Study states the obvious: cutting down rainforests for biofuels is not a good idea

In an article published in the Policy Forum of Science, researchers at the University of Leeds and a conservationist from the World Land Trust have succeeded in stating the obvious: cutting down rainforests to grow biofuel crops leads to more greenhouse gas emissions.

Greenhouse gas emissions from biofuels based on deforestation, are larger than those of petroleum fuels.

The only biofuel currently made from crops grown on rainforest land is biodiesel from palm oil. This fuel may add up to nine times as much carbon dioxide compared to conventional petrol and diesel, they found. The report concludes that - if reducing greenhouse gas emissions is the primary concern - then protecting and restoring natural forests is a better way to reduce carbon dioxide emissions than cutting them down for palm oil.

Study co-author Dominick Spracklen of the School of Earth and the Environment at the University of Leeds says:

This study shows that if your primary concern is reducing carbon dioxide emissions, growing biofuels is not the best way to do it. In fact it can have a perverse impact elsewhere in the world. The amount of carbon that is released when you clear forests to make way for the biofuel crop is much more than the amount you get back from growing biofuels over a 30-year period.

The relevance of this study to the biofuels debate is marginal. Especially because it could be misinterpreted as saying that we are faced with a simplistic choice: rainforests versus biofuels. Nothing is further from the truth. Studies by scientists working for the International Energy Agency's Bioenergy Task 40 have shown that billions of hectares of non-forest land are available where energy crops for biofuels with a strong GHG balance can be grown sustainably. The projections explicitly start from a scenario that does not allow deforestation (earlier post). The conservationists writing in Science do not cite these studies.

The fact is that most biofuel crops are grown on non-forest land. Sugarcane in Brazil offers the best example: the crop is grown 1000 miles South of the Amazon, and has no impact whatsoever on deforestation rates (previous post and here). Brazil even succeeds in vastly expanding its biofuels acreage while at the same time slowing down deforestation (earlier post). Likewise, most other biofuel crops, from rapeseed and corn, over jatropha and pongamia to sorghum and cassava do not grow in rainforest soils.

In several cases, biofuels even succeed in greening the desert and pushing back desertification. A good recent example comes from Inner Mongolia, where fast-rotation sand willow is pushing back the desert (earlier post). Other examples are based on jatropha, with trials in the middle of the Southern Egyptian desert (earlier post). Apparently, the authors of the article are not aware of these initiatives.

The study does not take into account the opportunity for the production of carbon-negative biofuels either. Such biofuels reduce carbon emissions more than most temperate forests, which are net contributors (here and here). Carbon-negative biofuels can be obtained either by relying on the sequestration of biochar into soils (previous post and here), or by storing the carbon into large geological sites (more here).

Ultimately, the reduction of greenhouse gases is only one of a much larger set of more important reasons behind the interest in biofuels. The green fuels offer the only realistic way to overcome high oil prices. This is especially important for developing countries, some of which are already forced to spend twice as much on importing expensive oil than on health care services. Biofuels would reduce this disastrous effect of oil. High oil prices kill people. Biofuels may save them.

Importantly, as the UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation and many other think tanks and analysts have said: biofuels can help reduce poverty alleviation on a massive scale (earlier post). This could have major beneficial effects on the environment in developing countries, because poverty is the single biggest factor driving environmental destruction there. But more importanly, the biofuels opportunity can help lift millions of poor people out of misery, improve their livelihoods, and strengthen their access to food and energy. For these reasons, African scientists recently concluded that bioenergy and biofuels are key to help achieve the UN's ambitious Millennium Development Goals (previous post):
energy :: sustainability :: ethanol :: biodiesel :: biomass :: bioenergy :: biofuels :: deforestation :: palm oil ::

Likewise, the UNIDO, the IEA, the EU, the Worldwatch Institute and several food research organisations stressed the same basic facts.

In short, the recuction of greenhouse gas emissions is only one reason why biofuels are receiving so much interest. Many far more important factors are at play.

The report in Science is co-authored by Renton Righelato of the World Land Trust - a charity that protects and restores threatened habitats around the world.

The study compared the amount of carbon dioxide emissions that would be saved from entering the atmosphere by growing biofuels with the amount saved from slowing deforestation and restoring forests over a 30-year period.

The study also found that converting large areas of land back to forest provides other environmental benefits such as preventing desertification and regional climate regulation. The conversion of large areas of land to make biofuels will place further strains on the environment, the study concluded.

European Union member states have pledged to replace 10% of transport fuel with biofuel from crops by 2020 in an effort to reduce reliance on imported oil and reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Meeting the EU target would require an area larger than one third of all the agricultural land in Europe to be used for growing biofuel crops.

He says: "There is a big push in the EU and US to promote biofuels as a way to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. What we do here has an impact on the rest of the world. Although biofuels may look a good idea in places like Europe, they have a perverse effect when you take into the rest of the world."

Biopact does not agree with the latter statement, because the world is far bigger than the few countries that are cutting down rainforests for biofuels. There are groups of countries much larger than Europe, where biofuels can be grown without any major environmental side-effects. Countries like the Central-African Republic, South Sudan, Angola, Mozambique, Zambia, Tanzania, to name but a few. Apparently, some scientists utilize maps that do not show these countries. Or they are simply eurocentric. The amount of non-forest land available for biofuel crops, is estimated to be around 2 billion hectares.

References:
Renton Righelato and Dominick V. Spracklen, "Carbon Mitigation by Biofuels or by Saving and Restoring Forests?", Science 17 August 2007, Vol. 317. no. 5840, p. 902, DOI: 10.1126/science.1141361

Biopact: Greening the desert with biofuels: Inner Mongolia peasants show it's possible - August 14, 2007

Biopact: Worldwatch Institute: biofuels may bring major benefits to world's rural poor - August 06, 2007

Biopact: FAO chief calls for a 'Biopact' between the North and the South - August 15, 2007

Biopact: Report: biofuels key to achieving Millennium Development Goals in Africa - August 02, 2007

Biopact: African Union, Brazil and UNIDO organise first High-Level Conference on Biofuels in Africa - July 23, 2007

Biopact: IEA chief economist: EU, US should scrap tariffs and subsidies, import biofuels from the South - March 06, 2007

Biopact: A look at Africa's biofuels potential - July 30, 2006