Seeing Red: Palm Oil Biodiesel
In the enthusiasm for renewable energy and taking care of our environment, it is easy to
assume that making fuel from plants (biofuel) must be by definition "green" and renewable.
However when it comes to energy issues, easy assumptions can be dangerous assumptions.
In previous years some politicians and advocates in Europe have made these assumptions
without sufficient thought and research and secured government subsidies for companies
importing palm oil from South East Asia to make biodiesel for transport and for use in
electricity generation.
The demand for palm oil in Europe has soared in the last two decades, first for use in food
and cosmetics, and more recently for fuel. This cheap oil can be used for a variety of
purposes, including as an ingredient in about 10 percent of supermarket products, from
chocolate to toothpaste.
Promoted by hundreds of millions of dollars in national subsidies, the Netherlands quickly
became the leading importer of palm oil in Europe, taking in 1.7 million tons in 2006, nearly
double the previous year.
Now it is increasingly difficult to ignore the mounting body of scientific evidence that palm oil
plantations in Indonesia and Malaysia, rather than preserving the environment are in fact
actively destroying it. By subsidising biofuels, European governments have artificially raised
demand for palm oil in Europe, and accelerated the destruction of huge areas of rainforest
in South East Asia. Palm oil plantations are often expanded by draining and burning
peatland, releasing enormous amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. As a result
Indonesia has become the world's third largest emitter of carbon dioxide, ranked after the
United States and China, according to a study released in December by researchers from
Wetlands International and Delft Hydraulics, both based in the Netherlands.
The 2003 European Union Biofuels Directive, which required all member states aim to have
5.75 percent of transportation run on biofuel in 2010, is now under review. In the
Netherlands, the data from Indonesia has prompted the government to suspend palm oil
subsidies.
In Europe a small amount of grapeseed and sunflower oil is used to make diesel fuel,
however increasingly plant oils are being imported from the tropics, since there is simply not
enough plant matter or land for biofuel production at home. So while the billions of dollars in
European subsidies appear to have reduced carbon emissions in European countries by
importing biofuels, this has been achieved by exporting them and increasing their impact
many times by the permanent destruction of rainforest and peatland in South East Asia.
For anyone familiar with how the ethanol industry works in the United States, they will be
unsurprised to learn that the palm oil industry was promoted long before there was adequate
research. Biofuel Watch, an environment group in Britain, now says that "biofuels should not
automatically be classed as renewable energy." It supports a stop on subsidies until more
research can determine if various biofuels in different regions are produced in a nonpolluting
manner. The group also suggests that all emissions arising from the production of a biofuel
be counted as emissions in the country where the fuel is actually used, providing a clearer
accounting of environmental costs.
BEFORE: rainforest on the Indonesian part of the island of Borneo
Friends of the Earth estimates that 87 percent of the deforestation in Malaysia from 1985 to
2000 was caused by new palm oil plantations. In Indonesia, the amount of land devoted to
palm oil has increased 118 percent in the last eight years.
AFTER: a palm oil plantation
Peat is an organic sponge composed of 90 percent water that stores huge amounts of
carbon, which when it is drained emits huge amounts of carbon into the atmosphere.
Even worse peatland is often burned to clear ground for plantations. The Dutch study
estimated that the draining of peatland in Indonesia releases 660 million tons of carbon a
year into the atmosphere and that fires contributed 1.5 billion tons annually.
The total is equivalent to 8 percent of all global emissions caused annually by burning fossil
fuels, the researchers said. "These emissions generated by peat drainage in Indonesia were
not counted before," according to a Wetlands spokesperson. "It was a totally ignored
problem."
While for the moment the widescale destruction of rainforests in South East Asia continues,
hopefully the palm oil story will serve as a cautionary tale which will lead to much better
informed policymaking and behaviour. Politicians must resist the urge to rush to legislate and
subsidise in order to bask in the glow of being seen to be "doing something" while a number
of so-called green companies profit from taxpayer subsidised destruction. Energy policy
must make sense from a scientific (i.e. it should be energy positive), economic and
environmental viewpoint. However the continued promotion of ethanol and coal-to-liquids
calls for continued skepticism.
assume that making fuel from plants (biofuel) must be by definition "green" and renewable.
However when it comes to energy issues, easy assumptions can be dangerous assumptions.
In previous years some politicians and advocates in Europe have made these assumptions
without sufficient thought and research and secured government subsidies for companies
importing palm oil from South East Asia to make biodiesel for transport and for use in
electricity generation.
The demand for palm oil in Europe has soared in the last two decades, first for use in food
and cosmetics, and more recently for fuel. This cheap oil can be used for a variety of
purposes, including as an ingredient in about 10 percent of supermarket products, from
chocolate to toothpaste.
Promoted by hundreds of millions of dollars in national subsidies, the Netherlands quickly
became the leading importer of palm oil in Europe, taking in 1.7 million tons in 2006, nearly
double the previous year.
Now it is increasingly difficult to ignore the mounting body of scientific evidence that palm oil
plantations in Indonesia and Malaysia, rather than preserving the environment are in fact
actively destroying it. By subsidising biofuels, European governments have artificially raised
demand for palm oil in Europe, and accelerated the destruction of huge areas of rainforest
in South East Asia. Palm oil plantations are often expanded by draining and burning
peatland, releasing enormous amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. As a result
Indonesia has become the world's third largest emitter of carbon dioxide, ranked after the
United States and China, according to a study released in December by researchers from
Wetlands International and Delft Hydraulics, both based in the Netherlands.
The 2003 European Union Biofuels Directive, which required all member states aim to have
5.75 percent of transportation run on biofuel in 2010, is now under review. In the
Netherlands, the data from Indonesia has prompted the government to suspend palm oil
subsidies.
In Europe a small amount of grapeseed and sunflower oil is used to make diesel fuel,
however increasingly plant oils are being imported from the tropics, since there is simply not
enough plant matter or land for biofuel production at home. So while the billions of dollars in
European subsidies appear to have reduced carbon emissions in European countries by
importing biofuels, this has been achieved by exporting them and increasing their impact
many times by the permanent destruction of rainforest and peatland in South East Asia.
For anyone familiar with how the ethanol industry works in the United States, they will be
unsurprised to learn that the palm oil industry was promoted long before there was adequate
research. Biofuel Watch, an environment group in Britain, now says that "biofuels should not
automatically be classed as renewable energy." It supports a stop on subsidies until more
research can determine if various biofuels in different regions are produced in a nonpolluting
manner. The group also suggests that all emissions arising from the production of a biofuel
be counted as emissions in the country where the fuel is actually used, providing a clearer
accounting of environmental costs.
BEFORE: rainforest on the Indonesian part of the island of Borneo
Friends of the Earth estimates that 87 percent of the deforestation in Malaysia from 1985 to
2000 was caused by new palm oil plantations. In Indonesia, the amount of land devoted to
palm oil has increased 118 percent in the last eight years.
AFTER: a palm oil plantation
Peat is an organic sponge composed of 90 percent water that stores huge amounts of
carbon, which when it is drained emits huge amounts of carbon into the atmosphere.
Even worse peatland is often burned to clear ground for plantations. The Dutch study
estimated that the draining of peatland in Indonesia releases 660 million tons of carbon a
year into the atmosphere and that fires contributed 1.5 billion tons annually.
The total is equivalent to 8 percent of all global emissions caused annually by burning fossil
fuels, the researchers said. "These emissions generated by peat drainage in Indonesia were
not counted before," according to a Wetlands spokesperson. "It was a totally ignored
problem."
While for the moment the widescale destruction of rainforests in South East Asia continues,
hopefully the palm oil story will serve as a cautionary tale which will lead to much better
informed policymaking and behaviour. Politicians must resist the urge to rush to legislate and
subsidise in order to bask in the glow of being seen to be "doing something" while a number
of so-called green companies profit from taxpayer subsidised destruction. Energy policy
must make sense from a scientific (i.e. it should be energy positive), economic and
environmental viewpoint. However the continued promotion of ethanol and coal-to-liquids
calls for continued skepticism.
Biofuel:
 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |
Alternative Energy
Biofuel, good or bad technology?
Not all ideas for renewable sources of energy are as good as they sound when first
presented. Read the following blog and then decide which band waggons you want to
jump on and which ones you should jump off.
presented. Read the following blog and then decide which band waggons you want to
jump on and which ones you should jump off.
In the search for alternative
fuels, to reduce our dependency
on foreign oil, many new
products have been gaining a
great amount of media
coverage. Corn ethanol is
certainly one of these products
that many of you have heard
about. While we applaud the
efforts and great strides that
have been made in bio-fuels the
‘push’ for corn ethanol is
misplaced.
Corn ethanol is made by
refining corn into a fuel that can
be blended with gasoline to help
displace the amount of actual
gasoline used in today’s
automobiles. While the actual
corn ethanol burns cleaner than
fossil fuels the reality is that it
will never be a viable alternative
fuel source for the auto industry.
The process of converting corn
into a fuel still uses fossil fuels in
the process and when it is fully
converted the yield is only
around a 25% gain over using
the fossil fuel alone. The actual
fuel mileage of the automobile
that uses corn ethanol is
actually reduced when
compared its fossil fuel counter-
part and without government
subsidization in the various
steps of process, the cost of the
corn ethanol would be over $3 a
gallon.
Other impacts not mentioned in
any media campaign or in the
25% gain are the large
quantities of water, fertilizer and
pesticides that is required to
grow the corn. The water of
course depletes our most
precious resource and the
fertilizer and pesticides pollute
that very resource we need. The
production of corn ethanol also
impacts our food system as well.
Corn is used as feed for
livestock and used for grain
exports to developing countries
poor people who can not afford
anything else. With a reduction
in corn production for food we
will see increased food prices
not to mention the reduction of
food aid to those countries.
At the current production rate,
corn ethanol uses about 18% of
all the U.S. corn for ethanol
production and has reduced U.
S. petroleum usage by almost
1%.
Even if all the corn produced
was devoted to ethanol usage it
would only impact our petroleum
usage by less than 12% and
dramatically increase food
prices. It would take about 97%
of the United States land area to
produce enough corn ethanol to
power all of the automobiles in
the U.S. on 100% corn ethanol.
While it is a great start to
reduce our dependence, other
avenues and products should
be more closely looked at and
developed while making a
stronger push for fuel use
reduction. The over $1 billion
used to subsidize the corn
ethanol industry could be put to
greater use in renewable energy
rebates for homes, more fuel
efficient vehicles, bio-diesels or
increased renewable energy
development such as wind, tidal
and solar power.
fuels, to reduce our dependency
on foreign oil, many new
products have been gaining a
great amount of media
coverage. Corn ethanol is
certainly one of these products
that many of you have heard
about. While we applaud the
efforts and great strides that
have been made in bio-fuels the
‘push’ for corn ethanol is
misplaced.
Corn ethanol is made by
refining corn into a fuel that can
be blended with gasoline to help
displace the amount of actual
gasoline used in today’s
automobiles. While the actual
corn ethanol burns cleaner than
fossil fuels the reality is that it
will never be a viable alternative
fuel source for the auto industry.
The process of converting corn
into a fuel still uses fossil fuels in
the process and when it is fully
converted the yield is only
around a 25% gain over using
the fossil fuel alone. The actual
fuel mileage of the automobile
that uses corn ethanol is
actually reduced when
compared its fossil fuel counter-
part and without government
subsidization in the various
steps of process, the cost of the
corn ethanol would be over $3 a
gallon.
Other impacts not mentioned in
any media campaign or in the
25% gain are the large
quantities of water, fertilizer and
pesticides that is required to
grow the corn. The water of
course depletes our most
precious resource and the
fertilizer and pesticides pollute
that very resource we need. The
production of corn ethanol also
impacts our food system as well.
Corn is used as feed for
livestock and used for grain
exports to developing countries
poor people who can not afford
anything else. With a reduction
in corn production for food we
will see increased food prices
not to mention the reduction of
food aid to those countries.
At the current production rate,
corn ethanol uses about 18% of
all the U.S. corn for ethanol
production and has reduced U.
S. petroleum usage by almost
1%.
Even if all the corn produced
was devoted to ethanol usage it
would only impact our petroleum
usage by less than 12% and
dramatically increase food
prices. It would take about 97%
of the United States land area to
produce enough corn ethanol to
power all of the automobiles in
the U.S. on 100% corn ethanol.
While it is a great start to
reduce our dependence, other
avenues and products should
be more closely looked at and
developed while making a
stronger push for fuel use
reduction. The over $1 billion
used to subsidize the corn
ethanol industry could be put to
greater use in renewable energy
rebates for homes, more fuel
efficient vehicles, bio-diesels or
increased renewable energy
development such as wind, tidal
and solar power.
The Corn Ethanol Myth
Sun, Wind, and Water Instead of Oil, Gas, and Coal
Copyright 2008 Harold R Muxlow