http://thestar.com.my/lifestyle/story.asp?
file=/2008/1/1/lifefocus/19561783&sec=lifefocus

Eco-conscious palm oil

By HILARY CHIEW, 1st January 2008

hnchiew@...

Oil palm companies are subjecting themselves to scrutiny to meet
consumer demand for eco-friendly palm oil.

PALM oil is heading for certification – the first tangible sign of a
commitment towards sustainable production of the versatile yet
controversial commodity.

The first certificate is expected to be issued by the first quarter
of 2008, after the call for environmentally and socially responsible
production of the crop came five years ago.

Buyers are waiting anxiously for the certification as they have
promised to supply certified palm oil to their clients – oil
refiners, food manufacturers, consumer goods producers, retailers and
even biofuel plant operators – who in turn have set deadlines to
phase out the use of palm oil from uncertified sources.


A worker inspecting oil palm fruits at a factory in Sepang, Selangor.
Efforts are now being made to certify palm oil as being sustainably
produced.
Environmental campaigns in the West linking palm oil production to
orang utan extinction, peat fires and displacement of indigenous
communities have resulted in consumer boycotts of supermarket chains
and demand for sustainable palm oil.

The march towards biodiesel production using palm oil has also met
with warnings that the so-called green fuel could be a net emitter of
greenhouse gases and accelerate, instead of stalling, climate change.
There is also concern that the biofuel rush could come at the expense
of food production, given that palm oil is the world's most important
edible oil.

At the recently-concluded fifth meeting of the Roundtable on
Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) in Kuala Lumpur, the verification and
implementation mechanisms of the certification system were presented
to some 500 participants from 30 countries representing major players
in the palm oil supply chain, from growers to retailers, banks,
investors, and pressure groups from environmental and developmental
organisations.

The certification process will authenticate growers' claims that
their products are derived from plantations that follow the Principle
and Criteria (P&C) set by the initiative. It will also enable
manufacturers to assure consumers of product "traceability" through
eco-labelling.

Palm oil is the most popular vegetable oil in the world commodity
market, with 37 million tonnes produced last year. With its
membership accounting for almost 40% of palm oil production and
utilisation in the world, RSPO is regarded as an influential force
for sustainable palm oil.

But several issues remain unresolved after five years of
deliberations. Expansion of oil palm estates on fragile ecosystems
and displacement of indigenous communities are two contentious issues
that divide supporters and critics of RSPO.

Indonesia overtook Malaysia as the largest oil palm producing country
with an output of 16 million tonnes last year. The area of land under
oil palm plantation in Indonesia tripled between 1995 and 2005. Close
to six million ha of plantation has been developed and millions more
are planned.

A report by the Indonesian Forest Ministry and European Union states
that to meet the rising world demand for palm oil from 20 million
tonnes to 40 million tonnes by 2020, some 300,000ha of new estates
will be needed each year. It added that inevitably, most new estates
would come up in wetlands, as the more desirable dry lands are
already occupied.

Such expansion plans are largely driven by the demand for biofuel in
rich nations. In early 2007, the European Union endorsed a minimum
target for biofuel to constitute 10% of its transport fuels by 2020.

Greenpeace has called for a moratorium on deforestation of peat swamp
forests for oil palm expansion. Its political advisor for energy
Wolfgang Richert says just like the campaign on soybean in the Amazon
which got three major traders agreeing to stop expansion in the
Brazilian rainforest, Greenpeace will continue to pressure RSPO
members to commit on this important move.

"It's crucial for RSPO to get rid of partial certification.
Otherwise, it'll just be another green-washing exercise, undermining
its credibility."

Richert also notes that Principle 7, which forbids new planting on
primary forests or areas of High Conservation Value from 200, is
weak.

"You can argue that most Indonesian forests are not primary forests
anymore. So, RSPO will actually (end up) certifying palm oil produced
from deforestation of secondary forests. RSPO members should commit
to develop on the millions of hectares of abandoned, degraded land
instead," he says.

Friends of the Earth (FOE) highlights that as RSPO only gives
sustainability certifications for each plantation, other plantations
in a company could remain unsustainable.

"Inevitably, palm oil companies will use a sustainability
certification to green-wash, even though it will by no means
guarantee that the company is guilt-free of environmental and social
violations. The RSPO must refuse to certify palm oil coming from any
company still involved in destructive palm oil production," said Paul
de Clerck, FOE corporate campaigns co-ordinator.

FOE Europe chapter is campaigning against the EU biofuel policy,
cautioning that the demand for palm oil will drive conversion of
forests to plantations on a scale far beyond what the RSPO could
guarantee is sustainable. It has called for a moratorium on European
financial subsidies and targets that encourage the development and
production of large-scale biofuels.

Letter published in Science magazine 14 Dec 2007

Subsidies to corn-based biofuel are supposed to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions. Many analysts have argued that the benefit is at best
marginal, because growing corn and making ethanol is energy-
intensive. But the problem goes beyond that, as the letter points
out. The writer is William F. Laurance of the Smithsonian Tropical
Research Institute

quoted at:

http://climateandcapitalism.com/?p=296

"The United States is the world's leading producer of soy. However,
many U.S. farmers are shifting from soy to corn (maize) in order to
qualify for generous government subsidies intended to promote biofuel
production; since 2006, U.S. corn production has risen 19% while soy
production has fallen by 15%. This in turn is helping to drive a
major increase in global soy prices, which have nearly doubled in the
past 14 months.

"The rising price for soy has important consequences for Amazonian
forests and savanna-woodlands. In Brazil, the world's second-leading
soy producer, deforestation rates and especially fire incidence have
increased sharply in recent months in the main soy- and beef-
producing states in Amazonia (and not in states with little soy
production). Although dry weather is a contributing factor, these
increases are widely attributed to rising soy and beef prices, and
studies suggest a strong link between Amazonian deforestation and soy
demand.

"Some Amazonian forests are directly cleared for soy farms. Farmers
also purchase large expanses of cattle pasture for soy production,
effectively pushing the ranchers farther into the Amazonian frontier
or onto lands unsuitable for soy production. In addition, higher soy
costs tend to raise global beef prices because soy-based livestock
feeds become more expensive, creating an indirect incentive for
forest conversion to pasture. Finally, the powerful Brazilian soy
lobby is a key driving force behind initiatives to expand Amazonian
highways and transportation networks in order to transport soybeans
to market, and this is greatly increasing access to forests for
ranchers, loggers, and land speculators.

"In a globalized world, the impacts of local decisions about crop
preferences can have far-reaching implications. As illustrated by an
apparent "corn connection" to Amazonian deforestation, the
environmental benefits of corn-based biofuel might be considerably
reduced when its full and indirect costs are considered."

http://www.globalvoicesonline.org/2007/12/28/burkina-faso-soon-a-
biofuel-producer/

Friday, December 28th, 2007 @ 18:46 UTC
by Ramata Sore

Last month, the Ministry of Agriculture, Hydropower, and Marine
Resources and the French company AgroEd signed a framework agreement
for developing a biofuels industry in Burkina Faso.

All entire process will take place in Burkina, from the cultivation
of plants (cotton, Jatropha, etc.) to the production of fuel.

This idea has been greeted with enthusiasm by more than one person.
Biofuel experts believe that, "Africa has a real chance to enter this
industry, which is profitable now especially with the price of oil,
rising day by day," [FR] writes journalist Alban Kini.

However, many citizens have expressed skepticism about whether
Burkina Faso can become a competitive producer of biofuels, and
whether ordinary people, in particular the farmers, will benefit.

While Burkina is rich in primary materials like mangos, cotton, and
cassava, and already has once factory producing ethanol, the country
has limited infrastructure at its disposal. In light of this, when I
wrote about biofuels [FR] on my blog earlier this month, one reader
was skeptical about the project's prospects:

Les coûts de production feront que ce carburant serait hors de porté
des Burkinabè. Je vie en France actuellement et ici le biocarburant
est juste produit par certains agriculteurs disposant de matériels
assez mécanisés pour le labour, l'irrigation et les récoltes. Notons
qu'ici les fermiers repensent 3% de la pop, ils sont les riches,
aussi ils sont subventionnés à l'hectare. Je trouve que souvent il
faut bien réfléchir pour parapher certains accords. Si les Burkinabè
n'ont pas les moyens pour payer ce carburant parce que trop chers, on
ira le vendre ailleurs!!!!

The costs of production will place this fuel out of the Burkinabe
people's reach. I'm currently living in France, and here biofuels are
produced only be a few farmers who rely on machines for labor,
irrigation, and harvesting. Note that here, farmers represent 3% of
the population, they are the rich, and they are also subsidized by
the hectare. I think we ought to really think before signing certain
agreements. If the Burkinabe don't have the means to pay for these
biofuels because they are too expensive, they will go and sell them
elsewhere!!!!
In addition to this fear of biofuel products being sold abroad, many
have expressed concern about the deterioration of land under
cultivation.

Another reader wrote:

Pendant qu'on est en train de voir comment subventionner les pays qui
gardent intact la nature, chez nous, on signe des protocoles visant a
endommager cette dernière . Et le comble, c'est qu'à 100% cela ne
profitera qu'a une certaine couche…

Even as we look at how to give assistance to those countries that
protect nature, here at home, we sign protocols that aim to harm it.
And to top it off, it's 100% certain that this will benefit only a
certain stratum…
One reader believes that Burkina Faso's investment in biofuel
production while there are still so many problems related to the
cultivation and sale of cotton. He also questions the logic
underlying this initiative:

Nous sommes (ou étions) gros producteur de coton, et d'or. On a gagné
quoi? Que gagnent les pays africains producteurs de pétrole,
d'uranium, etc. ? Comme d'habitude et comme de par le passé, seuls
les dirigeants au sommet de l'Etat et leurs parrains d'Occident, les
impérialistes et leurs suppôts donc, vont se sucrer sur le dos de
tous.

We are (or were) major producers of cotton and gold. What did we gain
from it? We do African countries producing petroleum, uranium, etc.
gain? As always and as it was in the past, only the leaders at the
top and their Western patrons, the imperialists and their
accomplices, will fatten themselves off the backs of us all.
In order to mobilize public support, meetings were held in
Ouagadougou. The most important was the one organized on November 27-
29th with the theme, "issues and perspectives on biofuel for Africa."

The meeting brought together 370 people from 35 countries, as well as
multinational firms like Total France, their research centers, and
the Centre de coopération internationale en recherche agronomique
pour le développement (CIRAD) in Ouagadougou. Only the farmers, those
who will producing the primary materials for the biofuels, were
absent.

Blogger Father Lacour criticizes this oversight:

Une fois encore, les représentants des organisations paysannes n'ont
pas été invités, une fois encore, les paysans n'ont pas été invités,
eux qui sont les premiers concernés par ce qu'on devrait normalement
appeler les agrocarburants, plutôt que les biocarburants parce que
c'est l'agriculture qui les produit.

These farmers are excluded from these meetings when they are the ones
who will have to adapt to these new conditions and techniques of
production. As Father Lacour writes:

"learning by doing" (apprendre en faisant) tout en espérant que les
risques pour les paysans ne dépassent par trop le bénéfice escompté.

learning by doing, hoping that the risks for the farmers do not
surpass the expected benefits.
Translated from French by Jennifer Brea

Ecological Internet are running a new email alert against plans by the
Malaysian company Vitroplant Ltd to destroy the rainforests of Woodlark
Island, Papua New Guinea for palm oil biodiesel:

http://www.climateark.org/alerts/send.asp?id=png_woodlark .

The government of Papua New Guinea has approved the plans, despite
strong opposition from the 6,000 people who live on the island and
whose livelihoods are threatened by Vitroplant.

For further background information about Woodlark Island, see the
December bulletin of the World Rainforest Movement: www.wrm.org.uy/ .

http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/dec2007/gb20071226_40758
0.htm?chan=globalbiz_europe+index+page_top+stories

EU's Green Energy Plans Take Shape

26th December 2007

Target: 20% of the bloc's energy consumption by 2020. How much each
country should contribute is the focus of intense lobbying

by Renata Goldirova

New EU legislation aimed at having green energy account for 20
percent of the union's overall energy consumption by 2020 is taking
concrete shape, with draft proposals indicating that each EU state
should contribute at least 5.75 percent to an overall target. Rich
member states will carry a heavier burden, however.

EU energy commissioner Andris Piebalgs is expected to unveil the
legislative piece on 12 January, with some governments scheduled to
lobby for the best possible deal even as early as the beginning of
next month.

The directive lays out in detail how exactly to get from the current
8.5 percent to a 20 percent share of renewables in EU energy
consumption by the end of next decade - something that 27 EU leaders
agreed to do at their summit in March.

According to the proposal, seen by EUobserver, member states will be
asked to gradually reach the final EU-wide target.

Using 2005 as a baseline, the proposal says that member states should
achieve over half (51 percent) of their remaining target by 2014,
they should be at two-thirds (66 percent) of their remaining target
by 2016 and at 83 percent by 2018, so that they reach the target in
2020 as planned.

One commission official told EUobserver that EU capitals will not be
required to contribute to the same extent, however.

The executive body is set to take into account two criteria - a
member state's geographical potential to produce energy from sources
such as wind, solar, geothermal or hydropower as well as its economic
power based on GDP per capita.

"We are not going to ask poor countries to achieve the same as the
rich ones", an official said, referring to a Brussels' plan to
introduce one "fixed" and one "individual" target.

Under the plans, all member states would be obliged to cover 5.75
percent of energy consumption from green sources and in addition,
they would face their own individual targets, which would mirror
their geographic and economic potential.

According to one EU diplomat, exact numbers are still being
finalized, as some governments are still lobbying for the most
favourable figure.

In September, Mr Piebalgs told EUobserver that all EU states
were "cautious to announce their potential" and that the methodology
to be applied had proved "quite a politically sensitive issue".

Publication of the proposal covering three areas - electricity,
transport and heating and cooling - has already been postponed twice.

In transport, all EU governments will have to ensure that their share
of renewable energy sources, namely biofuels, reaches at least 6.5
percent by 2012 and 10 percent by 2020.

Cross-border trading of renewables?

In order to meet the ambitious targets, the European Commission paper
suggests setting up so-called guarantees of origin -- a certificate
allowing producers to trade their renewable energy within the 27-
nation bloc.

"Member states shall ensure that a guarantee of origin is issued in
response to a request from the producers of electricity and heat",
the draft paper says, adding that "guarantees of origin shall be
accurate, reliable and fraud-resistant".

In practice, this could hypothetically mean that a Greek solar farm
could produce electricity for Slovakia, if the country does not have
enough potential to meet its individual target or if it finds it too
costly to produce such energy in its own territory.

According to a commission official, such a scenario would "motivate
companies to engage in the renewable energy sector and motivate
member states to use the most cost-effective way" of meeting their
targets.

Under certain circumstances, Brussels will be even able to order such
purchasing.

"If a member state does not meet its targets for the share of energy
from renewable energy sources in 2014, 2016 or 2018, the commission
may decide that such a member state must allow transfer from another
member state of guarantees of origin issued to new entrants in other
member states", the draft proposal says.

The same member state must also "give the right to new entrants in
other member states to benefit from its renewable support schemes in
the same way as domestic producers of renewable energy".

According to German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Germany
has already criticised the plan, fearing that local producers could
rather export their certificates for higher prices than feed their
energy into the national grid at fixed prices.

Provided by EUobserver—For the latest EU related news

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?
pid=20601087&sid=adMt_WN66jns&refer=home

Palm Oil Gains to Record on Demand for Food, Fuel (Update3)

By Pratik Parija

Dec. 26 (Bloomberg) -- Palm oil prices in Malaysia, the global
benchmark, rose to a record today as global demand for vegetable oils
for food and alternative fuel outstripped supply.

Oilseeds and vegetable oils are gaining from Chicago to Dalian on
concern world inventories are dwindling as demand rises in China and
India and governments subsidize the use of edible oils for fuel.
Soybeans may lead gains among non-energy commodities next year,
according to Goldman Sachs Group Inc.

Soybeans and soybean oil in China, the biggest consumer of the
commodity, also soared to records as traders speculated demand may
outpace supplies from government stockpile sales and imports.
Soybeans in Chicago reached a 34-year peak and soybean oil the
highest for at least 33 years on Dec. 24.

``The outlook for the grain, oilseed and vegetable oil markets
remains very positive,'' Michael Coleman, Singapore- based managing
director of Aisling Analytics Pte, which runs a $1 billion commodity
hedge fund, said today by e-mail.

``To see significantly lower prices we'll need a combination of
demand rationing and excellent harvests to allow a rebuilding of
inventories,'' he said. ``That probably means significantly higher
prices first.''

Palm oil for March delivery rose as much as 57 ringgit, or 1.9
percent, to 3,087 ringgit ($924) a ton on the Malaysia Derivatives
Exchange today before closing at 3,080 ringgit a ton.

Supply Shortage

``Palm oil prices have gone up in spite of record-high stockpiles in
Malaysia because the market is anticipating tight supply next year,''
Alvin Tai, analyst at OSK Research Bhd., said by phone from Kuala
Lumpur today.

Palm oil inventories in Malaysia, the second-largest producer of the
commodity, climbed 16 percent to a record in November as output
reached its highest ever, the Malaysian Palm Oil Board said on Dec.
10.

Agricultural products have been among the best-performing commodities
this year. Palm oil has gained 56 percent, soybeans 75 percent and
soybean oil 62 percent. Goldman Sachs raised its 12-month forecast
for soybeans by 61 percent to $14.50 a bushel from $9 a bushel in a
Dec. 11 report.

Soybean oil futures traded on the Dalian Commodity Exchange have
risen 40 percent this year. The most-actively traded contract for May
delivery gained 200 yuan, or 2 percent, to close at 10,146 yuan
($1,382) a ton.

China, the biggest buyer of vegetable oils, imported 29 percent more
of the commodities in the first 11 months of this year compared with
a year earlier, customs data showed Dec. 11.

Imports of vegetable oil totaled 7.71 million metric tons from
January to November, the Beijing-based customs office said. Palm oil
imports gained 7.1 percent in the first 11 months while the country's
imports of soybean oil and canola oil almost doubled and gained eight-
fold respectively.

Indonesia and Malaysia produce 90 percent of the world's palm oil,
the main substitute for soybean oil.

To contact the reporter on this story: Pratik Parija in New Delhi at
pparija@...

Last Updated: December 26, 2007 05:32 EST

Can anyone provide any informatiion about the "Peoples Protocol on
Climate Change"? Who wrote it? Who supports it? etc etc?

It's online at <http://www.petitiononline.com/ppcc/petition.html>

The online petition has only 187 signatures, but a news release refers
to 1000s of signatories.
<http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0712/S00611.htm>

I can find very little on the web about it.

Ian Angus, Editor
Climate and Capitalism
www.climateandcapitalism.com

Wednesday, December 26, 2007

BIO sees U.S. biofuels target as new 'Manhattan project' that will
unlock key technologies

The Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) reacts to the new
renewable fuel standard (RFS) contained in the U.S. Energy Independence
and Security Act of 2007, which calls for the production of a massive
36 billion gallons of biofuels by 2022 (previous post). BIO describes
the goal as an undertaking larger than the Apollo project or the
Manhattan project that will unlock new technologies from science fields
like synthetic biology and will spill over into other economic areas
leading to the emergence of a high-tech biobased economy.

To continue reading this article, go to

http://biopact.com/2007/12/bio-sees-us-biofuels-target-as-new.html

http://canberra.yourguide.com.au/news/local/news-features/un-issues-
warning-of-critical-food-shortages-the-livelihoods-of-billions-of-
people-will-be-se/1151741.html

Almost 40 countries are facing critical food shortages as world food
prices soar to record levels, the United Nations warns.

The world's food supplies are rapidly dwindling due to crop failures
caused by global warming, natural disasters, wars, and a trend away
from farming food crops to growing biofuels and grain to feed cattle,
the agency says.

The UN Food and Agriculture Organisation's global food price index
reached its highest level this year, rising by more than 40 per cent,
compared with 9 per cent last year.

"There is a very serious risk that there will be less people able to
get access to food because of prices," FAO head Jacques Diouf said.
The cost of imported food for the world's poorest countries has risen
by 25 per cent this year to about $US107 billion the highest on
record. Countries facing critical food shortages include 20 African
countries as well as Iraq, Afghanistan, Nepal and Pakistan.
Food riots caused by shortages and rising prices have also occurred
in Mexico, Morocco, Uzbekistan, Yemen and Senegal.
In its monthly analysis of global food prices, the FAO said there had
been an unprecedented "hike in world prices of, not just a selected
few, but of nearly all, major food and feed commodities".
Rarely had the world felt such "a widespread and commonly shared
concern about food price inflation," the FAO analysis said. In
Australia, food prices have increased by 12percent over the past two
years, chiefly because of drought and crop shortages linked to global
climate change.

Australian Bureau of Statistics data shows prices for bread and eggs
have increased by 17 per cent since 2005, vegetables by 33 per cent,
honey by 100 per cent, dairy products by 11percent and fruit by 43
per cent.

A recent report by economist John Quiggin for the Australian
Conservation Foundation concluded "price shocks similar to those
being experienced by Australian consumers during the currently severe
drought may start to occur every two to four years, rather than once
a decade, unless strong action is taken to reduce global emissions".
Quiggin said some practices proposed as strategies to mitigate the
impact of climate change such as growing corn and sugar cane for
biofuels and the use of forestry plantations as carbon sinks would
inevitably contribute to "upward pressure on food prices".

The impact of biofuels on world food production will be reviewed at a
UN conference on food security next year.  It was essential biofuel
policies were "coordinated at an international level taking into
consideration the objective of fighting hunger," Diouf said.
Higher meat consumption in emerging market nations across Asia are
also driving food price increases. In 1985, China's average
consumption of meat was of 20kg, but per capita meat consumption had
now increased to 50kg, Diouf said. This reduced the amount of grain
available because 1kg of beef could take as much as 8kg of grain to
produce.

The British medical journal The Lancet recently published a study
suggesting a 10 per cent cut in global meat consumption by 2050 would
reduce greenhouse emissions from agriculture and also improve health
for rich and poor nations.

Agricultural experts have also warned global warming will result in
shorter growing seasons and smaller crop yields across most of the
developing world, affecting the lives of billions of people. A report
by the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
estimates wheat production in India could drop by 50 per cent within
40 years, putting as many as 200 million people at risk of worsening
food shortages.

Growing seasons in many parts of Africa will decrease by 20 per cent,
with some of the world's poorest farming communities in east and
central Africa including Rwanda, Burundi, Ethiopia and Eritrea among
the worst affected.

"The livelihoods of billions of people in developing countries,
particularly those in the tropics, will be severely challenged as
crop yields decline due to shorter growing seasons," International
Rice Research Institute director Dr Robert Zeigler said.
The FAO said soaring petroleum prices had contributed to price
increases for agricultural crops by raising farm production costs and
boosting demand for biofuels.
"The combination of high petroleum prices and the desire to address
environmental issues is currently at the forefront of the rapid
expansion of the biofuel sector: this is likely to boost demand for
feedstocks, most notably, sugar, maize, rapeseed, soybean, palm oil
and other oil crops as well as wheat for many more years to come."

According to the FAO, the amount of corn used for biofuel production
in the US will double to 110 million tonnes by 2016. In Europe, the
amount of wheat devoted to biofuel will rise twelvefold to 18 million
tonnes by the same date.

Earlier this year, Jean Ziegler, the UN's Special Rapporteur on the
Right to Food, denounced biofuels as "a crime against humanity" and
called for a five-year moratorium on their production.

• Teena Lyons
• Guardian Unlimited,
• Tuesday November 20 2007

Al Gore

Dan Winters for TIME

 

As 2007 closes and 2008 begins, one of the great questions that hangs in the cynical European air is how America will carry itself in the world next year. From the outside, the coming election seems less about "the economy, stupid" and more about America's role in the future of the planet. I think it's even deeper than that. I think this election is about how America sees itself. That's not really an existential question, or a spiritual one; mostly, it's a practical question. In this election year, Americans are looking for leadership that can turn spiritual yearnings into practical realities.

Al Gore is the kind of leader these times require. Not as President — God and the Electoral College have given him a different job. As it happens, Al is at work repositioning his country from the inside out as a leader in clean energy; and along the way restoring faith in the U.S. as a moral powerhouse that can lead a great, global spiritual revival as the temperature rises.
That's right, a spiritual revival. Because this apostle of all things digital is the first to admit that technology alone will not reverse the damage done. He says it's going to take "a shift in consciousness." This isn't loopy Sixties stuff, or I wouldn't tune in. Al is tough-minded. He marshals history to make his argument, and countless examples of civilizations changing course and attitudes midstream roll off his tongue.
For Al, 2008 is a rendezvous with destiny and an appointment with the enemy. The foe he sees is our own indifference to the future and a lack of faith in our ability to do anything about it. He stresses that through crisis we can find opportunity. His language is pretty Biblical, but, then, doesn't the Bible say something about floods? He is like an Old Testament prophet amped up with PowerPoint and an army of the world's scientists at his disposal. The right response to the global-warming crisis, he explains, will be a mosaic of solutions that will kick off a whole new economic boom, one that is low-carbon and high-productivity, with truly sustainable development, and an atlas for planet management — using not New Age technology but old age wisdom generating sustainable solutions.
Is he Noah or are we King Canute? Are we prepared to make difficult choices on behalf of children not yet born? We cannot let the children of the developing world become canaries in the coal mine. If the tide should rise by 3 ft. (1 m), there could be over 100 million climate refugees in low-lying areas such as Bangladesh. If the tide rises 20 ft. (6 m), it's not just the summer homes of rock stars that will take sail; 400 million poor people could be uprooted and at sea. And one man's flood is another's drought: as coastal areas in Africa are drowned, travel inland and anything that isn't underwater will be even more parched than before. Think Sudan. People forget that extreme poverty as a result of desertification explains much of that country's travails.
Over the past year, "mild green" (me) and "khaki green" (him) have talked about how the fight against extreme poverty in the developing world and the struggle against climate change can reinforce each other. The poorest will be hit first and hardest by climate change. We can help them adapt, but they can help us, too. Vulnerable as the poor are, they can be powerful allies in stopping the cycle of environmental damage and extreme poverty. With the poor as partners we can slow overpopulation — as we must, because more population means more pollution. And we can help developing countries rev up their economies in a cleaner way than we did during the Industrial Revolution. The choices of the poor affect us, just as ours affect them; we are all part of one world, one moral universe, sharing one oxygen tank.
Desmond Tutu often uses the word ubuntu, meaning "I am because we are." It's my favorite epithet, an ode to interdependence. When I told Al that, he responded with Gandhi: Satyagraha, meaning "hold tight to the truth."
Personally, I'm trying to live up to both words, but it's hard. Like a lot of folks, I've got a lot on my plate without trying to make sure the dishwasher liquid is in a biodegradable container. (It is, but were it not for the eco-warrior with whom I share a bed, I would have fallen behind.) As Al leaves our house, I fall over myself to explain that my fancy car runs on ethanol, then laugh nervously, like when you meet a parish priest in the supermarket and it turns into confession.
Al isn't like that at all. He leads from the front, and if some sheep in the family stray, he's not stressed. He's not a zealot. Leaders often shout orders; generals bark; bellicose preachers, to save our souls, get gothic on our asses. But Al speaks in measured tones. He shows slides. He has an almost embarrassing faith in the power of facts to persuade both believer and skeptic. His enduring and overarching trait is, as it turns out, the pursuit of truth ... scientific truth, spiritual truth. That — and grace. Right now, he is an America the world needs to meet. 

In the Age of Noah

Jakarta, Indonesia

Skip to next paragraph

[photo credit:] Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times

Thomas L. Friedman

Go to Columnist Page »

A couple of weeks ago, The Times’s Jim Yardley reported from China that the world’s last known female Yangtze giant soft-shell turtle was living in one Chinese zoo, while the planet’s only undisputed, known giant soft-shell male turtle was living in another — and together this aging pair were the last hope of saving a species believed to be the largest freshwater turtles in the world.
It struck me as I read that story that our generation has entered a phase that no previous generation has ever experienced: the Noah phase. With more and more species threatened with extinction by The Flood that is today’s global economic juggernaut, we may be the first generation in human history that literally has to act like Noah — to save the last pairs of a wide range of species.
Or as God commanded Noah in Genesis: “And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every sort into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female.”
Unlike Noah, though, we’re also the ones causing The Flood, as more and more forests, fisheries, rivers and fertile soils are gobbled up for development. “The loss of global biological diversity is advancing at an unprecedented pace,” Sigmar Gabriel, Germany’s environment minister, recently told the BBC. “Up to 150 species are becoming extinct every day. ... The web of life that sustains our global society is getting weaker and weaker.”
The world is rightly focused on climate change. But if we don’t have a strategy for reducing global carbon emissions and preserving biodiversity, we could end up in a very bad place, like in a crazy rush into corn ethanol, and palm oil for biodiesel, without enough regard for their impact on the natural world.
“If we don’t plan well, we could find ourselves with a healthy climate on a dead planet,” said Glenn Prickett, senior vice president of Conservation International.
I met one of our generation’s Noahs here in Indonesia: Dr. Jatna Supriatna, a conservation biologist who runs Conservation International’s Indonesia programs. One of his main projects is saving the nearly extinct Javan gibbon, a beautiful primate endemic to the Indonesian island of Java. The Javan gibbon population, decimated by deforestation, is down to an estimated 400, spread out around 20 tropical forest areas in West Java.
Mr. Supriatna helps run the Javan gibbon rehabilitation center, a collection of cages embedded in the mountains of Gunung Gede Pangrango National Park, near Jakarta, where male and female gibbons — which are known for their lengthy courtships, not one-night stands — get to know each other over months. First, they live in forest cages side by side, then together and then, if everything works, they produce a couple of babies.
But the process is so slow, and the species so endangered, we may soon be down to the last few pairs — a great loss. Watching a gibbon swing from tree limbs, ropes and bars is like watching a small ape win the Olympic gold medal in gymnastics.
The only way to head off species loss in Indonesia, the country with the most diverse combination of plants, animals and marine life in the world, is the old truism, “It takes a village.” So much of his work here, said Mr. Supriatna, is trying to build coalitions by melding businesses that have an interest in preserving the forest — the geothermal energy investor, for example, who needs trees to maintain the watershed for his power plant — with local governments, which have an interest in preventing illegal logging, with local villagers who need forests to prevent soil erosion and provide fresh water.
Environmentalists here constantly have to work against corrupt local officials, who get bought off by logging interests, and villagers who don’t understand how important the forests are to their daily lives. One of his recent projects, said Mr. Supriatna, was to pipe fresh water from the forest watershed to a nearby village so people there understood the connection. Lately, he has taken his work to the imams who run the local Muslim schools.
“We teach them that the source of the water comes from the mountain and the park,” he said. “And if the park is gone, they will not have the clean water they need for prayer rituals. If you influence the imam, he will influence all the kids.”
For so many years, Indonesians, like many of us, have been taught that life is a trade-off: healthy people with lots of jobs or healthy forests with lots of gibbons — you can’t have both. But the truth is you have to have both. If you don’t, you’ll eventually end up with neither, and then it will be too late even for Noah.
(This is my last column until April. I will be on leave, writing a book on energy and the environment. Happy holidays!)
 
[Ends]

Biofuel companies have enjoyed a boost from federal energy legislation and the push to reduce foreign oil dependency. But the road ahead for corn-based ethanol, a booming market just a year ago, now faces many obstacles.

Some environmentalists, research organizations and food companies are labeling the fuel a villain because increased use could put stress on water supplies and further raise the price of food. It also could increase air pollution if vehicles designed for gasoline, but running on ethanol, aren't properly monitored.

Meanwhile, new ethanol plants have kept coming on line, even though the limited market for the fuel became saturated in 2007. Ethanol's price has collapsed as the price of corn used to produce it has risen dramatically, not a pretty picture for critics who believe the appropriate use of corn crops is to feed people.

What once seemed an obvious home run is a complex mix of pros and cons. Some positives are that it will be produced more efficiently, the means of transporting it will be improved, it creates many jobs, and rising oil prices could provide a big boost.

Companies that produce ethanol are consolidating to meet a future uncertain as to the fuel's pricing, long-term continuation of the government's ethanol-production mandates and the possibility of foreign-produced ethanol entering the United States.

The stock of VeraSun Energy Corp., one of the nation's largest ethanol refiners, is down sharply on the decline in ethanol prices.

Forging ahead based on a belief in future prospects, however, it is acquiring rival producer US BioEnergy Corp. in a $700 million deal that could make it the largest U.S. producer of ethanol. It projects that the combined firm will produce 1.64 billion gallons of ethanol next year.

Meanwhile, Archer Daniels Midland Co., the nation's largest ethanol producer, has turned in significant stock gains this year, thanks to strong results from the giant company's oilseeds processing and agricultural services. That offset the decline in ethanol profitability.

Petrobras blames US, EU barriers for ethanol export fall

bbj.hu

Brazilian state-owned oil and gas giant Petrobras Wednesday blamed the protectionist tariffs charged by the US and EU markets for the fall in the company’s ethanol exports.

Petrobras Executive Manager of Energy Development Mozart Schmitt Queiroz said Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva „has made a big effort” to lower the trade barriers, but that has not brought about any concrete results. Some ethanol shipments to the United States and the European Union were cancelled this year due to their protectionist measures, Queiroz said, adding such measures contradicted the principle of trade liberalization favored by both at international forums. He said the United States, „adopting a policy aimed at creating jobs” at home, would rather produce ethanol from corn at a greater cost than import Brazil’s sugarcane-made ethanol. Petrobras plans to invest $1.5 billion in bio-fuel projects by 2012 to boost its competitiveness in the emerging industry. (people.com.cn)
 
 
5.  http://www.semissourian.com/story/1299134.html
 

Ethanol has ups, downs

Friday, December 21, 2007

By Jack H. Knowlan Sr. Ethanol has been around for a long time and has had many ups and downs.

In 1860 German inventor Nicholas Otto invented the first internal combustion engine powered with ethanol.

In 1896 Henry Ford built his first Quadracycle to run on ethanol. In 1908 he manufactured a flexible Model T Ford to run on ethanol or gasoline.

In 1917 the World War I shortage of gasoline drove ethanol usage up to 50 million to 60 million gallons.

In 1942 during World War II a crude oil shortage caused a temporary increase in ethanol.

In 1973 the Arab oil embargo resulted in a gasoline crisis, long lines at the pump and 1974 legislation to promote cellulose fuel, which failed to produce any ethanol.

In 1978 action to decrease the lead level in gasoline brought about the Energy Tax Act, which promoted gasohol (10 percent ethanol) with a 40-cent-a-gallon subsidy to the producer and a 4-cent excise tax on the product.

In 1980 the Energy Security Act offered a $1 million loan to construct small ethanol plants.

In 1983 the Surface Transportation Act raised the ethanol subsidy to 50 cents a gallon, and plants peaked at 163 plants.

In 1984 the Tax Reform Act increased the ethanol subsidy to 60 cents a gallon, but crude oil prices dropped so low that even with the 60-cent subsidy only 74 of the 163 plants survived.

In 1995 the high $5-a-bushel corn prompted some states to give additional subsidies to keep plants solvent.

In 1998 ethanol subsidies extended through 2007 but reduced to 51 cents a gallon in 2005.

In 2006 more than 5 billion gallons of ethanol were produced from more than 2 billion bushels of corn.

The 2007 estimate is about 7.5 billion gallons of ethanol from about 3 billion bushels of corn.

The 2008 possible production could be 11 billion gallons from 4.4 billion bushels of corn.

The 2008 production estimate will be questionable for the following reason: Soybeans and wheat compete directly with corn for acreage in much of the Midwest. Soybeans require much less fertilizer than corn. Both soybeans and wheat prices are extremely high, and soybeans following wheat (double crop) would probably be more profitable than corn, thus reducing the corn acres.

Sixty bushels of soybeans at $10 a bushel could be more profitable than 150 bushels of corn at $5 a bushel.

If the hundreds of ethanol plants get greedy and gobble up more than their share of corn -- causing a severe shortage of milk, eggs and meat -- the president might wake up and remove the subsidies that keep the farmers in business. That more than likely would result in a low survival rate.

Limited ethanol production will undoubtedly continue until we find ways to reduce our fuel requirements and negotiate a more reliable source of supply.

It is ludicrous for us to assume ethanol can solve or even alleviate our dependence on fossil fuels. The worldwide crude oil supply and demand are so humongous and complicated that, even if ethanol gobbled up our entire corn crop and caused a food famine in the U.S., it would only be a drop in the bucket for our fuel-additive consumption.

Jack H. Knowlan Sr. of Jackson has an extensive agriculture background.
 

 
6.  http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1220/p02s01-usgn.html
 
 

President Bush signs the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, at the Energy Department in Washington. Applauding, from left are, Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer. Charles Dharapak/AP

As Bush signs energy bill, new issues come to the fore

Expect a political debate over how to regulate carbon-dioxide emissions come January, analysts say.

By Mark Clayton | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

from the December 20, 2007 edition

Reporter Mark Clayton discusses the new energy bill, signed into law Wednesday.

America is getting a green-energy law just in time for Christmas. It's not the great big one with a bow that environmentalists wanted, but, analysts say, it still represents nothing less than a new beginning on national energy policy.
After dodging White House veto threats and Senate filibusters, the slim-but-still-substantial energy bill was signed by President Bush Wednesday.
But the real gift to the nation may be the political breakthrough in Congress that produced the landmark first fuel-economy mandate in 32 years and a sevenfold increase in ethanol production by 2022, observers say.
"There's a fundamentally different dynamic in Congress now," says Bracken Hendricks, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, a progressive policy think tank in Washington. "The fact that an increase in fuel economy standards was able to pass by a 3-to-1 margin would have been unimaginable a year ago."
Despite all the rhetoric, until this month the US had not made much progress on either oil dependency or climate change – the two major structural challenges to the US energy system and economy, says Jason Grumet, executive director of the National Commission on Energy Policy. But the new energy bill brought energy hawks, environmental advocates, states, and consumers together into "a new political equation," he says.
That breakthrough sets wheels in motion for a series of shifts and battles in months that will reinvigorate national energy policy, observers say. Issues coming to the fore as a result of the new energy law include:
•Climate cap-and-trade: Because energy use and emissions go hand in hand, the new energy law accelerates debate over regulating carbon-dioxide emissions across the US economy. Key legislation, such as the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act, would require a cap-and-trade system to cut CO2 emissions 15 percent below current levels by 2020. The bill already has significant support and, despite White House opposition, debate over the measure is expected as soon as January.
•Climate tailpipe regulation: By year end, Environmental Protection Agency chief Stephen Johnson is expected to respond to an April Supreme Court ruling that the EPA has authority to regulate greenhouse gases. If the EPA grants California a waiver, the Golden State and 16 others could crack down on carbon-dioxide emissions from passenger vehicles – putting more pressure on automakers.
•Renewable electric power: At least 23 states are already demanding greenhouse-gas reductions through renewable portfolio standards that require utilities to get a portion of their energy mix from renewable sources. Although a national renewable standard for utilities was dropped from the energy bill, congressional leaders say it will be raised again next year.
•Wind and solar tax credits: Wind and solar industries are fighting to see vital tax credits, which were dropped from the energy bill, get tucked into other legislation. Without them, US production is likely to sag and big Japanese and German companies will grab a huge lead in renewable energy technology. Congressional leaders have promised action early next year.
•Critical technology acceleration: Given a boost by the energy bill, research funding for battery technology for plug-in hybrids will accelerate along with research into cellulosic ethanol from noncorn sources.
These are among the key issues that will emerge within a new political dynamic on Capitol Hill, observers say. Now that the contentious fuel economy issue has been put to rest, legislators will seek to act on other energy matters, observers say.
"We're now in a transitional period in which biofuels and fuel economy is just a first step," says Reid Detchon, executive director of the Energy Future Coalition, a nonprofit bipartisan public policy initiative. "The stage is set now for plug-in hybrid vehicles with biofuels as a primary fuel. In that scenario, petroleum plays only a very small part."
Instead of considering energy once every seven years, Congress can also be expected to more regularly, if not continually, pass energy bills that "tweak" America's push toward energy self-sufficiency and away from global-warming emissions. "The US has shifted into a chronic state of action on energy," Mr. Grumet says.
Even if the Bush administration remains opposed, the new political alliance that broke the deadlock on auto mileage will be a new political fulcrum on a range of energy-related issues, including climate-change regulation, observers predict.
"We've had a breakthrough not just on the substance of the energy issue," Grumet says. "Now there appears to be a political pathway forward."

 

What's in the new energy law?

Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) – Raises average fleet fuel-economy standards for cars and light trucks to 35 miles per gallon by 2020.
Renewable fuels – Expands the renewable fuels standard to 9 billion gallons in 2008 and increases it to 36 billion gallons by 2022.
Requires the US to produce 21 billion gallons of advanced biofuels, such as cellulosic ethanol.
Light bulbs – Increases national efficiency standards of light bulbs by 30 percent and phases out most types of incandescent bulbs by 2012-14.
Green buildings – Mandates that federal buildings renovated or newly constructed in 2010 reduce their fossil-fuel-generated consumption by 55 percent in 2010 and 100 percent by 2030.
Source: The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007

 
[Ends]

http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/46164/story.htm

BRAZIL: December 21, 2007

BRASILIA - Brazil's Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that the
government could restart construction of an irrigation project that
has a Catholic bishop on a three-week hunger strike.

The opposition to the project was a setback for President Luiz Inacio
Lula da Silva, the main defender of the venture, and could renew
investors' concern about regulatory uncertainty surrounding
infrastructure projects.
Brazil's largest public works venture aims to pump water from the Sao
Francisco River through 435 miles (700 km) of canals to people and
farms in the arid and poor northeast, where Lula was born.

The Supreme Court overruled a federal judge who last week questioned
the government's authority for land and water use and ordered
construction to halt. The court also rejected challenges to the
project's environmental permit.

Bishop Luiz Cappio began a hunger strike on Nov. 27 to protest the
project, which he and other critics say is too expensive and would
benefit wealthy landowners more than poor peasants. Environmentalists
fear reducing the river's level could affect navigability, fish
migration and biodiversity.

The government has been trying to negotiate the end of Cappio's
hunger strike by offering time for more public debate on the project.
Lula also asked the Vatican to intermediate. (Reporting by Raymond
Colitt; Edited by Elzio Barreto)

REUTERS NEWS SERVICE

(News article followed by Abstract)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7148278.stm

19th December 2007

Globally, forests are being cleared to open up areas to agriculture
The benefits of cutting down tropical forests in order to convert the
nutrient-rich soil into farmland are only short-lived, scientists
suggest.
US researchers studied deforested land in Mexico and found that soil
levels of phosphorus, a key nutrient for plants, fell by 44% after
three growing cycles.

In the long-term, the land risked becoming so degraded that it would
be uneconomic to farm, they added.

The findings appear in the Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences.

Downward spiral

The researchers from the University of Virginia examined the
disruption to the phosphorus (P) cycle in southern Yucatan, where a
dry tropical forest had been felled to become farmland.



"After three cultivation-fallow cycles, available soil P declines by
44%, and one-time P inputs from biomass burning decline by 76% from
mature forest levels," they wrote.

The team added that the lack of a forest's canopy also resulted in
hampering an area's ability to replenish phosphorus levels.

"The decline in new P from atmospheric deposition creates a long-term
negative ecosystem balance."

The ongoing decline of the nutrient, which is a key component in the
growth of organisms, triggered a "feedback" effect, they explained.

It could affect the growth of plants in the study area, and "may
induce a shift to sparser vegetation", they warned.


http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0705005104v1

Ecological feedbacks following deforestation create the potential for
a catastrophic ecosystem shift in tropical dry forest

Deborah Lawrence*, Paolo D'Odorico, Lucy Diekmann, Marcia DeLonge,
Rishiraj Das, and James Eaton

Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia, Clark
Hall, P.O. Box 400123, Charlottesville, VA 22904

Edited by B. L. Turner II, Clark University, Worcester, MA, and
approved October 9, 2007 (received for review May 28, 2007)

Abstract

The long-term ecological response to recurrent deforestation
associated with shifting cultivation remains poorly investigated,
especially in the dry tropics. We present a study of phosphorus (P)
dynamics in the southern Yucatán, highlighting the possibility of
abrupt shifts in biogeochemical cycling resulting from positive
feedbacks between vegetation and its limiting resources. After three
cultivation–fallow cycles, available soil P declines by 44%, and one-
time P inputs from biomass burning decline by 76% from mature forest
levels. Interception of dust-borne P ("canopy trapping") declines
with lower plant biomass and leaf area, limiting deposition in
secondary forest. Potential leaching losses are greater in secondary
than in mature forest, but the difference is very small compared with
the difference in P inputs. The decline in new P from atmospheric
deposition creates a long-term negative ecosystem balance for
phosphorus. The reduction in soil P availability will feed back to
further limit biomass recovery and may induce a shift to sparser
vegetation. Degradation induced by hydrological and biogeochemical
feedbacks on P cycling under shifting cultivation will affect farmers
in the near future. Without financial support to encourage the use of
fertilizer, farmers could increase the fallow period, clear new land,
or abandon agriculture for off-farm employment. Their response will
determine the regional balance between forest loss and forest
regrowth, as well as the frequency of use and rate of recovery at a
local scale, further feeding back on ecological processes at multiple
scales.


atmospheric deposition | phosphorus | positive feedback | shifting
cultivation | soil degradation



----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
Footnotes
Author contributions: D.L., P.D., L.D., M.D., and J.E. designed
research; D.L., L.D., M.D., and J.E. performed research; D.L., L.D.,
M.D., R.D., and J.E. analyzed data; and D.L. and P.D. wrote the
paper.

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

This article is a PNAS Direct Submission.



As well as the area's ecosystem, the researchers added that local
farmers were likely to be affected.

"Without financial support to encourage the use of fertilisers,
farmers could increase the fallow period, clear new land, or abandon
agriculture for off-farm employment," they wrote.

"[The farmers'] response will determine the regional balance between
forest loss and forest regrowth."

http://ec.europa.eu/research/headlines/news/article_07_12_21_en.html

Published on 21st December 2007

New data shows that massive amounts of carbon dioxide are being
released from tropical Southeast Asian peatland after the conversion
of natural swamp forest to oil palm or pulpwood tree plantations. The
findings are in accordance with other recent reports on the growing
negative environmental impacts of planting palm oil and pulpwood
forests.

When peatland is deforested and then left bare and unmanaged the
denuded land is susceptible to both fire and flooding.

Natural peatland accumulates huge stores of carbon dioxide as a
result of centuries of tree growth. When this land is deforested to
grow oil palms and pulpwood, carbon dioxide is released into the
atmosphere thereby contributing to climate change. Even worse, when
peatland is deforested and then left bare and unmanaged, the denuded
land is susceptible to both fire and flooding. Tropical peatlands are
not only rich repositories of vegetation and an important part of the
global carbon cycle, they are also extremely important for
biodiversity as they contain many rare species of animals and fish
including orang utans, Sumatran tigers and blackwater fish.

Peat swamp forest is the only land in Southeast Asia that is not yet
fully developed but the increasing demand for pulp and palm oil for
biofuels is accelerating their conversion into plantations. Oil palm
plantations in Malaysia and Indonesia now cover 420 000 ha and 2 800
000 ha respectively. Ironically, many experts believe that the oil
palm plantations will release up to 30 times more carbon dioxide than
the fossil fuels that they are supposed to replace. It has been
estimated that producing 1 tonne of palm oil will cause carbon
dioxide emissions of between 15 and 70 tonnes over each 25-year
planting lifecycle due to forest clearance, fires drainage and peat
decomposition.

Climate change has been focused up to now on greenhouse gases emitted
by large industrial plants, but attention is now starting to be
focused on carbon dioxide emissions from deforestation. Dr Susan Page
from the University of Leicester in the UK is working on two EU-
funded projects: CARBOPEAT and RESTORPEAT. Both have been designed to
raise awareness of climate change. She says: 'Current land use and
land practice developments in Southeast Asia give grave cause for
concern. Deforestation of peatlands has been rising for the last 20
years. In 2005, 25 percent of all deforestation in Southeast Asia was
on peatlands owing to demand for land on which to establish
plantations.'

The CARBOPEAT and RESTORPEAT projects involve partners from
Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam, Holland, Finland and the UK. The
partners are conducting research in Vietnam, Indonesia and Malaysia
on how tropical peat swamp forest could be used more productively to
create sustainable and environmentally friendly livelihoods for local
communities.

A United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
conference on climate change was held on 4-14 December 2007 in Bali,
Indonesia, to allow delegates to discuss proposals to regulate
international requirements for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions under
the Kyoto Protocol.

http://www.monitor.co.ug/artman/publish/news/Mabira_giveaway_not_yet_r
esolved.shtml

LAND BONANZA: Yasiin Mugerwa

PARLIAMENT

PRESIDENT Yoweri Museveni has resurrected the controversial Mabira
Forest giveaway debate, telling the NRM Parliamentary Caucus that the
issue is yet to be resolved.

Presenting his 11-page statement on industrialisation to the Caucus
on Monday, President Museveni urged them to take a decision.

"Those opposing industrialisation, apart from being enemies of NRM,
are, in particular, enemies of the youth because they are the ones
who need these jobs. I can no longer tolerate this. I will mobilise
the youth to smash politically all these cliques obstructing the
future of the youth and the country," Mr Museveni said.

The President also defended Mehta's request for the acquisition of
7,100 hectares of Mabira Forest, to be turned into a sugarcane
plantation, saying the investor only wanted some land in the under-
utilised part of the forest.

"Mehta wants to expand his factory in Lugazi. He wanted some land in
the under-utilised part of Mabira because there was no alternative
land nearby and we could not shift the factory. Criminals and
charlatans kicked up lies and even caused death of people in Kampala.
We suppressed the thugs. This issue should be resolved," Mr
Museveni's statement reads in part.

A clandestine government plan to give away 17,540 acres, nearly a
third of the forest to Mehta, drew strong resistance from
environmentalists and the public.

Sporadic riots broke out in the country in April this year, claiming
the lives of one Indian and two Ugandans. But more than eight months
later, no official government position has been reached.

However, in October, Finance Minister Ezra Suruma announced to the
world that the government had dropped the controversial plan to give
away part of Mabira forest.

This was at a dinner meeting hosted by the South American President
of the Republic of Guyana, Mr Bharrat Jagdeo, in Georgetown. The
President's announcement therefore appears to contradict Dr Suruma's
declaration.

The Caucus is yet to debate President Museveni's document, experts
say that should members endorse the Mabira giveaway as part of the
industrialisation agenda, it will be a setback for environmental
activists who have crusaded for months against the giveaway of the
forest.

Ecological experts have argued that razing part of Mabira would
threaten rare species, dry up a watershed for streams that feed Lake
Victoria and remove a crucial buffer against pollution of the lake
from two industrial towns.

Talking about his 'vision' for an industrialised Uganda, the
President told the Caucus that NRM must find the answers to what he
described as 'bottlenecks to the much-needed rapid industrialisation
of the country'.

"I need cohesion from all you [MPs] on this matter. This is where the
future of the country lies. If we don't industrialise the country,
where shall we get employment for the youth?" Mr Museveni asked.

He added: "Some of the industries need big chunks of land; examples
of this are sugar, palm oil, bio-fuels etc. Some don't need too much
land. We need and we are capable of having both."

Available figures calculated by Environmental Alert show that the
cost of cutting away part of Mabira in terms of carbon credit is
estimated at $316 million. The value of the land is estimated at
about $5 million and the value of the wood at another whopping $568
million.

This means the public stands to lose almost $890 million [about
Shs1.5 trillion) as a result of the government's plan to degazette
part of the forest.

From World Rainforest Movement Bulleting, December 2007
(www.wrm.org.uy)

Papua New Guinea: Woodlark's islanders demand a halt to oil palm
plantations

The 85,000 hectares territory of Woodlark Island in Papua New
Guinea's Milne Bay Province is almost totally covered by dense
lowland rainforest -lowland dry forest on the eastern side and dense
jungle on the western side - which is home to several endemic
species. Woodlark Island holds unique ebony species which include
dark/black, grey and grey/black varieties, - there are no other
forests of this type in the world.

Most of the 6,000 island's inhabitants depend on the available
natural environment as well as the marine resources, doing gardening -
-they mainly plant yams, taro, sweet potatoes, and bananas- as well
as fishing and hunting -that play a smaller, though important, role
in their diet.

Now the island faces the threat of being swallowed by a proposed
60,000 hectare oil palm estate, which is part of a project by the
Malaysian-based company Vitroplant Ltd. The project also includes the
building of an oil palm methyl ester plant in the province's capital
city of Alotau. Woodlark will feed the plant with the palm oil beans
grown in the extensive monoculture oil palm plantations to be
converted into biodiesel for domestic consumption and export.

The oil palm plantation establishment will be situated on
approximately 60,000 ha. Most of the project would be developed on
governmental land and the rest as village oil palm, i.e. oil palm on
customary land.

The company has submitted an application for an Environmental Permit
which is still pending of awarding. According to the application,
they have stated that all necessary requirements had been fulfilled,
including consultation with the landowners.

However, George Laume, from CELCOR INC. Friends of the Earth-PNG,
received reports from concerned people from the island regarding the
major palm oil project and recently he gathered that there is still
lack of consultation and communities are opposing this development.

Last month's Jeremy Hance report (1) said that 'according to the
islanders, they were never consulted regarding the plans until after
the government had already granted the lease to Vitroplant Ltd.' Dr.
Simon Piyuwes is an island born medical doctor who has become an
advocator of the struggle against the oil palm plantation. Hance
quotes Piyuwes's 'several reasons why Vitroplant Ltd.'s plans are
unacceptable to the islanders'. He states that the logging would
destroy the island's endemic ebony, cause extinctions of rare
species, and threaten marine life by waste from the project. Not only
does he foresee environmental disaster, but also disintegration of
the native culture, stating that the company's plans would
bring 'socially unacceptable behavior on the island'. And that all
the islanders would eventually be threatened with 'starvation'
since 'there will be no space for gardening and hunting'. Dr. Piyuwes
admits that while there may be some economic and infrastructure
benefits to the island, he believes the disadvantages far outweigh
the advantages.'

A project heralded by its promoters as crucial to the island's
development, is perceived by many as a threat for Papua New Guinea.
Recently, more than one hundred islanders and supporters traveled to
the Milne Bay provincial government headquarters in Alotau, to demand
a halt to the palm oil project and claim their land back.

They know that the Vitroplant project -that implies logging- will
cause the waters to become turbid. This, in turn, will imply the
death of coral reefs fringing the Island for lack of sunlight. The
reefs and fishing grounds, fishery nurseries (mangroves) as well as
food producing areas for the island will be affected. Hunting and
foods gathered from the bush will be lost.  The people of Woodlark
Island will become dependent on imported, processed food for their
sustenance and will be forced to work on oil palm plantations to
survive.

Oil Palm is labor intensive and the current population of
approximately 6000 will not be able to bear the load of an oil palm
plantation of this scale. A work force will need to be imported on to
the Island to meet the demand of labor further exacerbating social
and environmental pressures.

It has been suggested in the environmental plan that this will bring
employment to other Papua New Guineans. Papua New Guinea is one of
the most culturally diverse countries in the world with more than 850
different spoken languages. This means there are many cultural
differences within relatively small distances. An introduction of
outside groups will place immense pressure on the local population.

Growing from the grassroots, a halt to oil palm plantations may
change the course of the country. Building on the awareness,
determination, and drive of Woodlark's islanders, that change could
be realised.


Article based on information provided by George Laume, CELCOR INC.
FoE-PNG, e-mail: glaume@..., www.celcor.org.pg, and  (1)
Biofuels versus Native Rights: Planned logging of Woodlark Island for
biofuels opposed by islanders and scientists, Jeremy Hance, special
to mongabay.com. November 12, 2007,
http://news.mongabay.com/2007/1112-hance_woodlark.html

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.17.4/1188 - Release Date: 17/12/2007
14:13

Check out this hard-hitting Chappatte cartoon called Biofuels vs Food on
http://www.globecartoon.com/

I have uploaded this paper under 'files' on the Yahoo Group, since the
attachment got deleted by Yahoo.

Almuth


--- In biofuelwatch@yahoogroups.com, helena <h.paul@...> wrote:
>
> This paper is from Navdanya, India, which works closely with the
Research
> Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology and is therefore
linked with
> Vandana Shiva. Some photos have been removed to make it easier to
download.
>
> The India case studies look very useful.
>
> Helena Paul
>

4th December 2007

STATEMENT: FUELLING CONCERNS

We, farmers, people's movements, NGOs and concerned individuals came
together from different parts of India – Andhra Pradesh, Bihar,
Chhattisgarh, Delhi, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh,
Maharashtra, Nagaland, Orissa, Rajasthan, to share concerns and
experiences on "bio"fuels at an all-India event in village Didgi of
Medak District in the southern state of Andhra Pradesh to truly
debate the question whether this so called energy-cropping will
deliver or destroy.

Indigenous peoples, pastoralists, small farmers and tribal
communities all across India have a holistic view of life that
reflects in their interaction with the living world.  This living
world  provides for all their needs of food, cure, fuel, fodder,
energy, etc. A diversity-based existence intrinsic to their cultures
taps bio-mass energy in truly ecological ways. It has no space for
either monocultures or monopolies. We believe that the promotion
of large-scale corporate-sponsored "bio"fuels (agrofuels) in the garb
of improving energy security is yet another form of not only
physically destroying the above, but also a psychological assault
perpetrating the idea that farming as our peoples have done it is no
longer good or tenable.

The widespread propagation of plants like Jatropha to be grown
for "oil for fuel" is more destruction than deliverance. It takes
over lands which are core to the food sovereignty of several
families, falsely considering them "waste", and converts them to
monoculture plantations which are susceptible to all the problems of
industrial agriculture. Rural and forest communities with whom most
of us are working, say that there is no such thing as wastelands.
Most of these lands are grazing lands, common pastures, degraded
forests and also lands of small and marginal farmers. They not only
support a multitude of livelihoods but also have a critical
ecological role. This is where the government and corporates are
pushing for "their" fuels displacing thousands of peoples.   In
places such as in Orissa, this conspiracy to alienate people from
their lands takes the shape of contract & "compact" farming. In
places like Chhattisgarh the plantation cultivation of Jatropha
in the already fragile ecosystems of protected areas makes matters
worse.

Experiences from Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Andhra Pradesh vividly
brought to us the fact of how *Jatropha curcas* – known as the 'hell
oil plant', can be a curse to both flora and fauna and people. The
plant itself can be a pest bank, spurring the use of pesticides. In
spite of this knowledge, under the intense pressure of the corporate
lobby the neo liberal planners of the country are surging ahead with
massive jatropha plantations in several parts of the country, paving
the path of permanent destruction of India's environment and
communities.

While such destruction of people's fields, forests and commons goes
on the one hand on the other hand some realities about the "bio"fuels
are hidden from the world.

1. The processing for such extraction of oil or gas is not energy
efficient and therefore not any more climate-friendly. It cannot be
considered as either a mitigation or adaptation solution to climate
change crises without addressing the real reasons why such change is
actually taking place.

2. Jatropha, sugarcane & other plantations are highly water-demanding
and in places such as Rajasthan, which are already water stressed,
jatropha can only remain a "hell crop".

3. "Bio"/agrofuels are also a way of bringing genetically engineered
crops from the back door. Therefore the GM lobby is a natural ally of
these fuel crops

4. Agrofuels & their second generation will also bring with them the
spectre of oppressive patents and IPR regime which will be an insult
and assault on the knowledge traditions of local communities

5. It is clear that the paradigm of bio fuels is not people-friendly.
Is it eco-justice that some countries and the elite groups within our
own country refuse to give up their consumptive lifestyles and
instead create demands for fuels which then is thrust on people's in
countries like ours in the shape of "bio"fuels?

By listening to all these evidences we are convinced that agrofuels
are no way of tackling climate change but a way of further supporting
the current consumptive paradigm that is the source of climate change
crisis. What also needs to be reversed is the advertising and
propaganda that encourages peoples to consume more and more! Also the
large farm-to-food model that promotes chemical agriculture,
mechanised operations adding unnecessary "food miles" and wasteful
packaging, not only adds to the problem of climate change but erodes
our biodiverse traditions. The food retail revolution that we are
poised on would only aggravate the situation. Without changing all
this, any one renewable energy law or policy will not address the
concerns.

What needs to be genuinely reversed is the mindless "development"
that is being hankered after.

We reject any pseudo -"solutions" that our thrown upon us from
outside that too touted as clean and green, which they are not. We
neither asked for "agro"fuels as they are being propagated with such
speed and at such scale, nor do we believe that they offer solutions
for our real problems.

For that reason some of us even feel that the term agrofuels might
even corrupt the sanctity of the word agriculture and so some
suggested that it alternatively be called *corp. -fuels*, which both
indicate that they are corporate-run and are death-giving turning our
agriculture into a 'corp'se!

The agriculture as our small farmers know and live by is life-giving.
Agrofuels only add another layer of problems on to our peoples already
facing be it large developmental projects, resource privatisation,
mining MNCs, SEZs (special economic zones). Agro fuels only fuel more
national crises and serves no national purpose as is said for energy
security.

In solidarity with other people's movements and concerned voices
across other parts of Asia & the world against "bio"fuels, our
demands include:

-         stop misuse of all government funds, schemes, programmes,
etc. like NREGA for promoting "bio"fuels; the targeting of
*Panchayats* at the local level and pressurising of village level
institutions must stop

-         halt targets for conversion to fuel blending schemes until
steps are taken to reduce demand, increase fuel efficiency & genuine
research on other viable options for transportation is done

-         no conversion of land use causing the displacement of our
peoples, nor the displacement of food and fibre crops for fuel
purposes

-         call to all governments to show will and commitment to
towards taking definitive actions to halt the root causes of climate
change

-         support and recognise real people's efforts at energy
conservation on the ground that truly keep "bio" something of life
and living

signed by participants of…

1. Mr Ravi Rebbapragada, SAMATA, Andhra Pradesh
2. Mr Devludu, SANJEEVINI, Andhra Pradesh
3. Dr Sagari R Ramdas,ANTHRA, Andhra Pradesh
4. Dr Mohammed Osman, Principal Scientist (Agronomy),Central Research
    Institute for Dryland Agriculture (CRIDA), Andhra Pradesh
5. Mr P V Satheesh, Deccan Development Society, Andhra Pradesh
6. Women Farmers of Deccan Development Society, Andhra Pradesh
7. Mr Pankaj Oudhia, Agricutlure Scientist, Chattisgarh
8. Mr Birsing Sinku, Jharkhandi Organisation Against Radiation
    (JOAR), Jharkhand
9. Mr Simon Hansdak, Jharkhand Mines Area Coordination Committee
(JMACC), Jharkhand
10.Mr Pandurang Hegde, APPIKO / PRAKRUTI, Karnataka
11. Mr Mastan Biradar, Right to Food Campaign,Karnataka
12. Mr Krishna Srinivasan, ECONET, Maharashtra
13. Mr Vijay Jawandhia, Shetkari Sangathana, Maharashtra
14. Dr Utkarsh Ghate, Gangotri TrustGangotree Ecotechnology PVt
Ltd, Maharashtra
15. Mr. Rahul Yadav, Shoshit Sewa Sansthan,Madhya Pradesh
16.  Ms. Imrongkumla, Nagaland Emplowerment of People through
Economic Development(NEPED),Nagaland
17. Mr Ashok B Sharma, Concerned citizen and correspondent ,  New
Delhi
18.  Mr Anil Chaudhary, INSAF, New Delhi
19.  Ms Kanchi Kohli, Kalpavriksh, New Delhi
20.  Ms Shalini Bhutani, GRAIN, New Delhi
21. Dr Krishan Bir Chaudhary , *Bharatiya Krishak Samaj, *New Delhi
22. Mr Prafulla Samantara, *Lokshakti Abhiyan, *Orissa
23. Mr. Tushar  Dash, Vasundhara, Orissa
24.  Mr Aman Singh, Krishi Avam Paristhitiki, Vikas Sansthan
(KRAPAVIS), Rajasthan
25.  Mr Aditya Pandey, Centre for Community Economics and Development
Consultants Society (CECOEDECON), Rajasthan
26. Viren Lobo, Programme Director, SPWD, Rajasthan
27. Ms Kumari Ghimire, Namsaling Community Development Centre
(NCDC),Nepal
28. Mr Sujan Parajuli, Nepal Institute for Development Studies
(NIDS), Nepal
29.  Mr Daniel Buckles,IDRC,Canada