domingo, 29 de junio de 2008
domingo, 15 de junio de 2008
Algae may be biofuel source
While Hawai'i has dropped out of the list of top five states for gasoline prices, it is still No. 1 for diesel fuel prices.
The statewide average Friday for diesel was $5.204 a gallon, a 46 percent increase over a year ago, according to American Automobile Association data.
The rapid rise in diesel prices is not only tough on owners of diesel cars, boats and trucks, but it also hurts those depending on diesel power generators, including most Moloka'i and Lana'i residents.
The climb in diesel prices over the past two years has propelled feverish efforts among several Hawai'i companies to find viable alternatives.
But not just any alternative will do.
Biodiesel, a plant-based alternative which can be used in most existing diesel engines without major modifications, has proven to be problematic.
Several Hawai'i researchers are hoping to avoid those problems by producing fuel from nonfood crops and, in one case, from algae.
The murky colored water flowing around raceway-shaped ponds in Kailua, Kona, doesn't look like much. But this six-acre test facility may represent the new oil fields of the 21st century.
When biodiesel is made from soybeans and other edible crops, it has been blamed for driving up food prices worldwide. Another biofuel, corn-based ethanol — which is widely used as a gasoline additive — has similar problems.
Prominent scientists have also questioned whether growing crops for biofuels produces more greenhouse gases than it prevents.
However, results from the demonstration project in Kailua, Kona, are being monitored by Europe's largest oil company, Royal Dutch Shell Plc, as well as former University of Hawai'i scientists who believe the fast-growing algae holds great promise when it comes to finding a cheaper alternatives to crude oil.
"We have good confidence that it's very viable," said Ed Shonsey, chief executive officer of HR Biopetroleum, a company that is partnering with Shell on the project. That includes believing the processes can eventually produce oil for $30 to $50 a barrel.
"It's looking extremely good."
The marine algae gets a much better yield than many plants. Where the highest producing oil palm farmers get 600 gallons an acre per year, algae can produce 5,000 to 8,000 gallons per acre annually, Shonsey said.
Moreover, algae proponents note it has the attractive environmental side effect of being able to absorb carbon dioxide waste from industrial facilities such as power plants. Thus it's hoped the production of biodiesel and other fuels from algae could reduce global-warming emissions if paired with a nearby power plant.
"That's the exciting thing about algae and why everyone is so interested," Shonsey said. "It's ideal for Hawai'i because no fresh water is required, no ag land is required and it cleans up the environment."
There is also less controversy about crops being in competition with food production since algae production should drive up prices of edible crops.
algae technology
HR Biopetroleum has joined with Shell on a company, Cellana, that is one of about 20 worldwide looking to commercialize algae technology. Shonsey said Cellana has a leg up on the competition because it already has a patented process and research expertise from HR Biopetroleum that has been developed over nearly two decades. That work has solved contamination problems that can occur while identifying the best algae species for oil production, he said.
Cellana's pilot plant is producing oil now and that a demonstration plant is being built in Kona to scale it up. Within three years it hopes to have its first commercial plant operating and within six years, another five plants.
Shonsey declined to say where the first commercial plant might be located aside from saying the company's priorities for sites are in Hawai'i and the southwest and southeast U.S. Shell previously said it wants to build a full-scale commercial production facility occupying about 50,000 acres.
The Kailua, Kona, facility's production is being tested for use in transport, including jets. The fuel also can be used in power plants.
Shonsey said his group is in talks with several potential partners on building a plant and that he hopes to be making an announcement soon.
"We have a very precise patented process which we now need to scale up," he said. "Now it's a matter of the commercialization."
In addition to the use of algae as an alternative, researchers from the University of Hawai'i and the Hawai'i Agricultural Research Center are looking into the viability of several plants not commonly used for food, including Jatropha trees, Kukui, Pongam and Moringa, also known as Kalamungay.
Michael Poteet, a Hawaii Agricultural Research Center agronomist, cautions that production from these plants won't be happening overnight since it will take time to figure out which crops work best and to get the infrastructure in place to extract the oil and then refine it.
"We'd all like to have a quick answer to this problem," Poteet said. "It's hard to be patient when diesel is $4.50 or over $5 a gallon, but we're working as fast as we can."
limited output
Poteet said there are probably 100,000 acres statewide that could be used in the next 10 to 15 years for the crops, with possibly more available over a longer period. But he and others note even if 100,000 acres were planted tomorrow, it would be at least a couple of years before oil seeds could be harvested.
Poteet said only 30 million gallons of biodiesel would be produced by the 100,000 acres if they were planted in crops averaging 300 gallons of oil annually.
That would only account for a portion of the diesel used in Hawai'i. In 2006 about 182 million gallons of diesel were used by nonmilitary consumers in Hawai'i for on- and off-road use, including fishing fleets.
But Poteet said even at that low percentage of total use, the biodiesel effort is worth it. That includes the economic benefits and security issues such as the state having enough fuel during emergency situations in which fuel shipments are restricted.
Anything that lowers diesel prices would be welcomed on Moloka'i where residents have seen the energy cost adjustment charge on their electricity bills rise 60 percent over the past year because Maui Electric Co.'s generators there burn diesel. On Lana'i the energy cost adjustment charge is up 67 percent.
On Maui, a partnership consisting of Blue Earth Biofuels and Hawaiian Electric Co. is pursuing permits for an $81 million facility capable of producing 30 million gallons of biodiesel that will be used by Maui Electric Co. Profits earned by Hawaiian Electric on the project will go into a public trust that will support local biocrop research and infrastructure.
Hawaiian Electric Co. also hopes to burn biodiesel at a new peak demand plant on O'ahu and has a contract with another biodiesel refiner, Imperium Renewables, to provide the fuel. It remains to be seen if Imperium will build a plant here since it canceled a public offering that would have raised money for a plant here and reportedly has been hit by rising prices for soybean oil.
Pacific Biodiesel, the Maui company that is one of the nation's oldest biodiesel producers, has found demand outstrips supply for its biodiesel made from used cooking oil. It is working with the Oceanic Institute on a project looking at local biofuels.
With multiple efforts going on, the state also is looking at what it should be doing from a policy point of view and how biodiesel and other biofuels dovetail with other renewable energy projects such as wind and solar power.
bioenergy masterplan
The state last month kicked off public meetings as it looks at formulating a bioenergy masterplan that will contemplate a host of issues that are part of the biofuel movement, including acreage needed, water use and evaluating what can be grown where.
There are other issues, such as competition for land that produced food crops and how to dispose of some of the processing waste. Others question whether enough water is available depending on the crops.
At the same time, the state is hopeful that the oil's economic drain on the state might be offset by producing some of the energy here while boosting energy security.
In effect, instead of the money going to the Middle East or other oil producing areas, local biofuel production would keep the money here people are hired to tend the crops and process the biofuel."
"We use a great deal of liquid fuel," said Maria Tome, a state Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism energy engineer.
"To the extent that we can have locally produced alternatives, we can keep the money in the state."
The statewide average Friday for diesel was $5.204 a gallon, a 46 percent increase over a year ago, according to American Automobile Association data.
The rapid rise in diesel prices is not only tough on owners of diesel cars, boats and trucks, but it also hurts those depending on diesel power generators, including most Moloka'i and Lana'i residents.
The climb in diesel prices over the past two years has propelled feverish efforts among several Hawai'i companies to find viable alternatives.
But not just any alternative will do.
Biodiesel, a plant-based alternative which can be used in most existing diesel engines without major modifications, has proven to be problematic.
Several Hawai'i researchers are hoping to avoid those problems by producing fuel from nonfood crops and, in one case, from algae.
The murky colored water flowing around raceway-shaped ponds in Kailua, Kona, doesn't look like much. But this six-acre test facility may represent the new oil fields of the 21st century.
When biodiesel is made from soybeans and other edible crops, it has been blamed for driving up food prices worldwide. Another biofuel, corn-based ethanol — which is widely used as a gasoline additive — has similar problems.
Prominent scientists have also questioned whether growing crops for biofuels produces more greenhouse gases than it prevents.
However, results from the demonstration project in Kailua, Kona, are being monitored by Europe's largest oil company, Royal Dutch Shell Plc, as well as former University of Hawai'i scientists who believe the fast-growing algae holds great promise when it comes to finding a cheaper alternatives to crude oil.
"We have good confidence that it's very viable," said Ed Shonsey, chief executive officer of HR Biopetroleum, a company that is partnering with Shell on the project. That includes believing the processes can eventually produce oil for $30 to $50 a barrel.
"It's looking extremely good."
The marine algae gets a much better yield than many plants. Where the highest producing oil palm farmers get 600 gallons an acre per year, algae can produce 5,000 to 8,000 gallons per acre annually, Shonsey said.
Moreover, algae proponents note it has the attractive environmental side effect of being able to absorb carbon dioxide waste from industrial facilities such as power plants. Thus it's hoped the production of biodiesel and other fuels from algae could reduce global-warming emissions if paired with a nearby power plant.
"That's the exciting thing about algae and why everyone is so interested," Shonsey said. "It's ideal for Hawai'i because no fresh water is required, no ag land is required and it cleans up the environment."
There is also less controversy about crops being in competition with food production since algae production should drive up prices of edible crops.
algae technology
HR Biopetroleum has joined with Shell on a company, Cellana, that is one of about 20 worldwide looking to commercialize algae technology. Shonsey said Cellana has a leg up on the competition because it already has a patented process and research expertise from HR Biopetroleum that has been developed over nearly two decades. That work has solved contamination problems that can occur while identifying the best algae species for oil production, he said.
Cellana's pilot plant is producing oil now and that a demonstration plant is being built in Kona to scale it up. Within three years it hopes to have its first commercial plant operating and within six years, another five plants.
Shonsey declined to say where the first commercial plant might be located aside from saying the company's priorities for sites are in Hawai'i and the southwest and southeast U.S. Shell previously said it wants to build a full-scale commercial production facility occupying about 50,000 acres.
The Kailua, Kona, facility's production is being tested for use in transport, including jets. The fuel also can be used in power plants.
Shonsey said his group is in talks with several potential partners on building a plant and that he hopes to be making an announcement soon.
"We have a very precise patented process which we now need to scale up," he said. "Now it's a matter of the commercialization."
In addition to the use of algae as an alternative, researchers from the University of Hawai'i and the Hawai'i Agricultural Research Center are looking into the viability of several plants not commonly used for food, including Jatropha trees, Kukui, Pongam and Moringa, also known as Kalamungay.
Michael Poteet, a Hawaii Agricultural Research Center agronomist, cautions that production from these plants won't be happening overnight since it will take time to figure out which crops work best and to get the infrastructure in place to extract the oil and then refine it.
"We'd all like to have a quick answer to this problem," Poteet said. "It's hard to be patient when diesel is $4.50 or over $5 a gallon, but we're working as fast as we can."
limited output
Poteet said there are probably 100,000 acres statewide that could be used in the next 10 to 15 years for the crops, with possibly more available over a longer period. But he and others note even if 100,000 acres were planted tomorrow, it would be at least a couple of years before oil seeds could be harvested.
Poteet said only 30 million gallons of biodiesel would be produced by the 100,000 acres if they were planted in crops averaging 300 gallons of oil annually.
That would only account for a portion of the diesel used in Hawai'i. In 2006 about 182 million gallons of diesel were used by nonmilitary consumers in Hawai'i for on- and off-road use, including fishing fleets.
But Poteet said even at that low percentage of total use, the biodiesel effort is worth it. That includes the economic benefits and security issues such as the state having enough fuel during emergency situations in which fuel shipments are restricted.
Anything that lowers diesel prices would be welcomed on Moloka'i where residents have seen the energy cost adjustment charge on their electricity bills rise 60 percent over the past year because Maui Electric Co.'s generators there burn diesel. On Lana'i the energy cost adjustment charge is up 67 percent.
On Maui, a partnership consisting of Blue Earth Biofuels and Hawaiian Electric Co. is pursuing permits for an $81 million facility capable of producing 30 million gallons of biodiesel that will be used by Maui Electric Co. Profits earned by Hawaiian Electric on the project will go into a public trust that will support local biocrop research and infrastructure.
Hawaiian Electric Co. also hopes to burn biodiesel at a new peak demand plant on O'ahu and has a contract with another biodiesel refiner, Imperium Renewables, to provide the fuel. It remains to be seen if Imperium will build a plant here since it canceled a public offering that would have raised money for a plant here and reportedly has been hit by rising prices for soybean oil.
Pacific Biodiesel, the Maui company that is one of the nation's oldest biodiesel producers, has found demand outstrips supply for its biodiesel made from used cooking oil. It is working with the Oceanic Institute on a project looking at local biofuels.
With multiple efforts going on, the state also is looking at what it should be doing from a policy point of view and how biodiesel and other biofuels dovetail with other renewable energy projects such as wind and solar power.
bioenergy masterplan
The state last month kicked off public meetings as it looks at formulating a bioenergy masterplan that will contemplate a host of issues that are part of the biofuel movement, including acreage needed, water use and evaluating what can be grown where.
There are other issues, such as competition for land that produced food crops and how to dispose of some of the processing waste. Others question whether enough water is available depending on the crops.
At the same time, the state is hopeful that the oil's economic drain on the state might be offset by producing some of the energy here while boosting energy security.
In effect, instead of the money going to the Middle East or other oil producing areas, local biofuel production would keep the money here people are hired to tend the crops and process the biofuel."
"We use a great deal of liquid fuel," said Maria Tome, a state Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism energy engineer.
"To the extent that we can have locally produced alternatives, we can keep the money in the state."
viernes, 23 de mayo de 2008
La ONU pide frenar los biocombustibles
El alza alocada del precio de los alimentos en todo el mundo se debe, entre otros factores, a la decisión de Estados Unidos de destinar el maíz a fabricar combustible. Los precios de las materias primas seguirían altos por diez años.
Ginebra (ANSA y EFE) - El relator especial de la ONU sobre el derecho a la alimentación, Oliver De Schutter, se pronunció ayer en Ginebra por el congelamiento de las nuevas inversiones y subsidios que favorecen la producción de biocombustibles, porque -dijo- están actuando como disparador de precios de alimentos.
El pedido del relator coincide con el de organizaciones no gubernamentales, como Greenpeace, que consideran que la producción de biocombustibles genera más problemas que soluciones, tanto en el ámbito de la preservación del medio ambiente como en el de la alimentación.
En una intervención en una sesión especial del Consejo de ONU para los Derechos Humanos, dedicada al impacto de la crisis alimentaria mundial desencadenada por el incremento de los precios de los alimentos, De Schutter afirmó que los biocombustibles fueron un importante factor en esa suba. Explicó que se debió a la ""competencia entre alimentos, forraje y combustible"".
De Schutter mencionó que existe un porcentaje creciente de producción agrícola destinado a los combustibles en Estados Unidos y definió como ""irreales"" los objetivos de la Unión Europea de que 10% del consumo de los transportes para 2010 sea de biocombustibles. "
"Abandonándolos, enviaremos una fuerte señal a los mercados sobre el hecho de que los precios no subirán al infinito y desmotivaremos la especulación"", afirmó. Al abrir los trabajos de la sesión especial del Consejo, el alto comisionado de ONU por los Derechos Humanos, Louise Arbour, advirtió que en ausencia de una respuesta adecuada, la crisis que niega a muchos la alimentación podrá tener un efecto dominó, poniendo en riesgo otros derechos fundamentales, incluidos los de la educación y la salud.
Para Arbour, la crisis deriva de una convergencia perversa de diversos factores, entre ellos las distorsiones entre la oferta y la demanda, prácticas comerciales desleales y algunas políticas de subsidios. Otros funcionarios mencionan además el cambio climático y la especulación en los mercados de materia prima.
Los responsables de la FAO advirtieron que los líderes políticos mundiales deben llegar a un compromiso para afrontar la crisis alimentaria con más inversión y más productividad, porque si no crecerá el hambre en el planeta.
DIEZ AÑOS Un informe semestral que prepara la FAO sobre el tema, titulado Perspectivas Agrícolas 2008-2017, cuya publicación estaba prevista para la semana próxima pero fue adelantado ayer por el Financial Times, señala que los precios de los alimentos seguir&aa cute;n siendo altos durante al menos los diez próximos años.
Solo en los tres primeros meses de este año los precios subieron un 53%, indica el documento. Para dar una idea de las proporciones colosales que representa el reto de la crisis alimentaria, ""la producción mundial de cereal necesita aumentar en un 50% para el año 2030 y la producción de carne un 85%"", declaró Hafez Ghanem, director general adjunto del Departamento Económico y Social de la FAO.
Ginebra (ANSA y EFE) - El relator especial de la ONU sobre el derecho a la alimentación, Oliver De Schutter, se pronunció ayer en Ginebra por el congelamiento de las nuevas inversiones y subsidios que favorecen la producción de biocombustibles, porque -dijo- están actuando como disparador de precios de alimentos.
El pedido del relator coincide con el de organizaciones no gubernamentales, como Greenpeace, que consideran que la producción de biocombustibles genera más problemas que soluciones, tanto en el ámbito de la preservación del medio ambiente como en el de la alimentación.
En una intervención en una sesión especial del Consejo de ONU para los Derechos Humanos, dedicada al impacto de la crisis alimentaria mundial desencadenada por el incremento de los precios de los alimentos, De Schutter afirmó que los biocombustibles fueron un importante factor en esa suba. Explicó que se debió a la ""competencia entre alimentos, forraje y combustible"".
De Schutter mencionó que existe un porcentaje creciente de producción agrícola destinado a los combustibles en Estados Unidos y definió como ""irreales"" los objetivos de la Unión Europea de que 10% del consumo de los transportes para 2010 sea de biocombustibles. "
"Abandonándolos, enviaremos una fuerte señal a los mercados sobre el hecho de que los precios no subirán al infinito y desmotivaremos la especulación"", afirmó. Al abrir los trabajos de la sesión especial del Consejo, el alto comisionado de ONU por los Derechos Humanos, Louise Arbour, advirtió que en ausencia de una respuesta adecuada, la crisis que niega a muchos la alimentación podrá tener un efecto dominó, poniendo en riesgo otros derechos fundamentales, incluidos los de la educación y la salud.
Para Arbour, la crisis deriva de una convergencia perversa de diversos factores, entre ellos las distorsiones entre la oferta y la demanda, prácticas comerciales desleales y algunas políticas de subsidios. Otros funcionarios mencionan además el cambio climático y la especulación en los mercados de materia prima.
Los responsables de la FAO advirtieron que los líderes políticos mundiales deben llegar a un compromiso para afrontar la crisis alimentaria con más inversión y más productividad, porque si no crecerá el hambre en el planeta.
DIEZ AÑOS Un informe semestral que prepara la FAO sobre el tema, titulado Perspectivas Agrícolas 2008-2017, cuya publicación estaba prevista para la semana próxima pero fue adelantado ayer por el Financial Times, señala que los precios de los alimentos seguir&aa cute;n siendo altos durante al menos los diez próximos años.
Solo en los tres primeros meses de este año los precios subieron un 53%, indica el documento. Para dar una idea de las proporciones colosales que representa el reto de la crisis alimentaria, ""la producción mundial de cereal necesita aumentar en un 50% para el año 2030 y la producción de carne un 85%"", declaró Hafez Ghanem, director general adjunto del Departamento Económico y Social de la FAO.
viernes, 2 de mayo de 2008
Native People Warn U.N. of Biofuels Disaster
UNITED NATIONS, Apr 30 (IPS) - Growing demand for biofuels by the world's rich nations is propelling attacks on indigenous people and destroying their lands and forests, according to native leaders attending a three-week international meeting here.
"[There are] increasing human rights violations, displacements and conflicts due to expropriation of ancestral lands and forests for biofuels plantations," said Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, chairperson of the U.N. Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues.
Tauli-Corpus, one of the authors of a new report on the topic, warned that if biofuels expansion continued at the current pace, it was likely that at least 60 million native people would lose their lands and livelihood.
The warning comes amid growing global concern over the current food crisis that has left millions of people across the global south to suffer hunger and starvation.
Experts on agro-economics say biofuels production is largely responsible for the current food shortages and soaring prices. The crisis, according to them, is not going to end unless the rich countries change their energy consumption patterns.
If rich nations stopped biofuels production this year, it would lead to a price decline in corn by about 20 percent and wheat by about 10 percent within the next two years, according to the International Food Policy Research Institute, a think tank in Washington.
In a recent teleconference, Lester Brown, president of the U.S.-based Earth Policy Institute, made similar observations about the impact of biofuels production and consumption.
"Food security will deteriorate further unless leading countries can collectively mobilise to stabilise population and restrict the use of grain to produce automotive fuel," he said.
In his latest research, Brown, an award-winning environmental analyst, points out that the unsustainable use of land and water, as well as trade imbalances among nations, are among the major factors contributing to the present crisis.
"The chronically tight food supply the world is now facing is driven by the cumulative effects of several well-established trends that are affecting both global demand and supply," he said.
On the demand side, some 4 billion people are already struggling to get enough to eat, while at the same time, the amount of grain used for car fuels is also rising immensely, according to Brown.
"Since 2005, this last source of demand has raised the annual growth in world grain consumption from nearly 20 million tonnes to about 50 million tonnes," he said. "Meanwhile, on the supply side, there is little new land to be brought under the plow unless it comes from clearing tropical rain forests in the Amazon and Congo basins, or in Indonesia or the Brazilian Cerrado."
The Institute's research shows that new sources of irrigation water are even more scarce than new land to plow. During the past 50 years, global irrigated land has nearly tripled, expanding from 94 million hectares in 1950 to 276 million hectares in 2000. In other words, the amount of cultivable land is shrinking by 1 percent every year.
Experts working with other international institutions, including the United Nations, agree with Brown's analysis of the current food crisis.
Early this month, a report released by the U.N.'s World Food Programme (WFP) called for rich countries to urgently contribute 500 million dollars to address the issue of food scarcity that has led to riots in a number of countries.
According to the World Bank, at least 33 countries are currently in danger of political destabilisation and internal conflicts driven by rising food prices. Currently, some of these poor countries are facing food price hikes of up to 80 percent.
Robert Watson, the former head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and chief economist at Britain's Department for Environment, agrees that the global production of food has increased, but notes with concern that "not everyone has benefited" from it.
In a recent statement, Watson blamed governments and private businesses for paying more attention to growth in production than natural resources or food security.
"Continuing with current trends means the Earth's haves and have-nots splitting further apart," he said. "It would leave us facing a world nobody wants to inhabit."
Proponents of the sustainable development model say food-based biofuels production, such as ethanol, promotes single crop agriculture which is can lead to further loss of biodiversity and create economic disparities.
In their report to the U.N., indigenous leaders documented numerous cases that illustrate how the surge in biofuels plantations is destroying forests in bio-diverse countries and driving native communities out of their lands.
For example, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Colombia all plan to expand their palm oil plantations despite protests by environmental groups who fear massive destruction of resources that belong to indigenous communities.
Activists say Indonesia's plans for plantations could deprive at least 5 million indigenous peoples of their ancient lands. The situation in Colombia is similar, with hundreds of native communities facing threats to their livelihood from plantations.
In addition to palm oil, big agribusinesses are also moving into indigenous lands to grow sugarcane, soy, corn, manioc and jatopha crops -- all of which can be used as fuel. Activists say due to sugarcane plantations, the Guarani people in Brazil have lost much of their land.
Last year, Brazil and the United States signed an agreement last year to cooperate with each other in the development of biofuels. On Tuesday, U.S. President George W. Bush reiterated his energy policy, saying that biofuels was important for the U.S. to reduce its dependence on foreign oil.
For his part, Brown is particularly concerned about the impact of U.S. policies on the growing food insecurity worldwide, and he is not convinced Washington has any plans to help mitigate the problem.
"I don't think the U.S. has realised the seriousness of the problem we are facing," he told IPS. "I am not sure they have any understanding of what is happening."
Regardless of Washington's stance on biofuels, activists attending the U.N. forum say they are determined to protect their rights.
"The biofuels boom doesn't just have consequences for the environment, global food prices or orang-utans -- it's having a devastating effecting on tribal (indigenous) people too," said Stephen Corry, director of Survival International.
"The companies feverishly promoting this industry have been perfectly willing to push aside tribal people in their hunger for land," he said in a statement.
"[There are] increasing human rights violations, displacements and conflicts due to expropriation of ancestral lands and forests for biofuels plantations," said Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, chairperson of the U.N. Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues.
Tauli-Corpus, one of the authors of a new report on the topic, warned that if biofuels expansion continued at the current pace, it was likely that at least 60 million native people would lose their lands and livelihood.
The warning comes amid growing global concern over the current food crisis that has left millions of people across the global south to suffer hunger and starvation.
Experts on agro-economics say biofuels production is largely responsible for the current food shortages and soaring prices. The crisis, according to them, is not going to end unless the rich countries change their energy consumption patterns.
If rich nations stopped biofuels production this year, it would lead to a price decline in corn by about 20 percent and wheat by about 10 percent within the next two years, according to the International Food Policy Research Institute, a think tank in Washington.
In a recent teleconference, Lester Brown, president of the U.S.-based Earth Policy Institute, made similar observations about the impact of biofuels production and consumption.
"Food security will deteriorate further unless leading countries can collectively mobilise to stabilise population and restrict the use of grain to produce automotive fuel," he said.
In his latest research, Brown, an award-winning environmental analyst, points out that the unsustainable use of land and water, as well as trade imbalances among nations, are among the major factors contributing to the present crisis.
"The chronically tight food supply the world is now facing is driven by the cumulative effects of several well-established trends that are affecting both global demand and supply," he said.
On the demand side, some 4 billion people are already struggling to get enough to eat, while at the same time, the amount of grain used for car fuels is also rising immensely, according to Brown.
"Since 2005, this last source of demand has raised the annual growth in world grain consumption from nearly 20 million tonnes to about 50 million tonnes," he said. "Meanwhile, on the supply side, there is little new land to be brought under the plow unless it comes from clearing tropical rain forests in the Amazon and Congo basins, or in Indonesia or the Brazilian Cerrado."
The Institute's research shows that new sources of irrigation water are even more scarce than new land to plow. During the past 50 years, global irrigated land has nearly tripled, expanding from 94 million hectares in 1950 to 276 million hectares in 2000. In other words, the amount of cultivable land is shrinking by 1 percent every year.
Experts working with other international institutions, including the United Nations, agree with Brown's analysis of the current food crisis.
Early this month, a report released by the U.N.'s World Food Programme (WFP) called for rich countries to urgently contribute 500 million dollars to address the issue of food scarcity that has led to riots in a number of countries.
According to the World Bank, at least 33 countries are currently in danger of political destabilisation and internal conflicts driven by rising food prices. Currently, some of these poor countries are facing food price hikes of up to 80 percent.
Robert Watson, the former head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and chief economist at Britain's Department for Environment, agrees that the global production of food has increased, but notes with concern that "not everyone has benefited" from it.
In a recent statement, Watson blamed governments and private businesses for paying more attention to growth in production than natural resources or food security.
"Continuing with current trends means the Earth's haves and have-nots splitting further apart," he said. "It would leave us facing a world nobody wants to inhabit."
Proponents of the sustainable development model say food-based biofuels production, such as ethanol, promotes single crop agriculture which is can lead to further loss of biodiversity and create economic disparities.
In their report to the U.N., indigenous leaders documented numerous cases that illustrate how the surge in biofuels plantations is destroying forests in bio-diverse countries and driving native communities out of their lands.
For example, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Colombia all plan to expand their palm oil plantations despite protests by environmental groups who fear massive destruction of resources that belong to indigenous communities.
Activists say Indonesia's plans for plantations could deprive at least 5 million indigenous peoples of their ancient lands. The situation in Colombia is similar, with hundreds of native communities facing threats to their livelihood from plantations.
In addition to palm oil, big agribusinesses are also moving into indigenous lands to grow sugarcane, soy, corn, manioc and jatopha crops -- all of which can be used as fuel. Activists say due to sugarcane plantations, the Guarani people in Brazil have lost much of their land.
Last year, Brazil and the United States signed an agreement last year to cooperate with each other in the development of biofuels. On Tuesday, U.S. President George W. Bush reiterated his energy policy, saying that biofuels was important for the U.S. to reduce its dependence on foreign oil.
For his part, Brown is particularly concerned about the impact of U.S. policies on the growing food insecurity worldwide, and he is not convinced Washington has any plans to help mitigate the problem.
"I don't think the U.S. has realised the seriousness of the problem we are facing," he told IPS. "I am not sure they have any understanding of what is happening."
Regardless of Washington's stance on biofuels, activists attending the U.N. forum say they are determined to protect their rights.
"The biofuels boom doesn't just have consequences for the environment, global food prices or orang-utans -- it's having a devastating effecting on tribal (indigenous) people too," said Stephen Corry, director of Survival International.
"The companies feverishly promoting this industry have been perfectly willing to push aside tribal people in their hunger for land," he said in a statement.
lunes, 28 de abril de 2008
Productores de biodiésel de la UE arremeten contra EE UU
Cinco Días / MADRID (26-04-2008)
Los productores europeos de biodiésel presentaron el viernes una nueva queja formal ante la Comisión Europea para que establezca un impuesto punitivo a las importaciones de este carburante verde desde los Estados Unidos.
El Consejo Europeo del Biodiésel (EBB), que representa a unos 60 de los mayores productores europeos, como Acciona o Cargill, solicitó además a la UE en su comunicado que inicie una investigación contra el dumping y los subsidios de los que disfrutan los carburantes de EE UU y que abaratan su precio de tal modo que deja fuera del mercado al biodiésel europeo, según explica el EBB. El Consejo ya interpuso otra queja formal por este concepto a finales del año pasado.
La asociación estima que los subsidios al biodiésel B99 de EE UU 'resquebrajan las reglas de la Organización Mundial del Comercio y amenazan el desarrollo de este carburante en el mundo'. 'Como resultado de estas medidas, desde 2007 se ha producido un dramático ascenso de las importaciones estadounidenses, lo que penaliza la producción europea', aseguró el EBB en una nota del viernes.
El B99, que no está mezclado más que con 'una gota de diésel y puede ser importada a la UE', según el EBB, ya goza de subvenciones en origen. Después, llega a Europa y se vuelve a beneficiar de primas como la exención de impuestos o tipo cero español. Resulta una rebaja de precio de casi 200 euros por tonelada. El EBB afirma además que 'el Gobierno de EE UU no ha sido capaz de dar una respuesta a este tema y es previsible que la situación se mantenga en 2008', por lo que piden a la UE que actúe.
miércoles, 2 de abril de 2008
El biodiesel que se consume en Alemania destruye bosques en países como Argentina y contribuye al cambio climático
El biodiesel comercializado en Alemania produce mucho más daño al ambiente que lo estimado. Esta es la conclusión del informe presentado hoy por Greenpeace en la capital alemana. El análisis (1) fue realizado en base al combustible expendido por las tres principales compañías de ese país -Shell, Esso y Aral- y tuvo como objetivo establecer cual es la materia prima de lo que las empresas denominan “biodiesel“.
A partir de este análisis, Greenpeace comprobó que el biodiesel añadido al diesel que se comercializa no sólo proviene de aceite de colza cultivada en Alemania sino que un 20 por ciento proviene de aceite de soja. “La soja es cultivada en muchos países de América del Sur, como por ejemplo en Argentina. En este país los bosques nativos están siendo destruidos por nuevas plantaciones de esta oleaginosa”, sostuvo Alexander Hissting, responsable de la campaña de agricultura de Greenpeace Alemania.
La reglamentación europea estipula un corte de los combustibles fósiles con un 5,5 por ciento de biocombustibles para el 2010 y del 17 por ciento para el 2020. Alemania es uno de los principales destinos de las exportaciones de las plantas de biodiesel que funcionan hoy en Argentina. Durante 2007 se exportaron alrededor de 300 mil toneladas de biodiesel desde Argentina (con sólo dos plantas en funcionamiento), de las cuales el 25 por ciento tuvieron como destino el bloque comunitario.
Para este año se calcula que las exportaciones argentinas cuadriplicarán esta cifra. “Si el gobierno alemán sigue adelante con esta política del corte, estaremos perdiendo bosques para producir biocombustibles”, señaló Hissting. “De esta forma el gobierno alemán estará conduciendo a la destrucción de los últimos bosques nativos de Argentina”, agregó.
Los ministros alemanes de Ambiente, Sigmar Gabriel, y de Agricultura, Horst Seehofer, planean llegar a la meta de corte de biodiesel al 17% antes del 2020. Dado que los cultivos de colza ya han alcanzado su límite de expansión en Alemania, el porcentaje necesario de biodiesel de soja para cumplir esa meta de corte será cada vez mayor.
Según Greenpeace Alemania, cada porcentaje adicional en el corte de biodiesel en Alemania significa más de 700.000 hectáreas de plantaciones de soja extra por año. Si se quiere llegar al corte del 17 por ciento, Alemania necesitaría importar cerca de 4.900 millones de litros de biodiesel de soja, lo que significa más de 10 millones de hectáreas de ese cultivo, una superficie similar a la provincia de Santa Fe.
“Si lo que se quiere es proteger el clima, necesitamos proteger los últimos bosques nativos que quedan”, enfatizó Alexander Hissting. “El objetivo del corte de combustibles fósiles con un porcentaje de biocombustibles es un camino equivocado”.
Los impactos destructivos de los biocombustibles sobre el clima fueron señalados en la prestigiosa revista Science. Según esta publicación se debería consumir biodiesel de soja por 319 años para compensar las emisiones de Gases de Efecto Invernadero producidas por la deforestación provocada por las plantaciones de soja en el Amazonas. En Argentina, en los bosques nativos de la región chaqueña demandaría 176 años.
En los últimos 9 años más de 2 millones de hectáreas de bosques han desaparecido en manos de las actividades agropecuarias, especialmente motorizadas por el cultivo de soja. “La situación de los bosques en Argentina es alarmante”, sostuvo María Eugenia Testa, de la Unidad Política de Greenpeace Argentina. “En nuestro país no podemos perder ni una hectárea más de bosques nativos”.
La Ley 26.093 de Régimen de Regulación y Promoción para la Producción y Uso Sustentables de Biocombustibles, establece para nuestro país la obligatoriedad de la mezcla de 5 por ciento de biodiesel y bioetanol para todos los combustibles comercializados domésticamente a partir del 2010. “Esta meta solo debiera cumplirse aplicando estrictos criterios de sustentabilidad, seleccionando los cultivos con mejor balance energético y el mejor balance de gases de efecto invernadero. De otra forma la solución sería peor que el problema”, afirmó Testa.
Para Greenpeace se debe establecer un estándar de calidad que, entre otras cosas, obligue a que en el análisis de ciclo de vida de los biocombustibles se genere una reducción de GEI de al menos un 60 por ciento comparados con el combustible que reemplazan.
A partir de este análisis, Greenpeace comprobó que el biodiesel añadido al diesel que se comercializa no sólo proviene de aceite de colza cultivada en Alemania sino que un 20 por ciento proviene de aceite de soja. “La soja es cultivada en muchos países de América del Sur, como por ejemplo en Argentina. En este país los bosques nativos están siendo destruidos por nuevas plantaciones de esta oleaginosa”, sostuvo Alexander Hissting, responsable de la campaña de agricultura de Greenpeace Alemania.
La reglamentación europea estipula un corte de los combustibles fósiles con un 5,5 por ciento de biocombustibles para el 2010 y del 17 por ciento para el 2020. Alemania es uno de los principales destinos de las exportaciones de las plantas de biodiesel que funcionan hoy en Argentina. Durante 2007 se exportaron alrededor de 300 mil toneladas de biodiesel desde Argentina (con sólo dos plantas en funcionamiento), de las cuales el 25 por ciento tuvieron como destino el bloque comunitario.
Para este año se calcula que las exportaciones argentinas cuadriplicarán esta cifra. “Si el gobierno alemán sigue adelante con esta política del corte, estaremos perdiendo bosques para producir biocombustibles”, señaló Hissting. “De esta forma el gobierno alemán estará conduciendo a la destrucción de los últimos bosques nativos de Argentina”, agregó.
Los ministros alemanes de Ambiente, Sigmar Gabriel, y de Agricultura, Horst Seehofer, planean llegar a la meta de corte de biodiesel al 17% antes del 2020. Dado que los cultivos de colza ya han alcanzado su límite de expansión en Alemania, el porcentaje necesario de biodiesel de soja para cumplir esa meta de corte será cada vez mayor.
Según Greenpeace Alemania, cada porcentaje adicional en el corte de biodiesel en Alemania significa más de 700.000 hectáreas de plantaciones de soja extra por año. Si se quiere llegar al corte del 17 por ciento, Alemania necesitaría importar cerca de 4.900 millones de litros de biodiesel de soja, lo que significa más de 10 millones de hectáreas de ese cultivo, una superficie similar a la provincia de Santa Fe.
“Si lo que se quiere es proteger el clima, necesitamos proteger los últimos bosques nativos que quedan”, enfatizó Alexander Hissting. “El objetivo del corte de combustibles fósiles con un porcentaje de biocombustibles es un camino equivocado”.
Los impactos destructivos de los biocombustibles sobre el clima fueron señalados en la prestigiosa revista Science. Según esta publicación se debería consumir biodiesel de soja por 319 años para compensar las emisiones de Gases de Efecto Invernadero producidas por la deforestación provocada por las plantaciones de soja en el Amazonas. En Argentina, en los bosques nativos de la región chaqueña demandaría 176 años.
En los últimos 9 años más de 2 millones de hectáreas de bosques han desaparecido en manos de las actividades agropecuarias, especialmente motorizadas por el cultivo de soja. “La situación de los bosques en Argentina es alarmante”, sostuvo María Eugenia Testa, de la Unidad Política de Greenpeace Argentina. “En nuestro país no podemos perder ni una hectárea más de bosques nativos”.
La Ley 26.093 de Régimen de Regulación y Promoción para la Producción y Uso Sustentables de Biocombustibles, establece para nuestro país la obligatoriedad de la mezcla de 5 por ciento de biodiesel y bioetanol para todos los combustibles comercializados domésticamente a partir del 2010. “Esta meta solo debiera cumplirse aplicando estrictos criterios de sustentabilidad, seleccionando los cultivos con mejor balance energético y el mejor balance de gases de efecto invernadero. De otra forma la solución sería peor que el problema”, afirmó Testa.
Para Greenpeace se debe establecer un estándar de calidad que, entre otras cosas, obligue a que en el análisis de ciclo de vida de los biocombustibles se genere una reducción de GEI de al menos un 60 por ciento comparados con el combustible que reemplazan.
miércoles, 27 de febrero de 2008
Qué esconde el negocio del biodiésel
El crecimiento del negocio del biodiésel en el país es apabullante. En 2007 se produjeron unos 200.000 metros cúbicos del combustible derivado de la soja y se lo exportó por US$ 320 millones. Pero esas cifras quedarán chicas frente a lo que se viene: una oleada de proyectos que podrían elevar la capacidad de producción a entre 3 y 5 millones de metros cúbicos en pocos años. De todos modos, este proceso se desarrolla bien "a la argentina": el negocio está plagado de contradicciones.
Un estudio de los economistas Jorge Schvarzer y Andrés Tavosnanska, del Centro de Estudios de la Situación y las Perspectivas de la Argentina (CESPA), que depende de la UBA, pone de manifiesto algunas de los dilemas que atraviesa el sector. Por caso, apunta que las florecientes exportaciones de biodiésel sólo son posibles porque el producto tributa 2,5 % (5 % de retenciones menos reintegros de 2,5 %) cuando su materia prima, el aceite de soja, debe aportar al Estado un 32 %. Esto explica porque hicieron punta en el negocio las aceiteras, que prefieren convertir aceite en biocombustible para esquivar el guadañazo fiscal. Pero también revela un hilo muy delgado: millones de dólares de inversión pueden irse al tacho por decisión de un funcionario.
Otras contradicciones son de sentido común. La Argentina está gastando cerca de US$ 1.000 millones anuales para importar el gasoil que le falta, e inclusive exime esas operaciones de impuestos. A la par, se desarrolla una industria del biodiésel (que puede reemplazar al gasoil) netamente exportadora. Claudio Molina, de la Asociación de Biocombustibles, dice que es necesaria una urgente revisión de la legislación. Esta fija que en 2010 debe ser obligatorio cortar el gasoil con 5 % de biodiésel y que el Estado incluso podría adelantar esa fecha. Pero reserva ese negocio para sociedades conformadas por productores. Así, quienes hoy tienen biodiésel no pueden volcarlo al mercado interno.
Hasta el momento hay ocho empresas habilitadas por la Secretaría de Energía para producir biodiésel, aunque muchas pequeñas plantas lo hacen sin esa homologación. Ese conjunto, según el CESPA, tiene una capacidad instalada de 745 mil metros cúbicos. Molina calcula que la inversión realizada hasta ahora fue de unos US$ 110 millones. Se destacan los proyectos de Vincetín-Glencore y de AGD-Bunge. Entre ambas explican medio millón de metros cúbicos.
Pero también existen varias plantas en construcción -por otros US$ 187 millones- que permitirían duplicar en breve la capacidad instalada del país. Aquí aparecen proyectos de Dreyfus, Oil Fox, Eurnekian, Patagonia Bioenergía, Molinos Río de la Plata. Adicionalmente, en el rango de anteproyectos, vendrían en camino otros 855 millones en inversión, que permitirían cuadruplicar la capacidad actual o todavía más. El CESPA estima que la Argentina podrá producir 3 millones de metros cúbicos. La Asociación de Biocombustibles habla de 5 millones. En ambos casos se aclara que la inmensa mayoría de los actores apunta al negocio de la exportación, especialmente a la Unión Europea.
"Más allá de las intenciones que manifiesta la Ley de Biocombustibles, de contribuir a la participación de las Pymes y los productores rurales, las grandes inversiones están moldeando una industria del biodiésel concentrada en manos de las empresas aceiteras", apuntan los economistas de la UBA. Sus proyecciones hablan de que tan sólo una decena de firmas explicará 88 % de la producción de biodiésel. Y que todas apuntan al exterior.
Fuente: Clarín
Un estudio de los economistas Jorge Schvarzer y Andrés Tavosnanska, del Centro de Estudios de la Situación y las Perspectivas de la Argentina (CESPA), que depende de la UBA, pone de manifiesto algunas de los dilemas que atraviesa el sector. Por caso, apunta que las florecientes exportaciones de biodiésel sólo son posibles porque el producto tributa 2,5 % (5 % de retenciones menos reintegros de 2,5 %) cuando su materia prima, el aceite de soja, debe aportar al Estado un 32 %. Esto explica porque hicieron punta en el negocio las aceiteras, que prefieren convertir aceite en biocombustible para esquivar el guadañazo fiscal. Pero también revela un hilo muy delgado: millones de dólares de inversión pueden irse al tacho por decisión de un funcionario.
Otras contradicciones son de sentido común. La Argentina está gastando cerca de US$ 1.000 millones anuales para importar el gasoil que le falta, e inclusive exime esas operaciones de impuestos. A la par, se desarrolla una industria del biodiésel (que puede reemplazar al gasoil) netamente exportadora. Claudio Molina, de la Asociación de Biocombustibles, dice que es necesaria una urgente revisión de la legislación. Esta fija que en 2010 debe ser obligatorio cortar el gasoil con 5 % de biodiésel y que el Estado incluso podría adelantar esa fecha. Pero reserva ese negocio para sociedades conformadas por productores. Así, quienes hoy tienen biodiésel no pueden volcarlo al mercado interno.
Hasta el momento hay ocho empresas habilitadas por la Secretaría de Energía para producir biodiésel, aunque muchas pequeñas plantas lo hacen sin esa homologación. Ese conjunto, según el CESPA, tiene una capacidad instalada de 745 mil metros cúbicos. Molina calcula que la inversión realizada hasta ahora fue de unos US$ 110 millones. Se destacan los proyectos de Vincetín-Glencore y de AGD-Bunge. Entre ambas explican medio millón de metros cúbicos.
Pero también existen varias plantas en construcción -por otros US$ 187 millones- que permitirían duplicar en breve la capacidad instalada del país. Aquí aparecen proyectos de Dreyfus, Oil Fox, Eurnekian, Patagonia Bioenergía, Molinos Río de la Plata. Adicionalmente, en el rango de anteproyectos, vendrían en camino otros 855 millones en inversión, que permitirían cuadruplicar la capacidad actual o todavía más. El CESPA estima que la Argentina podrá producir 3 millones de metros cúbicos. La Asociación de Biocombustibles habla de 5 millones. En ambos casos se aclara que la inmensa mayoría de los actores apunta al negocio de la exportación, especialmente a la Unión Europea.
"Más allá de las intenciones que manifiesta la Ley de Biocombustibles, de contribuir a la participación de las Pymes y los productores rurales, las grandes inversiones están moldeando una industria del biodiésel concentrada en manos de las empresas aceiteras", apuntan los economistas de la UBA. Sus proyecciones hablan de que tan sólo una decena de firmas explicará 88 % de la producción de biodiésel. Y que todas apuntan al exterior.
Fuente: Clarín
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)
