the other, its true colours are showing. The Merkel government is backtracking — from seeking to get emission allowances for big industry to giving the automobile industry benefits in terms of subsidies to car-owners to buy new vehicles, or even desperately lobbying for time for this industry to tighten fuel efficiency standards.

It is the same in the case of Australia. The major political party came to power saying that it was against the environmental-hostile policies of its opponent, the John Howard government. But now that the new party is in power, its actions on environment and climate change are even more pathetic and miserable than those of its predecessor. It is tough to walk the talk when it comes to reinventing the economy for real change. It will be no surprise (even if it is disappointing) if Barack Obama finds that he also has little room to be the change he has so persuasively promised us all.

In India, the issue is similar, yet different. The fact is that green issues, including climate change, have made it to all major party manifestos. The Congress, the BJP and the CPI(M) all promise to protect the environment, check river pollution and invest in renewable energy systems for a low-carbon economy.

The question is whether these ‘pure’ green issues are the core environmental issues that need to be addressed, and whether these can be addressed without changing or addressing the key issues of growth and economic change? This has to do with the nature of India’s environmental concern. The fact is that in our country, the bulk of the people live on the environment — the land, the water, the forests are the basis for their survival. The core environmental issue is to improve the productivity of these natural resources in a sustainable manner. And to ensure that these benefits reach the local people and help in building a local economy and livelihood. It is about investing in the resources of the poor. It is about the governance — the political framework — in which this investment will benefit people and build green futures.

We need to care about the pollution of our rivers — because people depend on them for drinking and survival. We need to revise our strategy for ‘development’ because these projects take away land or forests which are critical for livelihood security. We need to invest in decentralised water or energy systems so that we can minimise the damage to the local environment and provide everyone access to resources, not to just a few.

But this is where political party manifestos get frayed on the green-edge. It is easy to talk about green issues — particularly those that the middle-classes of India can understand as ‘green’. But it is difficult to join the dots — to how the country will green its economy itself, so that it can provide growth for all, without compromising on the present and the future generations. This is why it is easy, perhaps, to have a ‘green party’ but not a ‘green revolution’.

Cardboard-box 'oven' wins climate change prize

An $8 cardboard box that uses solar power to cook food and sterilise water could help save the lives of three billion of the world's poor.

It is to be trialled in 10 countries including Indonesia, India and South Africa.

Called the Kyoto Box, it is named after the United Nations' Kyoto protocol that seeks to cut emissions of greenhouse gases.

It has won the Climate Change Challenge's $100,000 prize for ideas to fight global warming.

"We're saving lives and saving trees," said the Kyoto Box's developer, Jon Boehmer, a Norwegian based in Kenya, in east Africa.

The FT Climate Change Challenge was backed by the British newspaper, the Financial Times, the technology group Hewlett-Packard, which sponsored the award, and development group Forum for the Future.

The other four finalists were:

a garlic-based feed additive to cut methane emissions from livestock;

an indoor cooling system using hollow tiles;

a cover for truck wheels to reduce fuel use; and

a "giant industrial microwave" for creating charcoal.

Global Civil Society Opposes Charred Earth Policy

147 organizations from 44 countries warn against 'biochar' (large-scale charcoal) as a dangerous new false solution to climate change

TAKE ACTION: Tell Leading Climate Scientists, Industrialists and Negotiators to Stop Promoting Industrial Scale Biochar

(Earth) -- An international declaration was today launched by 147 organisations, including Ecological Internet, opposing the growing hype and political support for Biochar. The groups signing the declaration "strongly oppose the inclusion of soils in carbon trade and offset mechanisms, including in the Clean Development Mechanism.” The groups further assert that "the 'biochar' initiative fails to address the root causes of climate change.” [1]

Those issuing this warning range from small farmers associations and forest protection groups to international environmental networks and human rights advocates. Further organizations are being invited to sign the declaration. Ecological Internet has independently organized a protest alert questioning whether enough "waste biomass" and "degraded and marginal" lands exist to carry out geoengineering of the Earth's land and climate at the scale proposed, and without intensifying industrial tree plantations and all their attendant problems. [2]

This International declaration "Biochar, a New Big Threat to People, Land and Ecosystems" has been launched as UN and government delegates are meeting in Bonn this week to discuss a post-2012 climate change agreement. One of the proposals [3] which they will be discussing is to allow carbon credits for using charcoal as a soil additive in the hope that this will create a permanent 'carbon sink' and help to reduce global warming, and reclaim degraded soil. They will also discuss whether to generally include agricultural soils into carbon trading.

Civil society groups have called for caution on Biochar in view of serious scientific uncertainty. Many share concerns that this technology would lead to vast areas of land being converted to new plantations, thus repeating the unfolding disasters which agrofuels cause. They point out that large scale financial incentives for biochar or other soil sequestration could result in large scale land conversion and displacement of people.

Helena Paul from EcoNexus states: "Including biochar and agricultural soil in carbon markets would turn soils into a commodity that could be sold to offset pollution elsewhere. It would endanger smallholder farmers and indigenous peoples who cannot compete with governments and large companies and who are at risk of being displaced if the ground is literally sold out from under their feet."

Stella Semino from Grupo de Reflexion Rural, Argentina adds: "The idea that charcoal will rescue a burning planet is absurd. Some biochar proponents call for quantities of charcoal which would require over 500 million hectares of industrial tree and crop plantations. We know already that industrial agriculture and tree plantations are a major contributor to climate change and displace people and biodiversity. We need to protect ecosystems, not grow vast new monocultures and burn them! This is a farce.”

Almuth Ernsting from Biofuelwatch states: "Large-scale support for biochar is premature and dangerous. Claims that biochar is retained permanently in soils and increases fertility are based on Terra Preta soils in Amazonia, which were made by indigenous peoples hundreds or even thousands of years ago. Those farmers used biodiverse organic residues and compost, as well as charcoal. Modern biochar is not the same. Some companies are making biochar out of municipal waste and tyres, others promote using biochar to scrub flue gases from coal burners and then using this combination as a fertilizer. Some plan to use giant microwave ovens to char trees – justifying this by pointing to ancient Amazonian soils is absurd." [4]

CONTACTS:

Rachel Smolker (U.S.): rsmolker@riseup.net
- Tel +1 – 802-482-2848 or +1-802-735-7794
Almuth Ernsting (UK): info@biofuelwatch.org.uk
- Tel 0044-1224-324797
Helena Paul (UK): h.paul@econexus.ino
- Tel +44–(0)207–431-4357
Stella Semino (Denmark): stella.semino@mail.dk
- Tel +45–(0)463-25328