Sugarcane ethanol: Contributions to climate change - BAFF

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Chapter 10 Figure 10. CBOT Corn Market Composition January 2007 – April 2008. Source: Derived from a presentation of Dave Kass at the Agricultural Markets Roundtable held April 22, 2008 Washington, DC at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. – A number of recent studies seem to suggest that speculation has not systematically contributed to higher commodity prices or increased price volatility. › For example, a recent IMF sta� analysis (September 2006 World Economic Outlook) shows that speculative activity tends to respond to price movements (rather than the other way around), suggesting that the causality runs from prices to changes in speculative positions. › �e Commodity Futures Trading Commission has argued that speculation may have reduced price volatility by increasing market liquidity, which allowed market participants to adjust their portfolios, thereby encouraging entry by new participants. 4. First quantitative results of the analysis of key driving factors • Thousand contracts Short Long 500 400 300 200 100 0 -100 -200 -300 -400 -500 -600 -700 -800 -900 1/3 1/22 2/26 2/7 3/14 3/30 4/18 5/4 5/22 6/8 7/13 6/26 7/31 8/16 9/4 9/20 10/24 10/8 11/9 11/28 12/14 1/3 1/22 2/7 2/26 3/13 4/1 Commercial merchants Managed money funds CIT CBOT nearby future 6.00 5.75 5.50 5.25 5.00 4.75 4.50 4.25 4.00 3.75 3.50 3.25 3.00 2.75 2.50 OECD Outlook 2007-2017: �e OECD performed some scenarios to see the impact of various drivers on their Outlook projection (OECD-FAO, 2008). �is analysis highlights the outcome of a situation where biofuel policies are in place under the reference scenario and di�erent assumptions are moderate, e.g. income growth, development of crude oil prices, etc.: – If biofuel production stays at its 2007 level, then world wheat prices would be 5% lower, maize 13% lower and vegetable oil 15% lower compared to the reference scenario where biofuel production in 2017 more than doubles relative to the 2007 level. 238 Sugarcane ethanol Dollars per bushel
– – – – Why are current food prices so high? A constant crude oil price implies 10% lower prices for all three commodities, due to the fact that the assumed high crude oil price under the reference scenario will make biofuel crops more pro�table. Lower income growth is especially relevant for vegetable oils (more than 10%). A stronger US dollar of 10% leads to about 5% lower prices for wheat, maize and vegetable oil relative to the baseline. Higher growth rates in yields for important biofuel crops will lower the world market prices for their production by more than 5% for wheat and maize. �ese results are inline with our own results on the impact of biofuel policies, which are presented in Figure 12. • 0% -5% -10% -15% -20% -25% -30% -35% -40% -45% Wheat Maize Vegetable oil Scenario 5 : Scenario 4 and yields for wheat, oilseeds and coarse grains 5 % higher than over the projection period Scenario 4 : Scenario 3 and Progressive appreciation of the USD exchange rates to reach 10% higher rates in 2017 Scenario 3 : Scenario 2 and Lower income growth in EE5 countries (half annual growth rate) Scenario 2 : Scenario 1 and Oil price constant at 2007 level (72$) Scenario 1 : Biofuel production constant at 2007 level Figure 11. Sensitivity on analysis of world price changes. Source: OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2008-2017. Highlights. (2008). International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) study (e.g. Von Braun et al., 2008). – �e percentage contribution of biofuels demand to price increases from 2000-07 is the di�erence between 2007 prices in the two scenarios, divided by the increase in prices in the baseline from 2000-2007. – �e increased biofuel demand between 2000 and 2007, compared with previous historical rates of growth, is estimated to have accounted for 30 percent of the increase in weighted average cereal prices during 2000-07. › Maize – 39%. › Rice – 21%. › Wheat – 22%. Sugarcane ethanol 239
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 181 and 182:
The global impacts of US and EU bio
Page 183 and 184: The global impacts of US and EU bio
Page 187 and 188: Table 1. Change in output due to EU
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: 3.4. Other effects • Why are curr
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?