[Pil-pc-oceania] Fwd: Palm oil & other agrofuels [SANET-MG]

[Robyn Williamson]

Sustainable agriculture and sustainable business will remain  
oxymorons while ever economic rationalists are permitted to deem  
externalised costs and other furphys as legitimate.  You can't come  
up with anything approximating a true answer if you leave half the  
sums out of the equation.

I beg to differ with the gentleman from Princeton University who  
defines it as an "accounting error", profits have to come from  
somewhere and business is well aware that they're not coming out of  
thin air, it is nothing short of misleading and deceptive conduct at  
the expense of [external] human and natural resources.

Some interesting pieces concerning this ongoing legalised scam are  
forwarded from the SANET-MG mailing list below.

CONTACT DETAILS:

Robyn Williamson
APC9 Secretariat
info at apc9.org.au
Ph/Fx:  (02) 9629 3560
Mobile:  0409 151 435
http://apc9.org.au

Begin forwarded message:

> Howdy, all--
>
> Two excellent pieces from the English online version of /Helsingin  
> Sanomat/:
>
> The two faces of tropical palm oil
> http://www.hs.fi/english/article/The+two+faces+of+tropical+palm+oil/ 
> 1135233827212
>
>
> And this opinion piece:
>
> Getting out of palm oil
> http://www.hs.fi/english/article/COMMENT+Getting+out+of+palm+oil/ 
> 1135233830894
>
> Excerpted below.
>
>
> paz
> mish
>
> ~~~~~~~
>
> How does the Finnish Neste Oil, which produces bio-diesel fuel from  
> Malaysian palm oil, fit in to this pattern? Neste Oil buys its oil  
> from the IOI Group. IOI operates only on old plantations. It does  
> not cut down old forests, and does not banish indigenous  
> inhabitants out of the way of the oil palm plantations. It treats  
> its workers well and bears social responsibility.
>
> So, it is business which follows the principles of sustainable  
> development.
>
> Or perhaps not. It is not the fault of Neste Oil or IOI, but they  
> are part of the palm oil business - a business that is being pushed  
> onto the road of destruction by the worldwide enthusiasm for  
> biological fuels, which has proven to be a mistake, after the first  
> few steps.
>
> The OECD countries need to immediately establish much tougher  
> criteria for biological fuels. One would be to ban the use of  
> significant food crops as raw material for fuel. The criteria would  
> take effect in 2013.
>
> Biofuel companies would have been given clear rules and time.  
> Product development and competition would be given a chance to do  
> their jobs.
>     Helsingin Sanomat / First published in print 3.2.2008
>
> ********************************************************


> Howdy, all--
>
> In our ongoing thread about peer reviewed, credible, and impartial  
> research including full-cycle accounting of greenhouse gases and  
> agrofuels:
>
> The /NYT/ reports today on two new studies looking at the whole- 
> cycle GHG emissions of agrofuels.
>
> Biofuels deemed a greenhouse threat
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/08/science/earth/08wbiofuels.html
>
>
> A snip:
>
>> Almost all biofuels used today cause more greenhouse gas emissions  
>> than conventional fuels if the full emissions costs of producing  
>> these "green" fuels are taken into account, two studies being  
>> published Thursday have concluded.
>
>
> Another snip:
>
>> Together the two studies offer sweeping conclusions: It does not  
>> matter if it is rain forest or scrubland that is cleared, the  
>> greenhouse gas contribution is significant. More important, they  
>> discovered that, taken globally, the production of almost all  
>> biofuels resulted, directly or indirectly, intentionally or not,  
>> in new lands being cleared, either for food or fuel.
>>
>> "When you take this into account, most of the biofuel that people  
>> are using or planning to use would probably increase greenhouse  
>> gasses substantially," said Timothy Searchinger, lead author of  
>> one of the studies and a researcher in environment and economics  
>> at Princeton University. "Previously there's been an accounting  
>> error: land use change has been left out of prior analysis."
>>
>> These plant-based fuels were originally billed as better than  
>> fossil fuels because the carbon released when they were burned was  
>> balanced by the carbon absorbed when the plants grew. But even  
>> that equation proved overly simplistic because the process of  
>> turning plants into fuels causes its own emissions - for refining  
>> and transport, for example.
>
>
> Just as David Pimentel and others have been saying all along.  
> Though once again people in the industry aren't taking science for  
> an answer...when record profits are to be had, marking up food.
>
> Of course nobody's redefining current patterns of mobility, which  
> are so profitable to a few, what with externalized costs and all.
>
> :^|
>
> UNEP is calling for better sustainability criteria.
>
> Which brings us back to Jeff's posting this week about which  
> organizations and individuals are qualified to develop those, which  
> stakeholders are involved, and what happens when money and  
> relationships with foundations are allowed to define  
> "sustainability" as something benefitting only very narrow interests.
>
>
>
> peace
> mish
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> First they ignore you, then they laugh at you,
> then they fight you, then you win.
> --Mohandas K. Gandhi
>
> ********************************************************
>