NREL: Brazilian ethanol does not harm the Amazon

U.S. energy officials speaking at the side-lines of an US-Brazil summit in Brasilia, clearly speak out against some common misconceptions and false information on biofuels produced in the South: Brazil's ethanol production is not devastating the Amazon rain forest or hiking food prices. And there is a large potential to expand, without impacting either food or fiber supplies or forests. Dan Arvizu, director of the U.S. Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL):

There is a huge misconception internationally that in Brazil, we're cutting down the rain forest to (make) fuels, which is not true. Done responsibly (ethanol production) does not have to (compete) with food or impact the environment

Cultivating sugar cane in the rain forest's tropical climate makes no business sense, says Gregory Manuel, International Energy Coordinator at the U.S. State Department:

Economics don't drive ethanol production in the rain forest. Yield rates in very wet environments are roughly half that in temperate environments.

Importantly, in Arvizu's assessment:

We think at least 25-30 percent of current (global) gasoline consumption could be replaced by biofuels using today's technologies without impacting food or fiber.

By the time such a large quantity is reached, second-generation conversion technologies will probably be in place allowing for a bigger share - one that remains fundamentally sustainable.

All this is of course not new. According to leading scientists who work for the International Energy Agency sugar cane based ethanol is largely environmentally sustainable (earlier post and here). The crop grows 1000 miles South of the Amazon. The scientific community knows that this is true for a whole range of other tropical and subtropical sugar and starch crops that explicitly do not grow in rainforest environments: from cassava and sorghum, to jatropha or sweet potatoes.

So why are these misconceptions still around? They are being pushed by powerful lobbies who want to protect their own interests, against biofuels produced in the South:
bioenergy :: biofuels :: energy :: ethanol :: biodiesel :: biomass :: sugar cane :: Amazon :: sustainability :: lobby :: oil :: subsidies ::

The 'President of the Poor', Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, recently concluded his historic mission in Europe, where he convinced the Union of the fact that biofuels production in the South can be both sustainable and benefit the poor.

At the landmark International Conference on Biofuels, the European Union finally showed support for this vision, and signalled its intentions to import biofuels from the developing world. This idea of a global 'biopact' is what we have been working towards too. It holds the promise of a win-win strategy: biofuel production in the South can become a lever for large scale poverty alleviation, the fuels in question reduce greenhouse gases far more than those made in the temperate climes of the North, and consumers in the West will pay far less for biofuels.

EU Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson signalled that he will not support biofuels in Europe as a way to subsidize wealthy farmers there. And the Swedish Trade Minister, Sven Tolgfors even went so far as to call for the removal of all trade barriers for imported biofuels. Indeed, Lula's work in Europe has resulted in a radical change in thinking, away from 'resource nationalism' to a vision of global solidarity, that puts biofuels on the agenda as a tool for a more equitable form of economic development.

An alliance of lobbies was not pleased to hear this vision being presented and has launched a viscious campaign to discredit biofuels from the South.

(1) Not surprisingly, European farmers and biofuel producers were furious after the Conference. They fear their huge subsidies and the protectionist barriers that make it possible for them to grow fuels, will be removed.

(2) Likewise, segments of the petroleum lobby try to discredit biofuels from the South because they pose a real threat to their business. Sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America alone can produce more biofuels than all of OPEC's output (earlier post).

(3) Strangely enough, some environmentalists and NGOs are siding with oil lobby and the subsidised EU farmers. These NGOs fear biofuels produced in the South may damage the environment, - a fair concern. But they have been spreading some questionable and simplistic information that damages their case. If implemented incorrectly, green fuels can indeed have environmental consequences. But if done right and monitored by sustainability criteria, they offer a major chance to mitigate climate change and alleviate poverty.

Some NGOs make the strategic mistake of taking Brazil as an example of how these fuels pose a threat to environment, in particular the Amazon rain forest. Or they try to play the 'food versus fuel' card in a way that makes no scientific sense: biofuels per se do not increase food prices, high oil prices do and biofuels made from crops like corn. When biofuels are sourced from the South, where they are made at a third of the costs of EU/US fuels and from non-food crops, then biofuels make food even relatively cheaper (that's a no brainer, with oil at US$75 and ethanol at US$35 per barrel).

Brazil has done its best to respond to all the criticisms, and with factual information it has convinced some key players: the scientific community, most of the trade negotiators in Europe and the U.S., and NGOs who see biofuels as a chance for massive poverty alleviation in the South. We have done our bit to get the facts out too.

But when it comes to the Amazon rainforest, it seems like there needs to be some more convincing, because some lobbies keep pushing false information and abuse this powerful symbol of biodiversity to protect their own interests (the lobbies do so at the risk of becoming irrelevant in the debate).

The simple fact is that sugarcane, from which ethanol is made in Brazil, does not grow in the Amazon.

It does not grow there for agro-technical reasons. It makes no agronomic, economic or technical sense to grow it there. The crop was introduced 450 years ago by the Portuguese, and since then, there have been no intrusions into the rainforest. In fact, sugarcane grows 1000 miles South of the forest (map, click to enlarge). There is neither a direct, nor an indirect land-use change pressure coming from the cane.

In Europe and the United States biofuel production costs far more than in Brazil and is highly subsidized. Fuels produced there would not survive in a liberalised biofuels market. The wealthy subsidised farmers know this, and want to protect their business against less costly imported biofuels. For this reason, they try to discredit tropical biofuels.

In Brasilia, the NREL chief said production growth must be monitored carefully to avoid unwanted consequences. But he added that the current global market for ethanol was still far from what could be produced sustainably.

And indeed, at the International Conference on Biofuels, it was largely agreed that sustainability criteria have to be developed for internationally traded biofuels. But such criteria should be based on facts, and not on the wishes of the oil, environmentalist, or European biofuel lobbies.

When the anti-biofuel lobbies like the oil industry and the NGOs, or the Euro-American biofuel producers who fear imports, keep spreading false information, they risk making themselves irrelevant in the sustainability debate on green fuels.

References:
Reuters: U.S. officials: Brazil ethanol doesn't harm Amazon - July 11, 2007.

Biopact: Brazilian ethanol is sustainable and has a very positive energy balance - IEA report - October 08, 2006

Biopact: Nature sets the record straight on Brazilian ethanol - December 09, 2006