Global warming may lead to mass extinction of Brazil species - Brazilian biofuels to the rescue?

What can now be called 'the Brazilian dilemma' is becoming ever sharper. New studies show that global warming may make a far larger number of Brazil's enormously diverse plant and animal species go extinct, than previously thought. At the same time, Brazil is the leader in the production of climate-neutral biofuels the use of which does precisely what is needed: to reduce the carbon dioxide emissions responsible for global warming. However, large-scale biofuel production itself affects the biodiversity of ecosystems, because it is mostly based on monocultures.

The difficult question then becomes: would the potential biodiversity loss arising from a massive expansion of Brazil's biofuels sector be offset by the solution these fuels bring to reducing global warming, which threatens to cause a mass extinction of species? Or in other words, what would be the effects on the largest and most biodiverse ecosystem on the planet, if the world were not to use Brazilian biofuels on a large scale? There is no easy answer to that dilemma.

But some recent findings from Brazil's long experience with biofuels might help:

• Scientists have found that ethanol production as it is currently undertaken in Brazil is largely environmentally "sustainable" (earlier post and Nature's take on the matter).
• Sugarcane based ethanol made in Brazil has an excellent energy balance, compared to biofuels made from crops grown in temperate climates. The energy yield per hectare is many times that of corn or canola or even the grass and tree species many are hoping will feed the 'second generation' of cellulose-based biofuels (such as switchgrass or hybrid poplar) (earlier post). The same logic holds for other tropical crops such as sweet sorghum, sweet potatos or cassava.
• Research indicates that (solid and liquid) biofuels produced in the Global South can be transported over large distances to industrial markets (North America, Europe, North-East Asia) efficiently, that is, without needing too much energy and without contributing too much carbon emissions (earlier post).
• A rapid and large expansion of the sector in Brazil may indeed threaten the biodiversity of ecosystems, even though the country's Ministry for the Environment claims this will not be the case. EMBRAPA, the Environmental Agency of Brazil, has more than once said that future biofuel plantations will only rely on 'excess' pasture-land and that the expansion scheme will not result in added deforestation (earlier post, and here).
• Finally, the past trend of technological and scientific breakthroughs that led to considerable efficiency increases in feedstock and fuel production, is set to continue. Analists have shown Brazil's biofuels industry reduced costs and increased efficiency by up to 75% in under 3 decades (earlier post). Following the trend and given advances cellulosic ethanol research, which can be obviously be applied to Brazil's energy efficient crops (earlier post), by 2025, a hectare of sugarcane may yield twice as much useable fuels than today, increasing the energy balance even further (earlier post).

Given these facts, it may be tempting to replicate Brazil's biofuels experience in other countries in the tropics and the subtropics. There, green fuels for transport and for power generation can be produced on a large scale, supply world markets, replace fossil fuels and reduce greenhouse gases substantially. Scientists are analysing the pros and cons of such a proposal (earlier post). But Brazil's biodiversity dilemma will hold in these countries too.

Sustainability criteria
The key element in the dilemma is the sustainability of the biofuels in question. Most stakeholders agree (earlier post) that it is crucial for governments to set clear criteria that correct the purely commercial rationale behind many current investments in and targets for biofuels. Some green fuels - such as solid biomass for the production of power - have already become cheaper than fossil fuels (earlier post), and with 'Peak Oil & Gas' becoming a reality, the trend is set to continue.

But obviously, if the production of biofuels results in more greenhouse gas emissions than their use offsets, they do not deserve a 'green' label and they become highly problematic. This would be the case if, for example, deforestation or the destruction of peatlands and wetlands is stimulated by the push to establish monoculture energy plantations:
biomass :: bioenergy :: energy :: sustainability :: climate change :: global warming :: fossil fuels :: biofuels :: ethanol :: biodiesel :: biodiversity :: Amazon :: Brazil ::

Careful sustainability criteria can be established to prevent this. Such rules would look at the total lifecycle of the biofuels - from farm to fuel - and analyse the greenhouse gas balance, the energy balance, the impact of their production on the environment and its biodiversity, and their social impacts.

Some individual governments (like the government of the Netherlands) are trying to establish such rules, even though they would only make a dent if they are applied on a regional (EU-wide) or a global scale. Different 'cultures of sustainability' exist, even though the basic principles of the concept have been agreed upon. Still, some countries that are large potential biofuel producers and exporters are making a hard case and are warning that such criteria should not act as a non-tariff trade barrier (earlier post and here).

Another possible option in the quest for sustainability consists of offering financial incentives to developing countries to halt further deforestation and biodiversity losses which result from agricultural expansion. A concept such as 'compensated reduction' (also known as 'avoided deforestation'), which couples the value of forests to the amount of carbon they store, is currently being studied both by governments, NGOs and international institutions such as the World Bank (earlier post). The problem with this idea, however, is that the real opportunity costs of forests are the biofuels they could potentially produce (earlier post).
Biofuels may represent a far greater economic value than the carbon value of forests. After all, both carbon and fossil fuel prices are driven by the free market, even though governments set the caps for carbon. The difference is that fossil fuels may become much scarcer far faster than affordable carbon emission credits, opening a gap favoring investments in biofuels. Moreover, the effects of a physical scarcity of fossil fuels - most notably petroleum - will have immediate and far reaching socio-economic impacts that have to be mitigated instantly or that can be heged by investments in biofuels. The threat of global warming is perceived to be much more abstract, less immediately threatening to particular interests and too distant.

Finally, thorough socio-economic analyses are urgently needed to study the changes brought by a massive switch to biofuels such as the ones produced in Brazil. Bioenergy production offers an opportunity to revive or reboot the agricultural sector, which, in the South, employs more people than any other sector. Depreciating world prices for agricultural commodities and unfair trade regimes have plagued millions of these farmers in the past, pushing them to the brink of poverty. From this poverty result further pressures on the environment, because poor farmers do not have the means to utilize the most basic of modern agricultural inputs. Instead of relying on intensive forms agriculture, they use techniques that result in extremely low productivities. The consequence: ever more land is needed to grow crops for basic needs.

Studies are needed to show how incomes generated from modern, well-invested export-oriented biofuel production - both on the level of the state as well as on the level of individual farming communities - can change this situation. After developing countries have first met their very modest demand for fuels themselves (most can easily replace all their fossil fuel imports with locally produced biofuels), they have a huge capacity left to supply world markets with competitive bioenergy (earlier post). This economic opportunity is set to transform the South and its millions of poor farmers.

The Brazilian dilemma
Let us now look at the studies on the threat global warming brings to Brazil's unique biodiversity, as they are reported by Scientific American. According to studies released on Tuesday, a vast number of animal and plant species in Brazil could die out as rising world temperatures cause more droughts, disease and rainstorms in areas like the Pantanal wetlands and Amazon rainforest.

"All our efforts to protect our biodiversity could be lost," Environment Minister Marina Silva said at an event to publicize the new research coordinated by the ministry and carried out by university, private and government scientists.

Brazil is believed to be home to roughly a fifth of all plant and animal species and the government has invested $142 million (300 million reais) since 2003 to preserve vast swathes of land in areas like the Amazon, Environmental Secretary Joao Capobianco said.

But rising global temperatures could undermine conservation efforts. The broadest study, conducted by Brazilian space agency INPE, found that temperatures in the Amazon -- the world's largest remaining tropical rainforest -- could rise as much 8 degrees Celsius (14 F) this century.

Other studies predicted fish species could die out if rising ocean levels flood southern islands and estuaries with salt water. Further inland, the Pantanal wetlands could dry up and turn to savannah as hotter temperatures affect rains.

Prime agricultural areas in southern and southeastern Brazil are already suffering more intense downpours after temperatures rose almost 1 degree Celsius (2 F) in the last century, the INPE study said.

Extreme weather events could increase in general, INPE said, citing the example of Hurricane Catarina. Catarina became the first hurricane to form off Brazil's coast in at least half a century -- more than a year before Katrina flooded the U.S. city of New Orleans.

Brazil's human population could also suffer if warmer weather accelerates mosquito breeding cycles, increasing the chances of disease outbreaks like malaria and dengue.

And while the south could be pounded by heavier rains, drier weather is likely to hit sensitive northern areas like the humid Amazon and the already drought-stricken northeast.

This month, IPCC climatologists released their latest report predicting average world temperatures could rise several degrees this century as heat-trapping carbon gases from burning fossil fuels clog the atmosphere (earlier post).

Brazil emits less carbon gas than most countries its size partly because of its rainforest cover and partly because nearly half its passenger car fleet runs on sugar-cane ethanol. President Bush will visit Brazil next week to discuss ethanol cooperation among other matters.

Bush is encouraging ethanol use to reduce U.S. dependency on oil and to lower its carbon emissions. The United States is the world's single largest producer of atmospheric carbon gas, and Bush was widely criticized for refusing to sign the global Kyoto protocol to cut emissions in 2001. "I haven't spoken to President Lula, but all of humanity needs President Bush to show more commitment to reducing greenhouse gases," Silva said.

Priorities and realism
Biofuels are not the silver bullet to fighting the human-induced warming of the planet, which may result in the tragic scenario of mass species extinctions. A whole range of efforts has to be combined, from reducing energy consumption in the wealthy West, to helping poor rural communities in the developing world to make the switch to renewables.

Consumers with the highest 'carbon-footprint' are beginning to feel responsible for the effects of their life-styles, as a recent report on the baby-boomer generation showed (earlier post). They are gradually becoming aware of the importance of energy conservation and want governments to act more thoroughly. But this transition process is occuring extremely slowly because of political inaction and a certain degree of hypocrisy (babyboomers, for example, are not willing to give up flying across the globe in GHG-emitting airplanes that bring them to sunny vacation spots).

Moreover, the issues at hand are quite complex and informing consumers on how to change their behavior in the right way, is not easy. Concepts, products and schemes such as 'food miles', 'organic food' or 'carbon offsets', which are used by many individuals in the West as a means to reduce one's personal carbon footprint, must be analysed far more thoroughly before being applied. Research clearly indicates that, sometimes, reliance on such concepts results in the opposite of what they're trying to achieve, that is, they may lead to higher carbon emissions, energy use and to more environmental damage (earlier post and here). Nuance and caution is needed, not trends and fashions.

Finally, rapidly growing economies, such as the ones of India and China are trapped by a modernistic concept of economic growth and the individualist, unsustainable consumer culture that goes with it. Millions of Chinese and Indian people are saving up to buy the ultimate symbol of bourgeois notions of sociality and 'freedom': the family car. Their desire to join the global army of mass consumers is unstoppable. And even though the governments of these countries are gradually recognising the threats their countries face by global warming (China's wake-up call) and by increased energy use, they are nonetheless massively investing in new fossil fuel infrastructures. They are not alone, even the U.S. is doing the same (earlier post).

Given all the above, a dose of realism is warranted. The time it takes to raise a global green conscience, especially in these 'transition economies' the people of which are understandably blinded by the new consumer culture that is opening up in front of them, may be too long. Energy consumption is going to increase massively over the coming decades (the IEA projects a 50% increase by 2030), as are greenhouse gas emissions, and in such a context, biofuels may offer one of the best compromises to intervene. If people are going to fill up millions more cars, it is best to have them filled up with biofuels, now. Brazil is the country that may contribute most to realising this important compromise.