The New Biomassters - Convention on Biological Diversity

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Counting the Costs of Biomass Electricity II: Threatening human health “I saw very strong and significant associations between tonsillitis, frequent cough, pseudo-croup, exercise-induced wheeze, food allergies and wood smoke exposure in our school children. I think that wood smoke is one of the most harmful air pollutants we have on Earth.” – Gerd Oberfeld, M.D., epidemiologist, Public Health Office – Unit for Environmental Health, Salzburg, Austria 223 Burning biomass may be ‘natural’ but it is still a major health hazard to communities that live close to large-scale facilities. • A 1997 estimate by the World Health Organization put the number of premature deaths due to wood smoke inhalation, mostly from indoor cooking fires, at between 2.7 and 3 million people. 224 <strong>The</strong> prime cause of these deaths appears to be the effects of fine and ultrafine particles that reach deep into the lungs. • <strong>The</strong> U.S. EPA estimates that lifetime risk from cancer is 12 times higher from inhaling wood smoke than from an equal volume of second-hand cigarette smoke. 225 According to one EPA calculation, burning just two cords of wood (around one quarter of one tonne) produces the same amount of mutagenic particles as driving 13 gasoline-powered cars 10,000 miles each at 20 miles/gallon. 226 • Children living in communities where wood smoke is prevalent exhibit decreases in lung capacity and increases in asthma attacks, frequency and severity of general respiratory illness, emergency room visits and school absences. 227 Airborne wood dust (uncombusted) can also cause respiratory, eye and skin irritation. • Wood smoke contains over 200 chemicals and compound groups, some of which are toxic in their own right. 228 According to the public interest group Clean Air Revival, wood burning is the third largest source of dioxin in the United States, recognized as one of the most toxic compounds known to exist. 229 Incineration in Disguise While woodchips and oils are presented as the clean, green face of biopower, the industry’s dirty little secret is hidden behind the acronym MSW, or Municipal Solid Waste. Facilities that are permitted to burn wood are often allowed to mix some percentage of municipal solid waste, up to 30% in some U.S. states, and often get paid to do so, making garbage-burning an attractive option. Globally, over 12 GW of so-called biomass power is currently produced by burning garbage. 230 Dioxins, furans, heavy metals including mercury and lead, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), ultrafine particulate matter, carbon monoxide, sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and a range of other dangerous toxins have been spewing from incineration facilities all over the world for years. Now, along with a host of new technologies like pyrolysis, gasification and plasma arc incineration, incinerators are getting a green makeover as biomass power facilities, relabeled as “Waste to Energy,” or “Waste Conversion” technologies. <strong>The</strong>se “incinerators in disguise” claim to simultaneously resolve problems of “too much waste,” and “not enough renewable energy,” thus reducing the take of biomass from the natural world. Switch 2: Liquid BioFuels: Liquefying biomass for transport “Whoever produces abundant biofuels could end up making more than just big bucks—they will make history…<strong>The</strong> companies, the countries, that succeed in this will be the economic winners of the next age to the same extent that the oil-rich nations are today.” – J. Craig Venter, Founder, Synthetic Genomics, Inc. 231 <strong>The</strong> production of liquid transport fuels made from biomass is the glossy (and well-heeled) poster child for the new biomass economy. From the short lived corn ethanol boom of 2006- 2008 to the new wave of venture capital and big oil companies sinking billions of dollars into biofuel startups, the biofuels industry is still regarded as a massive new source of revenue in an age of peak oil and carbon pricing. Although predictions from 2006 that biofuels would make up 30% of all transport fuel by 2030 232 now look overblown, nonetheless the sector is still growing rapidly – buoyed by government mandates, ‘clean energy’ stimulus funds and heavy investment by Big Oil. Recent attention on the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill seems to also be giving new life to the idea that non-fossil liquid fuel may be a panacea for environmental problems. 233 <strong>The</strong> <strong>New</strong> <strong>Biomassters</strong> 43
Scoring an F – Failures of first generation biofuels <strong>The</strong> ‘first‘ or ‘failed’ generation of biofuels refers to either fermented alcohols – almost entirely ethanol from corn and sugarcane – or to refined biodiesel from oil crops (soy, rapeseed, sunflower, mustard) and tree oils (palm, jatropha). <strong>The</strong> first generation came with three significant blocks to success: • Competition with food and forest protection In 2008, an internal World Bank report (later made public) revealed that up to 75% of the increase in food prices during that year’s food crisis, was due to the biofuels policies of Europe and the U.S., which prompted a massive switch away from wheat planting to rapeseed growing coupled with major diversion of corn and soy into ethanol and biodiesel production. 234 Previous modeling by the conservative IFPRI (International Food Policy Research Institute) had estimated that 30 percent of the overall increase in grain prices during the 2008 food price crisis could be pinned on biofuels. Nevertheless IFPRI calculated that if a global moratorium on biofuel production were put in place in 2007, prices of key food crops would have dropped significantly – by 20 percent for maize, 14 percent for cassava, 11 percent for sugar, and 8 percent for wheat by 2010. 235 Biodiesel crops (soy, sunflower, canola) also use up water, nutrients and prime agricultural land or, in the case of plantation crops such as palm oil, are implicated in the clearance of rainforest lands, impacting endangered species and the rights of forest dwellers. 236 • Poor energy balance Ethanol in particular is a poor fuel that produces less energy when combusted than gasoline. This negatively affects the so called ‘energy balance’ for first generation biofuels. Energy economists have calculated that once the energy costs of agricultural inputs are factored in, corn ethanol production requires 29 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced. Biodiesel from soybean plants requires 27 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced, and sunflower biodiesel requires 118 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced. 237 • Requires special engines and/or distribution lines Pumping neat ethanol into existing engines can corrode engine parts and requires adjustments in the flow of air and fuel. As a result, ethanol requires separate handling and therefore costly storage tanks and distribution mechanisms. (Biodiesel more easily adapts to existing engines and fuel systems.) While these failings of first generation biofuels are widely known, OECD governments continue to maintain subsidies and fuel mandates for ethanol and biodiesel. Biofuel boosters argue that such biofuel mandates must stay in place to enable the smooth transition to what they claim is a less problematic (but so far still theoretical) next generation. “Survivors” of Generation F – Sugar and Jatropha Even after the collapse of initial biofuel hype, there are at least two ‘first generation’ biofuels that continue to receive enthusiastic support: Cane sugar – In Brazil, cane sugar has been transformed into fuel ethanol on an industrial scale for three decades. Since 2008, over 50% of fuel sold in the country for cars and other light vehicles was ethanol and the country looks set to produce a record 27 billion litres of ethanol in 2010. 238 <strong>The</strong> Brazilian ethanol industry claims that their cane sugar has a far better energy balance than corn ethanol and that additional sugar can be grown sustainably without competing with food production. In February 2010 Royal Dutch Shell signed an agreement with sugar giant Cosan to form a joint venture worth $12 billion producing ethanol from Brazilian sugar cane. This investment represents the single largest commitment to biofuels that any oil company has made to date. 239 Cutting cane in Brazil Photo: John McQuaid Continued overleaf ETC Group 44 www.etcgroup.org
Page 2 and 3: “Whoever produces abundant biofue
Page 4 and 5: Overview Issue Under the pretext of
Page 6 and 7: Contents Selling the Switch 1. Suga
Page 8 and 9: Introduction: Beware Biomass Around
Page 10 and 11: What is being switched? It’s not
Page 12 and 13: Part 1: Here Comes the Bioeconomy H
Page 14 and 15: Cellulose - The Wo
Page 16 and 17: The industry has r
Page 18 and 19: Back to the Future? Carbohydrate vs
Page 20 and 21: Counting the Bioma$$ Economy Turnin
Page 22 and 23: Whose Biomass? A tale of two bioeco
Page 24 and 25: A Land Grab for Biomass “
Page 26 and 27: Worryingly, the committee stopped s
Page 28 and 29: Nonetheless, the impression had bee
Page 30 and 31: Transferring Biomass Technologies -
Page 32 and 33: • Moreover, as climate change con
Page 34 and 35: Not Enough Biomass? Let’s boost i
Page 36 and 37: Geoengineering the Planet with Biom
Page 38 and 39: The New</s
Page 40 and 41: 8. Biomass is good for the global e
Page 42 and 43: Part II - The Tool
Page 44 and 45: Synthetic Biology: Unpredictable, u
Page 46 and 47: Synthetic Enzymes for Cellulose Syn
Page 48 and 49: It seems reasonable therefore that
Page 52 and 53: “Survivors” of Generation F - S
Page 54 and 55: Beyond Alcohol to Hydrocarbons - Bi
Page 56 and 57: • Invasiveness and genetic engine
Page 58 and 59: Bio-based Building Blocks In partic
Page 60 and 61: Are Bioplastics Toxic? One of the r
Page 62 and 63: Conclusions: Earth Grab! Biomass co
Page 64 and 65: Annex: Table of Next-Generation Bio
Page 66 and 67: Company Location Feedstock(s) / Env
Page 74 and 75: 29 David King, op. cit. 30 Antonio
Page 76 and 77: 98 Corn stover: what is left on the
Page 78 and 79: 163 Almuth Ernsting and Deepak Rugh
Page 80 and 81: 238 William Lemos, “Brazil ethano
Page 82 and 83: 311 Douglas A. Smock, “Bioplastic

The New Biomassters - Convention on Biological Diversity

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?