Driving deforestation

/in ,

As we highlighted in our report ‘For peat’s sake’, there is a well documented link between increasing palm oil demand, expansion of the cultivated area of palm oil plantations and destruction of forest and peatland ecosystems in Southeast Asia. Despite this link, and several studies suggesting that the use of biofuels produced from palm oil may cause more greenhouse gas emissions than consumption of the fossil fuels they replace, many countries still have biofuel support policies under which palm oil based biofuels are eligible to receive support. In our new report, ‘Driving Deforestation’ we review the status of biofuel policy driven demand for palm oil, and consider three scenarios for potential biofuel-driven palm oil demand between now and 2030. While some regions, notably the European Union, are considering measures that could reduce biofuel-driven palm oil demand in the coming decade, several other policies are currently set to drive dramatic increases in palm oil consumption. The largest sources of potential demand growth are the Indonesian domestic market, where a 30% target for blending biodiesel could generate 19 million tonnes of palm oil demand by 2030 (a 16 million tonne increase), and the aviation industry commitment to switch to alternative aviation fuel, which could generate 19 million tonnes of additional palm oil demand by 2030 if no controls are placed on the feedstocks eligible for support. If current land use trends continue, following the high scenario globally could cause cumulatively result in 7 billion tonnes of additional carbon dioxide emissions from land use change over the two decades from 2018 to 2038, as compared to a case in which biofuel-driven palm oil demand was eliminated. In a more likely ‘medium’ scenario, there could still be 3 billion tonnes of additional carbon dioxide emissions from land use change compared to a phase out of demand. The full report is available at the link below.

Download report

 

Front cover image from the Driving Deforestation report

Thought for food

/in ,

Since the food price crisis of 2006-2008, there has been a lively debate about the impact of biofuel demand on food markets, prices and security, with some biofuel advocates characterising the idea of competition between food and fuel as a ‘myth’. This review for Transport and Environment and Birdlife Europe shows that there is an extensive literature supporting the belief that biofuel demand is likely to cause food prices to rise, and that these price rises will result in significant wealth transfers from consumers to producers and have negative welfare implications for poor households in the developing world. Far from reflecting ’emotional’ responses divorced from the available evidence, concerns about the impacts of biofuel demand on global poverty are well supported and legitimate – while the flat denial that biofuel demand affects food markets is disingenuous and divorced from the mainstream of expert opinion. On the other hand, biofuel demand is only one relatively small factor in the overall picture of global food insecurity, and the benefits of biofuel policy should be compared soberly to the potential negative externalities.

Download review

 

Navigating the maize

/in , ,

Update – An updated critique reacting to republished results from USDA is available here: https://theicct.org/publications/critique-lifecycle-emissions-modeling-ghg-ethanol

Earlier in 2017, the United States Department of Agriculture published a study undertaken by the consultants ICF International that included a reassessment of the lifecycle greenhouse gas intensity of corn ethanol. The report concluded that corn ethanol’s greenhouse gas intensity is already lower than the level projected for 2022 by the Environmental Protection Agency in the regulatory impact analysis for the Renewable Fuel Standard 2, a conclusion that has been embraced by advocates for the corn ethanol industry.

In this study, commissioned by the Clean Air Task Force and National Wildlife Federation, we provide a critical review of the ICF report. We find that the report shows a lack of balance, systematically emphasising evidence that could suggest that the performance of corn ethanol is better than previously modeled, while understating or ignoring conflicting evidence. More problematic even than this lack of balance, however, we find that the analysis in the report is riddled with errors of methodology and data, many of them at the most basic level, so as to render some of the results presented essentially meaningless. Given the many issues identified, we conclude that the work presented is wholly inadequate to justify any firm conclusion on whether the corn ethanol emissions estimates made by EPA could or should be revised down.

Download study

 

Erratum

In the report “Navigating the maize” it is stated that, “The ICF report appears to double count the emissions benefits associated with the production of ethanol co-products”. Following clarification of the ICF approach in subsequent papers, we realise that we had misunderstood the approach used and that this is not the case – co-products are not double counted by ICF.

Our misunderstanding arose from a methodological difference between the ICF analysis and the original EPA regulatory impact assessment that was not clear to us from the original documentation. In the EPA work, agricultural emissions are assessed only on the net increase in corn production to meet the mandate (this is a consequential approach). The effect of distillers’ grains in reducing net corn demand is already included before agricultural emissions are calculated. The ICF reassessment makes reference to the net demand change value from the EPA work, and therefore we had understood that the role of co-products was implicitly included by use of this net demand value. Based on clarifications given in updates to the ICF work  we now understand that ICF in fact analyse emissions for an average corn acre and then apply these based on gross corn demand. The step that makes reference to the EPA net demand value is redundant (this term is effectively added on both the numerator and the denominator of the equation so that it is cancelled out) . Based on this understanding it is indeed appropriate to apply a co-product credit under this methodology. 

Corn on the scales

For peat’s sake

/in , ,

This report, commissioned by the Rainforest Foundation Norway (cf. www.regnskog.no/en/news/norway-bans-palm-oil-based-biofuel-in-its-public-procurement), reviews the evidence on the implications of using palm oil to produce biofuel. The report concludes that in all likelihood when renewable fuel policies drive increased palm oil demand the outcomes are worse for the climate than simply continuing to use fossil fuels. In addition to the disastrous climate impact of deforestation and peat-loss in Southeast Asia, oil palm expansion has severe impacts on biodiversity in some of the world’s most ecologically rich habitats. The publication of the report follows news that the Norwegian Parliament has called on the government to ban public procurement of palm oil based biofuels.

Download report

 

 

Denial of long-term issues with agriculture on tropical peatlands will have devastating consequences

/in ,

Following the 16th International Peat Congress (IPC) in Kuching (Sarawak), Malaysia, widely read media reported that the congress supported the view that current agricultural practices in peatland areas, such as oil palm plantations, do not have a negative impact on the environment. However, this view is not shared by many of the participants, and does not reflect the broad message conveyed by the research presented at the congress.

In an effort to correct these statements, a number of the world’s leading researchers and practitioners from around the world have come together to publish a letter in Global Change Biology, one of the world’s leading environmental science journals. The 139 authors represent 115 government, academic, industry and non-governmental organizations from 20 countries. Forty of these organizations are based in Malaysia, Indonesia and Singapore; the countries most directly impacted by the adverse consequences of unsustainable management of tropical peatlands.

The consensus achieved in this paper is unprecedented. The letter confirms that the weight evidence presented at the congress, backed by many decades of scientific research, is unequivocal: business-as-usual management is not sustainable for tropical peatland agriculture and can no longer be justified.  

While truly sustainable peatland agriculture methods do not yet exist, the scientific community and industry are already collaborating in the search for solutions, including interim measures to mitigate ongoing rates of peat loss under existing plantations. Not only is this of global importance in the fight against climate change, it is also key to ensure future economic wealth in tropical peatland rich regions. Indeed, failing to recognize the devastating far-reaching consequences of the way in which peatlands are being managed and failing to work together to address them could mean that the next generations will in fact have to deal with an irreversibly altered, dysfunctional landscape.

For further information contact:

Lahiru Wijedasa

National University of Singapore, Singapore.

Email: Phone: +65-90667160

 

Dr Roxane Andersen

Environmental Research Institute, University of Highlands and Islands, United Kingdom.

Email: Phone: +44(0)1847889572

Article details:

Wijedasa LS, Jauhiainen J, Könönen M et al. (2016) Denial of long-term issues with agriculture on tropical peatlands will have devastating consequences. Global Change Biology. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.13516/abstract