Tag Archives: industry
Biomass Loopholes ‘Big Enough To Drive A Logging Truck Through’
Posted on 27 August 2013 by Tom Grimwood Green campaigners have attacked the revised sustainability criteria for the UK’s burgeoning biomass electricity industry. The Department of Energy and Climate and Change (DECC) says its “tough” new demands will mean biomass-fuelled generators must hit targets on how much carbon is emitted and whether enough trees have been replanted, with rules kicking in from April 2015. But the new rules have taken flak from several environmental groups. Biofuelwatch claimed most of the carbon emissions from biomass will be ignored because DECC’s sustainability criteria exclude things like ‘substiution’ emissions – the carbon cost of burning biomass which could have had other uses. The group said DECC relies on a number of “dubious” schemes to certify sustainability and described the Ofgem carbon calculator they use to tot up greenhouse emissions as “deeply flawed”. A spokesman for Biofuelwatch, Duncan Law said: “DECC is more concerned with ‘keeping the lights on’ using existing technology than with real carbon savings and environmental impact. It is heavily lobbied by the energy companies who stand to make hundreds of millions from burning hundreds of millions of tonnes of imported wood.” Greenpeace also attacked DECC’s failure to mention ‘carbon debt’. They quoted a report by the European Environment Agency which found that burning biomass can be actually be a high carbon source of energy if forests aren’t re-grown to pay the ‘carbon debt’ back. Dr Doug Parr, the Chief Scientist at Greepeace said: “The loopholes in these sustainability standards are big enough to drive a logging truck through. Having learnt nothing from the biofuels debacle, the Government has ignored the latest scientific research and produced standards that will take a potentially sustainable industry and transform it into one more way to greenwash environmental destruction.” But the Renewable Energy Association (REA) said these arguments are based on worst-case scenarios involving the burning of whole trees and unsustainable forest management, when the industry mainly relies on cheaper leftovers. REA Chief Executive Dr Nina Skorupska said: “These sustainability criteria ensure that the UK can reap the benefits of biomass, safe in the knowledge that it is making a real dent in our carbon emissions and that ecologically sensitive land is being protected.” Continue reading
Agar The First Potential Premium Product
Published : Saturday, 03 August 2013 Md Joynal Abdin Sujanagar union of Baralekha upazila under Moulvibazar district is the birthplace of Bangladeshi Agar-Agar wood and Agar oil. The Agar entrepreneurs of Sujanagar claim to be the first producers of the product in this subcontinent. Their relatives migrated to Assam (eastern province of India) and started Agar business there. The Mumbai Agar is a product of the migrant Bangladeshi people. According to what they claim, the Agar business in Bangladesh started its journey from Sujanagar about 400 years ago. About 150 factories are producing the fully export-oriented Agar wood and Agar oil at Sujanagar. They are producing premium (high-priced) products by using all local raw materials and machinery. Currently, they earn about Tk 500-750 million a year by exporting Agar products. It is now mentioned as an industry in any government document. Though the history of Agar industry in Bangladesh dates about 400 years back, Indian literature denotes the existence of Agar wood 2,000 years ago. It is an integral part of religious rituals of Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, Christians, Taos, Sufis etc. In addition, it is widely used in Ayurveda, Unani, Arabic, Tibetan, Sufi and Chinese medicinal practices. The followers of Buddha believe that by burning Agar-wood and taking in its aroma one can reach the ultimate stage of meditation. It has found a mention in the 8th century tombs of Shahin Muslims. Agar trees grow in Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Indonesia, Laos, Vietnam, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Brunei, and Thailand. The leading Agar exporting countries are China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Vietnam, Thailand, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, Cambodia, India, the UK, Laos and Myanmar. There are few reserves of Agar trees in government-owned forests in Bangladesh. However, some dishonest officials of the Bangladesh Forest Department (BFD) often sell these trees on auction to middlemen. They do not have any Agar factories. They do not produce any Agar-wood or Agar oil. The middlemen then again sell the Agar trees to the local or foreign Agar producers. And thus the Agar-oil producers have to pay higher prices. If the government ensures transparency of the auction, the real entrepreneurs will be benefited and the industry will grow further. According to a study of the Forest Research Institute Malaysia (FRIM), the world needs 4.5 million kilograms of Agar-wood per year and that is only the official figure. Unofficially, the world demands around six million kilograms per year. However, the producing countries could meet only 35 per cent of the demand led by India, the main producer, contributing only 12 per cent, Indonesia in the second place with seven per cent and Malaysia third with only six per cent. Thailand, Laos and Cambodia come after Malaysia. According to the study, 80 countries use gaharu or Agar products with the Middle East being the biggest importer. Only 35 per cent of the world’s demand is met by all Agar product producing countries. So there is a gap of 65 per cent between the demand and the supply of Agar products. So it is one of the overpriced products in the world. Bangladesh has a favourable climate for large-scale Agar plantation. We have skilled manpower and indigenous technology to produce the finest Agar wood and Agar oil. A big potential market is there. So the government should facilitate large-scale Agar production in Bangladesh. It can be the first Bangladeshi premium products to earn the highest amount of foreign currencies, if the necessary policy support is available from the government. Any public-private joint initiative help tap the enormous export potential of it. If Bangladesh does not take any initiative right now, other countries like Brunei, Malaysia etc may seize the opportunity to capture such a big market. ………………………………….. The writer is Programme Officer (Research & SME Journal) of the SME Foundation Continue reading
Biofuel Crops: Food Security Must Come First
Even so-called ‘good’ biofuels need safeguards to ensure that they don’t damage biodiversity or displace other crops Ben Phalan theguardian.com , Thursday 29 August 2013 18.06 BST Biofuel crops increase emissions through land clearance, fertiliser use, and by displacing other crops. Photograph: Sipa Press/Rex Features Since 2003, the UK and other EU countries have effectively poured billions of euros into biofuels , on the premise that they reduce emissions from transport. But it has been an expensive case of the Emperor’s new clothes: we now know that many biofuel crops actually increase overall emissions . At the same time, they damage biodiversity, hurt some of the world’s poorest people by pushing up food prices , and cost us an estimated £460m each year. Early in September, the European Parliament will have its first opportunity to put the brakes on. MEPs will vote on whether to amend biofuels policy to take account of the critical issue of indirect land use change (iLUC) and at what level to cap biofuels made from food crops. Biofuel crops increase emissions through land clearance, fertiliser use, and by displacing other crops. When millions of hectares of land are switched from food to biofuel crops, food prices rise and food production is displaced , triggering a domino-like chain of events ending in cropland expansion elsewhere, including into the tropical forests of Southeast Asia and the savannas of South America and Africa. This is iLUC. We can’t point to the precise hectare of rainforest that’s felled because a particular farmer now grows fuel rather than food. But the evidence is clear that burning millions of tonnes of food as biofuel on top of what we eat leads to more land clearance and more fertiliser use (even accounting for useful biofuel co-products fed to animals). UK biofuel use in the first year of monitoring required around 1.4 million hectares of farmland, most of it overseas. That’s an area the size of Northern Ireland, just to provide 3% of our transport fuel. By ignoring iLUC, the EU overlooks a large share of the emissions triggered by its biofuel targets. ILUC is not just about carbon. Agricultural expansion and intensification are among the greatest of all threats to wild nature. Each year, millions of hectares of new cropland threaten tropical forests, wetlands and other biodiversity-rich habitats. Fertiliser run-off from the US corn belt, which supplies us with bioethanol, helps create an oxygen-depleted ‘dead zone’ in the Gulf of Mexico. The EU’s Renewable Energy Directive has laudable ‘sustainability criteria’, but unsustainable biofuels can still be imported; they just don’t count towards the targets. Furthermore, the criteria don’t address iLUC, so biofuel demand continues to cause deforestation and biodiversity loss . If a domino falls in the forest, apparently no-one can hear it. Some in the biofuels industry don’t want iLUC factors introduced next month, because some crops would no longer be counted as ‘green fuels’. But fuels that trigger deforestation, increase emissions and destroy biodiversity are not ‘green’. Supporters of the industry argue that iLUC factors are too uncertain for policy. But they seem happy for policy to support an industry whose promise to deliver lower emissions is even more doubtful. The irony is that any carbon benefit of biofuels is based on their indirect effect in replacing and reducing fossil fuel use. It’s nonsensical to argue that food-based biofuels should be supported for this indirect carbon benefit without also counting their indirect carbon cost. MEPs will also vote on whether to cap use of food as biofuel at 5.5% or 6.5% of transport fuel . The lower cap would protect existing jobs while sending a clear message to investors that food-based biofuels are a poor prospect. In the longer term, we should ask whether it is rational to burn any food at all in our cars. The right biofuels have a role to play in our energy mix, in the right quantities. Governments should continue to support the development of advanced biofuels, such as those made from waste and those grown in places unsuitable for food crops. But even these ‘good biofuels’ need safeguards to ensure that they don’t damage biodiversity or displace other crops. In the meantime, it’s clear that the Emperor has no clothes. Will the European Parliament listen to the science, and curb the unseemly rush for food-based biofuels? I’ll be writing to ask my MEPs to vote for a more modest approach, and I urge you to do the same . • Dr. Ben Phalan is a research associate in conservation science at the Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, and is the Zukerman junior research fellow in global food security at King’s College.[/font][/color] Continue reading
