Report: Burning Down Tropical Forests for Biofuels Spurs Climate Change

This week, to coincide with the start of UN climate talks in Poland, scientists from seven nations released a report showing that torching tropical forests to produce palm-oil plantations for biofuel makes climate change worse by killing critical "carbon sinks." From co-author Dr. Neil Burgess of the World Wildlife Fund:

Biofuels are a bad deal for forests, wildlife and the climate if they replace tropical rain forests. In fact, they hasten climate change by removing one of the world's most efficient carbon storage tools--intact tropical rain forests.

The report reveals that it would take 75 to 93 years to save enough carbon emissions to make up for the CO2 released by burning down forests. Researchers also found that it's much worse on peatlands, which are so chock-full of carbon that it would take 600 years before any benefits are seen.

The study, published in the journal Conservation Biology, is the most comprehensive analysis of the impact of oil palm plantations in tropical forests on climate.

In it, researchers explain how production of palm oil-based biofuels is eating up millions of forest acres -- especially in Malaysia and Indonesia, which produce around 85 percent of the world's palm oil. Southeast Asia's not alone, however. Says co-author Faizal Parish of the Global Environment Center in Malaysia:

In Latin America forests are being cleared for soy production which is even less efficient at biofuel production compared to oil palm.

Problem is, when tracts of forest are burned down, large amounts of greenhouse gases are spewed into the atmosphere. Experts say that some 25 percent of total net global carbon emissions may stem from deforestation. Indeed, Greenpeace released a study earlier this year concluding that that forest clearance in Indonesia for palm crops has made the nation the third largest producer of GHG emissions -- behind the US and China.

Worse yet, tropical forests are vital carbon sinks, storing around 46 percent of the world's living "terrestrial carbon."

Where to point the blame? Lead author Finn Danielsen of Denmark's Nordic Agency for Development and Ecology (NORDECO) starts with national subsidies:

Subsidies to purchase tropical biofuels are given by countries in Europe and North America supposedly to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions from transport. While these countries strive to meet their obligations under one international agreement, the Kyoto Protocol, they encourage others to increase their emissions as well as breach their obligations under another agreement, the Convention on Biological Diversity.

The primary solution is to keep more tropical rainforests in tact.

Reducing deforestation is likely to represent a more effective climate-change mitigation strategy than converting forest for biofuel production.

The study also advocates promoting oil palm expansion on otherwise abandoned grasslands.
According to the report, biofuels produced from oil palm cultivated on degraded Imperata grasslands -- forest lands that have already been burned to the ground -- would lead to a net removal of carbon in 10 years. More, from Mongabay:

Imperata is a grass that takes hold after forests are burned and cleared. It prevents natural regeneration of forest and once established, generally results in the abandonment of land. At least 8.5 million hectares of land in Indonesia are classified as Imperata grassland, according to a 1997 study published in Agroforestry Systems. Another 5 million hectares are degraded grasslands.

In the end, the researchers call for the development of common global standards for the sustainable production of biofuels.

Any hope for nations seeing the light? Yes. Such standards are already under consideration by the EU. With any luck, they will pass and prompt eventual reform of the flawed biofuels policies of other nations and of the entire global production chain of food-based fuels.

• ‹ previous
• up
• next ›