Indirect land-use changes can overcome carbon savings from
biofuels in Brazil.
In this article the author discusses the cons of biofuels in
Brazil. The major one is caused when biofuel plantations expand and replace
rangelands and farmlands. This causes a soil degradation that release carbon
emissions. Brazilian sugarcane productions is known to be among the best
production systems that produces that least amount of carbon emission; however,
soybean production is also used in making biodiesel and emits much carbon. This
is caused by the replacement of already cultivated rangelands and farmlands
into soybean plantations. Today 35% of soybean plantations are residing on
areas that once were a rangeland. Another effect of the soybean expansion that
is causing considerable harm is that these rangelands after being replaced by
soybean plantations are further expanding to meet their production needs as
well. As shown in Fig. 1 there has been a major expansion of forestland to
soybean and forestland to rangeland caused by soybean expansion. However, the
damage to forestland from sugar cane plantation expansion requires a four-year
payback of use instead of fossil fuels to compensate for the emissions that are
caused, but with soybean it would take at least 35 years. In the long run by
2020, sugarcane and soybean production would be responsible for 41% and 59% of
the indirect deforestation of the Amazon forest. The best crop found to replace
soybeans to create a low carbon and indirect deforestation would be oil palm. However
large the results of the deforestation are, compared to fossil fuels these long-term
damages are relatively small.
Lapola, D. M., Schaldach, R., Alcamo, J., Bondeau, A., Koch, J., Koelking, C., & Priess, J. A. (2010). Indirect land-use changes can overcome carbon savings from biofuels in Brazil. Proceedings of the national Academy of Sciences,107(8), 3388-3393.
Palm oil production as a potential solution? Wowza. They can grow quite high, so, in theory, you could have a polyculture with other low-lying crops. 35 year turn-around for soy beans is pretty terrible. I remember learning that Brazil is one of the few countries where some agribusinesses rip out the entire coffee bush as opposed to picking by hand (coffee bushes can produce for like 20yrs). The thing is, though, that the Amazon seems like a must-save in our opinion, but it's hard to sell conservation when the forest's products don't measure up to giant harvests of soy or sugar cane. Gotta love the complexities.
ReplyDeleteI was too surprised about the Palm Oil finding, especially when there is so much literature about its impacts in Southeast Asia.
DeleteI like the concept here of indirect land use-change, where the replacement of already cultivated rangelands and farmlands into soybean plantations, is leading to a displacement of farmers to other parts of the country and covert new lands to farms. This shows how complicated a relationship people have with land use, economics, and livelihoods. What is interesting here is that the indirect land use change is being evaluated to current land practices. In a way looking at the hidden costs of production.
ReplyDeleteIt would be interesting to use GIS to map out agriculture runoff from the production of soybeans and sugar cane. This must also be included into the findings because of its effects on the environment and water quality. Another question is how much carbon is emitted to harvest, process, and transport the crops into biofuels. The carbon emitted may be more than its reduction when using bio fuels.
ReplyDelete