Sugarcane ethanol: Contributions to climate change - BAFF

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Chapter 8 �e starting point for our prospective simulations is the updated, 2006 fuel economy which results from the foregoing historical analysis. �us, we analyze the impact of a continued intensi�cation of the use of biofuels in the economy treating the mandates as exogenous shocks. 12 Ethanol exports from Brazil to the US grow in this simulation as well. Table 1 reports the percentage changes in output for biofuels and the land-using sectors in the USA, EU and Brazil. �e �rst column in each block corresponds to the combined impact of EU and US policies on a given sector’s output (USEU-2015). �e second column in each block reports the component of this attributable to the US policies (US-2015), and the third reports the component of the total due to the EU policies (EU-2015) using the decomposition technique of Harrison et al. (2000). �is decomposition method is a more sophisticated approach to the idea of �rst simulating the global impacts of a US program, then simulating the impact of an EU biofuels program, and �nally, simulating the impact of the two combined. �e problem with that (rather intuitive) approach is that the impacts of the individual programs will not sum to the total, due to interactions. By adopting this numerical integration approach to decomposition, the combined impacts of the two programs are fully attributed to each one individually. In the case of the US impacts (columns labeled Output in US), most of the impacts on the land-using sectors are due to US policies. Coarse grains output rises by more than 16%, while output of other crops and livestock falls when only US policies are considered. However, oilseeds are a major exception. Here, the production impact is reversed when EU mandates are introduced. In order to meet the 6.25% renewable fuel share target, the EU requires a massive amount of oilseeds. Even though production in the EU rises by 52%, additional imports of oilseeds and vegetable oils are required, and this serves to stimulate production worldwide, including in the US. �us, while US oilseeds output falls by 5.6% in the presence of US-only programs, due to the dominance of ethanol in the US biofuel mix, when the EU policies are added to the mix, US oilseed production actually rises. In the case of the EU production impacts (Output in EU: the second group of columns in Table 1), the impact of US policies is quite modest, with the main interaction again through the oilseeds market. However, when it comes to third markets – in particular Brazil (Output in Brazil), the US and EU both have important impacts. US policies drive sugarcane production, through the ethanol sector, while the EU policies drive oilseeds production in Brazil. Other crops, livestock, and forestry give up land to these sectors. 12 Technically, we endogenize the subsidy on biofuel use and exogenize the renewable fuel share, then shock the latter. For simplicity, all components of the renewable fuels bundle are assumed to grow in the same proportion. 190 Sugarcane ethanol
Table 1. Change in output due to EU and US biofuel mandates: 2006-2015 (%). Sector Output in US Output in EU Output in Brazil USEU-2015 US-2015 EU-2015 USEU-2015 US-2015 EU-2015 USEU-2015 US-2015 EU-2015 Ethanol 177.5 177.4 0.1 430.9 1.3 429.7 18.1 17.9 0.2 Biodiesel 176.9 176.8 0.1 428.8 1.2 427.6 - - - Coarse grains 16.6 16.4 0.2 2.5 0.8 1.7 -0.3 1.1 -1.4 Oilseeds 6.8 -5.6 12.4 51.9 1.2 50.7 21.1 0.6 20.5 Sugarcane -1.8 -1.9 0.1 -3.7 0.0 -3.7 8.4 9.3 -0.9 Other grains -7.6 -8.7 1.2 -12.2 0.1 -12.3 -8.7 -2.0 -6.8 Other agri -1.6 -1.7 0.2 -4.5 0.0 -4.5 -3.8 -1.5 -2.4 Livestock -1.2 -1.2 0.0 -1.7 0.1 -1.8 -1.4 -0.6 -0.7 Forestry -1.2 -1.4 0.1 -5.4 -0.3 -5.1 -2.7 -1.0 -1.8 Note: Ethanol in the US and EU is from grains, and it is sugarcane-based in Brazil. The global impacts of US and EU biofuels policies Sugarcane ethanol 191
Page 1 and 2:
Sugarcane ethanol Contributions to
Page 3 and 4:
Table of contents Foreword 11 José
Page 5:
Chapter 8 �e global impacts of US
Page 8 and 9:
Foreword �e use of biofuels as a
Page 11 and 12:
Executive summary Do biofuels help
Page 13 and 14:
Executive summary 12. Projections o
Page 15 and 16:
Chapter 1 Introduction to sugarcane
Page 17 and 18:
Introduction to sugarcane ethanol A
Page 19 and 20:
Introduction to sugarcane ethanol C
Page 21 and 22:
Introduction to sugarcane ethanol F
Page 23:
Introduction to sugarcane ethanol H
Page 26 and 27:
Chapter 2 Production (million tons)
Page 28 and 29:
Chapter 2 Table 2. Sugarcane produc
Page 30 and 31:
Chapter 2 Harvested area (million h
Page 32 and 33:
Chapter 2 million hectares 8 7 6 5
Page 34 and 35:
Chapter 2 Table 5. Global significa
Page 36 and 37:
Chapter 2 (FAOSTAT, 2008). �e lan
Page 38 and 39:
Chapter 2 indicating that sugarcane
Page 40 and 41:
Chapter 2 and vinasse produced duri
Page 42 and 43:
Chapter 2 • • • • Harvested
Page 44 and 45:
Chapter 2 2.2. AEZ assessment of la
Page 46 and 47:
Chapter 2 The quantified descriptio
Page 48 and 49:
Chapter 2 Table 8 summarizes by reg
Page 50 and 51:
Chapter 2 Table 9. Suitability of u
Page 52 and 53:
Chapter 2 Table 10. Suitability of
Page 54 and 55:
Chapter 2 of bio-diversity and land
Page 56 and 57:
Chapter 2 FAO, 1987. 1948-1985 Worl
Page 58 and 59:
Chapter 2 Smeets, E., M. Junginger,
Page 60 and 61:
Chapter 3 Considering that this deb
Page 62 and 63:
Chapter 3 1,000 ha 9,000 8,000 7,00
Page 64 and 65:
Chapter 3 Another source of data on
Page 66 and 67:
Chapter 3 Figure 3. Different land
Page 68 and 69:
Chapter 3 1-Pastureand crops expans
Page 70 and 71:
Chapter 3 Given that the model is u
Page 72 and 73:
Chapter 3 to the case studies; (d)
Page 74 and 75:
Chapter 3 Mato Grosso do Sul in 200
Page 76 and 77:
Chapter 3 the Pasture class increas
Page 78 and 79:
Chapter 3 Table 5. Number of sugarc
Page 80 and 81:
Chapter 3 of 12.6% from 2001 to 200
Page 82 and 83:
Chapter 3 Table 6. South-Centre: ex
Page 84 and 85:
Chapter 3 4.5. Options for approach
Page 86 and 87:
Chapter 3 states that have lost pas
Page 88 and 89:
Chapter 3 It is important to contex
Page 91 and 92:
Chapter 4 Mitigation of GHG emissio
Page 93 and 94:
Table 1. Basic data: sugarcane prod
Page 95 and 96:
Mitigation of GHG emissions using s
Page 97 and 98:
GHG emission (kg CO 2 eq/m 3 etOH)
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Table 7. Soil carbon content for di
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
5. Conclusions Mitigation of GHG em
Page 107:
Page 110 and 111:
Chapter 5 Oil reserves - Gasoline/d
Page 112 and 113:
Chapter 5 in research and developme
Page 114 and 115:
Chapter 5 Table 3. Summary of main
Page 116 and 117:
Chapter 5 3. Environmental indicato
Page 118 and 119:
Chapter 5 Table 4. Carbon stock in
Page 120 and 121:
Chapter 5 3.2. Water Total carbon i
Page 122 and 123:
Chapter 5 3.3. Soil and fertilizers
Page 124 and 125:
Chapter 5 3.4. Management of diseas
Page 126 and 127:
Chapter 5 Table 10. Sugarcane and v
Page 128 and 129:
Chapter 5 in the implementation of
Page 130 and 131:
Chapter 5 Table 11. Continued. Crit
Page 132 and 133:
Chapter 5 Brazilian Government. Lei
Page 134 and 135:
Chapter 5 São Paulo State Governme
Page 136 and 137: Chapter 6 2. Development of the eth
Page 138 and 139: Chapter 6 blends by car manufacture
Page 140 and 141: Chapter 6 Brazil have been roughly
Page 142 and 143: Chapter 6 Overall there are few di
Page 144 and 145: Chapter 6 3.2.1. The impact of exis
Page 146 and 147: Chapter 6 �e use of ethanol in he
Page 148 and 149: Chapter 6 cropping systems that pro
Page 150 and 151: Chapter 6 certainty, the supply of
Page 152 and 153: Chapter 6 De Vries, B.J.M., D.P. va
Page 155 and 156: Chapter 7 Biofuel conversion techno
Page 157 and 158: Biofuel conversion technologies �
Page 159 and 160: Biofuel conversion technologies In
Page 161 and 162: Biofuel conversion technologies the
Page 163 and 164: Biofuel conversion technologies Imp
Page 165 and 166: Biofuel conversion technologies Pro
Page 167 and 168: Investment costs (Euro/kWth input c
Page 169 and 170: 4.2. Greenhouse gas balances Biofue
Page 171 and 172: Reduction in CO equivalent emission
Page 173 and 174: Biofuel conversion technologies �
Page 175 and 176: Biofuel conversion technologies pot
Page 177 and 178: Chapter 8 The global impacts of US
Page 179 and 180: The global impacts of US and EU bio
Page 185: The global impacts of US and EU bio
Page 191 and 192: Forest cover Pasture cover USEU 201
Page 193: The global impacts of US and EU bio
Page 196 and 197: Chapter 9 also risks and serious tr
Page 198 and 199: Chapter 9 Box 2. Bioethanol stoves
Page 200 and 201: Chapter 9 �e highest impact on po
Page 202 and 203: Chapter 9 the increased generation
Page 204 and 205: Chapter 9 o�ers to support the MD
Page 206 and 207: Chapter 9 Price variation (%) 14 12
Page 208 and 209: Chapter 9 Dufey et al., 2007a). Leg
Page 210 and 211: Chapter 9 manufactured directly fro
Page 212 and 213: Chapter 9 in mechanical aid for the
Page 214 and 215: Chapter 9 Table 1. Import tariffs o
Page 216 and 217: Chapter 9 3.8. Improving efficiency
Page 218 and 219: Chapter 9 some minimum transport in
Page 220 and 221: Chapter 9 IEA, 2004. Biofuels for T
Page 223 and 224: Chapter 10 Why are current food pri
Page 225 and 226: Why are current food prices so high
Page 227 and 228: 2.4 Long-term drivers of supply Why
Page 229 and 230: 3.1. Effects on the supply side Why
Page 231 and 232: 3.3 Policy responses to rising food
Page 233 and 234: 3.4. Other effects • Why are curr
Page 235 and 236: - - - - Why are current food prices
Page 237 and 238:
18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 5. The fut
Page 239 and 240:
• • • Why are current food pr
Page 241 and 242:
6.1. Policy implications Why are cu
Page 243:
Why are current food prices so high
Page 247 and 248:
Authors Dr. Marcos Adami, senior re
Page 249 and 250:
Keyword index A Africa 204, 205, 20
Page 251:
M maize 20, 83, 104, 173, 184, 187,
show all

Sugarcane ethanol: Contributions to climate change - BAFF

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?