Brazil: Monocrops for biofools is a much, much greater risk than fossil fuels
The expansion of monocropping for the production of agro-fuels tends
to exacerbate this problem, advancing the agricultural borders of the
Amazon and the Cerrado. Diverse studies show that the expansion of
monocropping represents a greater risk for global warming than do
emissions of carbon coming from fossil fuels. In spite of the
Brazilian government’s attempts to convince the international
community that Brazilian ethanol is “renewable,” between 2007 and 2008
there was a significant change with regard to this idea.
The problem
of many studies done before was that they excluded the environmental
impacts of the model of production, from the use of natural resources
(like land and water) to the pressure to use preservation areas, or
areas used for food production. One report from Time Magazine
observes that these studies have calculated the potential to tie up
carbon from agro-fuels without taking into account the impact of
monocropping in areas where vegetation and soil accumulate a great
quantity of carbon. “It is as if these scientists image that biofuels
are cultivated in parking lots,” said the article.4
One of the most
important studies about the change in the forms of land use and its
relation to the increase in carbon emissions was published in Science
magazine. The authors affirm that “The majority of the previous
studies discovered that replacing gasoline with biofuels could reduce
carbon emission. Those analyses do not take into account that carbon
emission happens when farmers, throughout the world, respond to higher
prices and convert forests and fields into new plantations, to
substitute plantations of grain which were used for biofuels.” The
article cites the increase in soy prices as an influencing factor in
the acceleration of deforestation in the Amazon, and estimates that
its cultivation for the production of diesel results in a carbon debt
from which will take 319 years to recover.
According to researcher
Timothy Searchinger, from Princeton University, “Forests and fields
have much carbon, however, there is no way to reap the benefits by
transforming these lands into crops for biofuels.” This study
demonstrates that the effects of production of agro-fuels should be
evaluated with the whole cycle of monoculture expansion. In Brazil,
we know that sugarcane plantations are expanding very quickly,
“pushing” forward agricultural borders and, at the same time,
preparing the way for the expansion of cattle-raising and soy
production. Given this, a true environmental impact study should
include the whole agricultural sector and the whole process of ethanol
production. In January of 2008, the Smithsonian Institute of Tropical
Research reported that sugar-based ethanol and soy-based agro-diesel
cause more damage to the environment than fossil fuels. The research
draws attention to the environmental destruction in Brazil, caused by
the increase in the production of sugarcane and soy in the Amazon, the
Atlantic Rainforest, and the Cerrado. According to researcher William
Laurance, “the production of fuels, be it from soy or sugar, also
causes an increase in the cost of food, both in a direct and indirect
way.” The release of these studies confirms the denouncements from
social organizations and shows the change in tone of the international
debate on these issues. As the newspaper El País observes, “diverse
research centers, and the majority of ecological and human rights
groups send out daily declarations affirming that biofuels do not help
to combat climatic changes, but provoke serious environmental impacts
on regions with high ecological value, alter the price of food, and
consolidate an agricultural model based on exploitation of workers and
high dependence on big multinational companies.”
http://www.alainet.org/active/28442&lang=es
— Posted to http://forestpolicyresearch.com via gmail to posterous and
also to forestpolicyresearch@yahoogroups.com