English - pdf - 2145 Kb - Biosafety Information Centre

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Nonetheless, the impression had been well established in theminds of policy makers that promoting biomass energy uses innational strategies was a legitimate, and relatively easy, route tofulfilling commitments related to climate change.Indeed, the rules for calculating carbon emissions under theKyoto Protocol currently go as far as to exempt entirelybiomass energy as a source of emissions, regardless of how thebiomass is sourced and how much additional carbon isreleased in that production process. This was the result of adecision made by the IPCC to count the carbon emissionsassociated with making bioenergy as part of land use changes,rather than counting it under energy uses (to avoid doublecounting). However the Kyoto Protocol only countedemissions from energy and so biomass energy got a free pass.This exception sets up a powerful economic incentive fornations to switch to the cheapest biomass energy sourcesavailable in order to meet carbon dioxide emissions targets andearn carbon credits. According to one recent modeling study,the policy of exempting biomass-derived energy fromemissions counting could drive nations to displace virtually allthe world’s natural forests and savannahs with bioenergy crops.Such massive displacement of forests would release potentiallyhundreds of billions of tonnes of carbon during a shorttimescale (less than 20 years) – a scenario that would drivecatastrophic biodiversity loss and dangerous climate changewithin less than a century. 106That prospect has so alarmed even proponents of biomassenergy that in October 2009 thirteen scientists and policyexperts, some of them closely identified with the originalKyoto accounting protocols, warned that the exemption ofbiomass from carbon accounting protocols was a “farreaching”and “serious” flaw in the global climate agreement. 107They proposed that this “accounting error” could be fixed ifemissions from biomass energy were measured at the tailpipeor smokestack just like fossil fuels and that any sequestrationbenefits should be separately measured and credited byaccounting the actual land management and productionpractices for different biofuels and biomass technologies.Drawing an analogy with the recent financial crisis, theauthors – mostly advocates of cellulosic biofuels – hinted thatthis issue of false accounting might eventually discredit theentire biomass agenda. “Just like with financial audits, it’simportant for carbon audits to be correct from the start,” saidMichigan State University professor and co-author PhilipRobertson. “The promise of cellulosic biofuels is huge for ourclimate and economy. We don’t want to find out later thatwe’ve built a new industry on a house of cards.” 108Trading Biomass-based CarbonNot only has the UNFCCC falsely blessed biomass as carbonneutral in its emissions accounting, the convention has also setup institutional mechanisms to financially reward the growthof the new biomass economy. While reducing nationalgreenhouse gas emissions (primarily carbon dioxide) had beenthe centerpiece of the Kyoto Protocol, delegates in the finalnegotiations acquiesced to proposals by the United States tointroduce so called ‘flex mex’ (flexible mechanisms) thatwould allow trading in emissions allowances within anestablished and tightening cap as well as options to monetizebiological and geological carbon ‘sinks’ within thosemechanisms. 109Article 3.3 of the Convention further allows states to receivecredits or debits on their emissions reductions depending onhow they managed their own carbon sinks. By ‘sinks’ theadvocates of the ‘flex mex’ had in mind that plants, soils andoceans naturally sequester carbon dioxide from theatmosphere and therefore argued that measures to protect andenhance sinks, such as growing more trees or reducing soilerosion, should receive tradable credits. These credits could beissued, for example, under the new ‘Clean DevelopmentMechanism’ (CDM) of the Protocol or under what are knownas ‘joint implementation’ projects. In particular, the CDMencourages investment by Northern companies and states insequestration or climate mitigation projects located in theglobal South.Although agriculture and forest projects were initiallyrestrained to satisfy only a small part of CDM projects, in2001 more loopholes were opened in the flex mex, allowingfor biomass in existing forests to be more easily credited andmonetized. Bioenergy firms and biobased chemical companieshave since been diligent in lobbying for the CDM to expandits financing to all parts of the biomass economy. From 2005,methodologies were approved for financing the production ofelectricity from burning plantation residues such as sugar cane,bagasse, rice husks and palm oil fruit bunches. FromSeptember 2006, the CDM accepted the use of biomass forhot water production. From 2009, projects that producedbiodiesel on so-called degraded lands also became eligible forCDM credits. In February 2010 the CDM board furtherapproved granting credits to electricity power plants forburning biomass, including coal-fired power stations that cofirewith biomass. 110The New Biomassters 21
'Cutting up the sky,' the Beehive CollectiveAs of October 2010, 705 biomass projects were eitherapproved or seeking approval for 45 million certified carboncredits under the CDM mechanism, with India (318 projects),China (101 projects) and Brazil (94 projects) taking thegreatest share. That amounts to 12.75% of all CDM projects,third only to wind and hydropower projects. 111 At currentprices, these credits would be worth around one-half billiondollars adding to the overall value of the biomass economy. 112Meanwhile an unregulated ‘voluntary’ carbon credit industryhas emerged outside of the Kyoto framework withentrepreneurial companies, such as Future Forests, linkingbiomass and bioenergy projects to new carbon credits thatcould be sold to individual consumers to ‘offset’ carbonintensivelifestyles. The World Bank estimates the carbontrade is currently worth $144 billion, with national andregional carbon trading exchanges in full swing in Europe,Asia and North America. 113Trading Biomass-based Carbon:Take II – getting REDD-y for a grabThe combination of the UNFCCC’s faulty accountingmethods and financing of bioenergy projects may already seemlike enough of an assault on biodiversity, but the sameinternational forum is about to add insult to injury byintroducing a third mechanism to commodify biomass. Theso-called REDD (“Reducing Emissions from Deforestationand Forest Degradation”) now under negotiation at theUNFCCC attempts to give forest biomass a financial valuebased on the carbon stored within it. The idea behind REDDis to back living carbon stored in forest biomass with financialsecurities that can be monetized and traded alongside existingfinancial commodities. Backers of REDD argue that this willprovide a market incentive to prevent logging anddeforestation. In making a currency out of biomass, REDDexacerbates the reduction of biodiversity to stocks ofcommodifiable carbon. While the forestry industry has beenaccused before of not seeing the forest for the trees, REDDcan’t even see the trees for the carbon stored inside them.The result of such reductionism is that the implementation ofREDD looks likely to harm both natural biodiversity and thecommunities that rely on it.Specifically, the UNFCCC’s Bali Action plan calls for “policyapproaches and positive incentives on issues relating toreducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradationin developing countries; and the role of conservation,sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forestcarbon stocks in developing countries.” When decoded thisso-called “REDD+” paragraph licenses the clearing oftraditional people from forests for ‘conservation’ purposes andsubsidises commercial logging operations that meet agreedupon“sustainable management” criteria. Moreover, by talkingof ‘enhancing forest carbon stocks,’ REDD+ looks set tofinancially reward the conversion of forest land to industrialtree plantations justified by claims that such plantations storemore carbon than what is currently growing. This has seriousimplications for biodiversity and local communities.Even before REDD is implemented and agreed, governments,corporations, large NGOs and global institutions areexperimenting with this form of biomass-based carbon financeand attempting to set up REDD-like schemes. According towatchdog REDD Monitor, The World Bank has approved 25projects under its Forest Carbon Partnership Facility and 3through its BioCarbon Fund, while UN-REDD (UNDP,UNEP and FAO) is running pilot projects in Bolivia,Democratic Republic of the Congo, Indonesia, Panama, PapuaNew Guinea, Paraguay,Tanzania, Viet Nam, andZambia, with promises of over$18 million. Governmentssuch as Norway, Australia andGermany have been pledgingmoney for REDD projects inthe South as have anincreasing number of privatecorporations. Organisationssuch as ConservationInternational, WWF, TheNature Conservancy andEnvironmental Defense Fundare partnering with corporationsincluding BP, Pacificorp, MerrillPhoto: Orin Langelle, GlobalJustice Ecology ProjectLynch and Marriott Hotels. Voluntary standards are alreadyspringing up to define what is ‘sustainable’ for REDD, andcarbon traders such as EcoSecurities and Caisse des Depots arepreparing to start commodifying and profiting from as muchof the world’s forest biomass as they can get their hands on. 114ETC Group 22 www.etcgroup.org
Page 2 and 3: “Whoever produces abundant biofue
Page 4 and 5: OverviewIssueUnder the pretext of a
Page 6 and 7: ContentsSelling the Switch1. Sugar
Page 8 and 9: Introduction: Beware BiomassAround
Page 10 and 11: What is being switched?It’s not j
Page 12 and 13: Part 1: Here Comes the BioeconomyHu
Page 14 and 15: Cellulose - The Wonder Sugar“The
Page 16 and 17: The industry has realized that “g
Page 18 and 19: Back to the Future? Carbohydrate vs
Page 20 and 21: Counting the Bioma$$ EconomyTurning
Page 22 and 23: Whose Biomass?A tale of two bioecon
Page 24 and 25: A Land Grab for Biomass“The visio
Page 26 and 27: Worryingly, the committee stopped s
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 Planetwith Bioma
Page 38 and 39: The New Biomass Economy: 10 Myths1.
Page 40 and 41: 8. Biomass is good for the global e
Page 42 and 43: Part II - The Tools and PlayersIn a
Page 44 and 45: Synthetic Biology: Unpredictable,un
Page 46 and 47: Synthetic Enzymes for CelluloseSynt
Page 48 and 49: It seems reasonable therefore that
Page 50 and 51: Counting the Costs of BiomassElectr
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 BlocksIn particu
Page 60 and 61: Are Bioplastics Toxic?One of the re
Page 62 and 63: Conclusions: Earth Grab!Biomass con
Page 64 and 65: Annex: Table of Next-Generation Bio
Page 66 and 67: Company Location Feedstock(s) /Envi
Page 74 and 75: 29 David King, “The Future of Ind
Page 76 and 77: 98 Corn stover: what is left on the
Page 78 and 79:
164 Peter Read, “Biosphere Carbon
Page 80 and 81:
238 William Lemos, “Brazil ethano
Page 82 and 83:
311 Douglas A. Smock, “Bioplastic
show all

English - pdf - 2145 Kb - Biosafety Information Centre

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?