On November 27, 2009, Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva said that "gringos" should pay Amazon nations to prevent deforestation, claiming rich Western nations have caused much of the environmental destruction.
According to a concept called Indirect Land Use Change, or ILUC, corn used for ethanol production in the United States cuts into American grain exports and thus provide a bigger market for competitors such as Brazil.
This in turn leads to deforestation as Brazil expands its grain production to feed larger exports. And that's not all:
According to John Carter, a rancher from San Antonio, Texas, who moved to the northeast of Mato Grosso 13 years ago with his Brazilian wife "This is no man’s land and it’s a case of grab all you can while it’s still easy.”
In fact, Brazil is still deforesting an area the size of Connecticut each year.
A 2008 study by the Imazon research group showed that only about 4 percent of the Amazon, or 50 million acres, has recognized land title. 32 percent has already been invaded illegally, while 43 percent is protected in the form of national parks and Indian reserves.
“There is a big financial incentive (from the United States) to invade public land and claim possession,” said Carter. “Once trees are cleared value increases tenfold, and this is happening on a huge scale..."
Amazon deforestation jumped by 69% in 2008 compared to 2007, according to official Brazilian government data. Even worse, deforestation could wipe out or severely damage nearly 60% of the Amazon Rainforest by 2030, says a new report from World Wildlife Fund.
Aside from biofuels, cattle ranching has also been blamed for much of the deforestation.
According to a report by Greenpeace Brazil, 80% of Amazon deforestation is due to the destruction of trees for establishing cattle pastures. Cattle ranching remains a very important industry in Brazil and is becoming even more vital to the Brazilian economy. In fact, the Brazilian commercial cattle herd is the largest in the world. Beef and milk are the two top livestock products in Brazil and exports of Brazilian beef grew to $8 billion (USD) in 2009.
A recent study by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found that for every 1/4 lb hamburger consumed in the US from rainforest beef, about 55 square feet of rainforest was cleared.
And while many fast food chains claim not to use rainforest beef, this claim is simply not substantiated by fact. The USDA doesn't have an adequate system of labeling where beef is from; beef grown in the rainforest can pass through a processing plant in the US and still be labeled as domestic meat.
“Unfortunately standing forest has no monetary value,” said Joel Velasco, North America representative for the Brazilian Sugarcane Industry Association Unica."Until that changes, the law of economics means more trees fall.”
Photo courtesy everystockphoto.com
Comments
Actually, corn ethanol is responsible for the razing of rainforest in Brazil for pasture. That is because the increase in corn acreage in the U.S. for corn ethanol caused soy acreage to be converted to corn. This caused an increase in soy prices, which resulted in the conversion of pasture in Brazil to soy, and the conversion of rainforest to pasture.
For all you Greens out there, the Inconvenient Truth is that the deforestation in both Brazil and Asia are the true environmental legacy of Al Gore.
Well Zeke, Judson seems to have said in his article, actually the first thing he said, that corn ethanol is causing deforestation.
Most real environmentalists that I know are opposed to corn based ethanol.
Oh, and Gore isn't a Green. He's a Democrat. Greens known what's up with the environment and and Democrats pretend to.
"Well Zeke, Judson seems to have said in his article, actually the first thing he said, that corn ethanol is causing deforestation."
Wrong, Jonathan, Here is what Judson said:
"Aside from biofuels, cattle ranching has also been blamed for much of the deforestation."
My point is that the cattle ranching in the Amazon region is also a result of misguided biofuels policy.
"Oh, and Gore isn't a Green. He's a Democrat. Greens known what's up with the environment and and Democrats pretend to."
Glad to hear it. I just wish that there were more true Greens and fewer Democrats who think they're Greens. Like Obama and Pelosi.
Well Zeke, Judson and others, we set a record in the U.S. this year for acres planted for soybeans. You're repeating the mantra of the anti-ethanol crowd without actually checking the facts to see if their case has born itself out in the real world. It hasn't. Soy acres aren't turning over to corn.
Also, the rate of deforestation has actually dropped steadily over the last five years or so. I don't know where you're getting your data.
Here's the Bloomberg report a couple weeks ago: "Brazil lost the smallest area of forest since at least 1988 in the year ended July 31, according to data released by the National Institute for Space Research last week." (examiner won't let me link to the article)
It was pretty big news, and I'm surprised none of you actually found that in your research.
This is in the BBC. Even Greenpeace acknowledged it: "Earlier this month, Brazil's government said the rate of deforestation in the Amazon had dropped by 45% - and was the lowest on record since monitoring began 21 years ago. …
The environmental group Greenpeace has welcomed the latest drop but says there is still too much destruction in the rainforest.”
A little research instead of spouting off ideology is important for this debate.
Lula da Silva is trying to pin the deforestation on U.S. ethanol so that Brazilian ethanol is the only viable option for the U.S. He wants any damage to count as an emissions penalty on U.S. ethanol.
That's all this is about. Him trying to strengthen the export market for one of his country's biggest products. That's been #1 on his agenda every time he's set foot in the U.S., and his words deserve a little scrutiny next time.
The rate has dropped but that's just a rate. They are still deforesting an area the size of Connecticut, as stated in this article, every year.
Actually, if one were to run the data, even at a deforestation rate of "the size of Connecticut" per year, it would still require more than 573 years to deforest the Amazonian Rainforest.
Indirect land use change is based on unscientific false assumptions. This article contradicts itself. First it blames biofuels for deforestation, and then says that 80 percent of deforestation is caused by cattle ranching. A GTS study found that 70% of deforested land went unused – “indicating that the main reason for cutting down trees was for timber and land grabbing.” Brazil blames everyone else for their problems. Deforestation in Brazil has been going on for 100 years – long before biofuels took off. Brazilian cattle ranching and subsistence farming has always been the main cause. Brazilian men who harvest sugarcane only live an average of 46 years. Residual cane stalks are burned in the field – causing warming, air pollution and black carbon soot. Bagasse cane residues are burned at sugarcane plants, without scrubbers to clean the exhaust. Ocean going ships burn dirty bunker fuel - spewing sulfurous black carbon soot - to ship surplus Brazilian ethanol to other countries.
"Amazon deforestation jumped by 69% in 2008 compared to 2007, according to official Brazilian government data."
I'm challenging this statement, Greg, because the sources I identified say the opposite. And yes, it's still being deforested, but the rate has actually been slowing for more than five years. It's moving in the right direction, and we must keep making gains. I never said "Mission Accomplished." I just say we're making progress and the initial problem is not the fault of alternative fuels.
Also, it should be noted that there is REforestation in the Amazon, as much as 20 percent of what's deforested, according to the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute (again, this site won't let me link).
I agree that the Amazon must be protected. But the media has a nasty habit of taking a problem and blowing it out of proportion, when an accurate account can prompt just as much action. I get that reporters want to be read, but the doomsday scenarios sound like crying wolf
And I understand that reforestation doesn't solve some of the endangered species issues, but it does negate a good chunk of the carbon emission issues, which is what this story addresses.
Bottom line, biofuels are not as good or as bad as you’ve likely read in the past. Look into it a little.
This is more of the same unexamined enviro-bunk. The article contradicts itself. What is the cause of clearing the rainforest? It can't be for grain if 80% is for cattle grazing. Give me a break. All this nonsense just confuses the issue. If we really cared about the rainforest we would identify the real causes and develop policy focused on it like banning importation of Brazilian beef or milk or wood products or some other policy aimed directed at the root causes. Indirect land use is a very imprecise and untested tool for protecting carbon storage. Its use to inform policy will die in the courts.
The article doesn't contradict itself. It says that part of the problem is biofuels and part is cattle ranching. Just like you said.
"The article doesn't contradict itself."
It's just wrong. As I pointed out below, it makes easily disprovable statements.
The reason da Silva doesn't mention nor care about cattle is because the sole purpose of his statement is to boost ethanol exports to the U.S. If the U.S. ethanol industry gets carbon penalties, his Brazilian ethanol replaces it.
That's it. That's all. That's why I hope this author doesn't just take whatever the Brazilian president says at face value in the future.
Deforestation of the Amazon is a complicated issue. I spent about a month in Santarem (central Amazon) this year. There are several factors at play. First, multinationals like Cargill are buying up land and cutting down the forest to grow soybeans. Second, families who used to live on the lands Cargill has consumed become landless. This causes them to move deeper into the jungle, where they proceed to clear a little plot of land in order to grow food for sale and subsistence. Third, the ubiquitous cattle ranchers also need cleared land, so they can harvest the beef. Fourth, the loggers are paid to harvest trees because Westerners like to install Brazilian hardwood flooring in their expensively remodeled homes. Loggers also make roads for the landless to make their excursions into the jungle. Next in line comes the corrupt government official who turns a blind eye (because he is paid to) when corporations, ranchers, and loggers violate the laws.
Corn ethanol does NOT cause deforestation. Last year U.S. corn exports Increased 20%, and exports of corn distiller’s grains Doubled, while ethanol production increased 30%. The U.S. corn crop has Not displaced any other crops. The crop fluctuates, but it’s still about the same number of acres it was 60 years ago. The yield per acre is increasing. 3 years ago, we averaged 150 bushels per acre. This year we’re getting 165 bushels per acre – on 3 million fewer acres. Only 1 out of 4 acres of non-edible feed corn are used for ethanol. And from that one acre, we get 500 gallons of domestic biofuel, plus 50 bushels of distillers grains that produces food, plus 25 gallons of corn oil, plus another 150 gallons of cellulosic ethanol from the corn cobs and stover. Domestic ethanol displaces foreign oil, including oil from dirty, energy intensive Canadian Tar Sands. Ethanol is made from recycled CO2 - Not newly mined crude oil brought up from underground that adds more CO2 to the atmosphere.
The study I have in front of me from Buter (2008) shows that deforestation in Brazil has steadily declined since 2004 and in fact has been cut in half. Also, 70% of the land use from deforestation results from cattle ranches and the rest going to subsistence ag. Large-scale farming currently contributes relatively little to total deforestation in the Amazon.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!