Letters to the Editor
-
Reduce emissions?
How exactly does substitution of coconuts for fossil sources reduce CO2 emissions? Either way, the fuel gets burned. Do biofuels require less processing / refining energy input?
-
Hemp
Erm... the #1 biomass producer on this planet. Does God fuck up? No, no... why are we ignoring this gift..? Bizarre.
-
Quick Response
How exactly does substitution of coconuts for fossil sources reduce CO2 emissions? Either way, the fuel gets burned.
The CO2 released by burning biodiesel is CO2 that was taking out of the atmosphere in the growing of that biodiesel. In theory, it could be a CO2-neutral cycle, little different from the natural organic carbon cycles.
Do biofuels require less processing / refining energy input?
Unfortunately, right now biofuels require so much more processing and refining (nevermind harvesting) that many people have made solid arguments that it contributes little or nothing to solving energy problems. New technology will have to be developed for it to really make any kind of dent, and while people are working on it, right now I for one cannot say for sure whether it will ever be significantly useful.
-
Coconut does not thrive in rainforest zones
Interesting paradoxes, but one small detail: Cocos nucifera does not thrive in rainforest zones. Even though this postcard crop is now found pantropically, it is a typical shoreline crop. Coconut plantations never stretch further inland than 1 kilometer. Nypa fruticans is similar; you can't grow it in a rainforest zone.
As a small organisation, we try to make a clear distinction between rainforest-damaging crops (such as palm oil), and those that clearly, agro-climatically speaking, cannot stand rainforest zones: savannah grasses and shrubs, giant reeds, cassava, sweet potato, sorghum, etc...
The media too often lump togehter all these tropical and subtropical crops saying all biofuels from the South are deforestation fuels. But the tropics are more than their forests.
If a crop is destructive to pristine ecosystems, we say so in our reporting. But when it is not, we say so too. We wish the media would do the same.
As an organisation, we try to find out how much land will actually be available for non-destructive biofuel production in the future, under scenarios that do not push farmers to invade rainforests. In short, we analyse (more or less) 'sustainably' produced tropical bioenergy.
It's important that we don't deny the poor farmers in the South the opportunity to participate in a green energy market. One step towards this goal is nuanced reporting.
Kind regards,
Biopact
-
Coconuts ARE planted in rainforest zones.
The response from BIOPACT arguing that Coconuts do not thrive in rainforest zones is simply wrong - as well as a bit naive, and note very well-thought out. (What exactly do they mean by thrive - and how well does a crop have to do in order for people to be willing to cut down forest and plant it? Sometimes the mere promise of substantial returns can lead people to cut down forest and try a new crop, particularly one as easy to care for as coconut.)
Furthermore, the statement that coconut plantations never stretch more than one mile inland is false. I have done anthropological work in Southeast Asia for the last dozen years and consistently work in areas where people plant coconuts more than one kilometer inland. I might be wrong on the exact Latin species that are being planted - which might have some relevance to their argument - but people are planting what they call coconuts - and which are then processed for coconut oil - more than one kilometer inland. I suggest the people at BIOPACT take a trip to Indonesia.
Another missed point by the people at BIOPACT is the notion that the people planting these crops are agronomists who are necessarily concerned with the productivity of their crops. If you look at Palm oil in Indonesia for example, oftentimes the plantations are slated for areas that are inappropriate for the palms to succeed for a variety of reasons - soil, land incline, etc. Regardless of these factors, plantations are planted because oftentimes planting the plantations is more about the money earned from clearing the forest rather than that earned from subsequent harvests. Thus they make a significant income from selling the wood cleared from the site, and then simply go home. Whether the area is appropriate for the crop or not is irrelevant.
While their goal is admirable, they should more research into the possible consequences of their plans.
-
Smallholders versus large estates
Dear CR, thanks for your nuanced response. First off, you have field-work experience in this subject, we don't (not when it comes to coconut), so your knowledge far exceeds ours. Secondly, our comment was general, based on what we know about large estates and their location. Allow us to respond to your insights:
What exactly do they mean by thrive - and how well does a crop have to do in order for people to be willing to cut down forest and plant it? Sometimes the mere promise of substantial returns can lead people to cut down forest and try a new crop, particularly one as easy to care for as coconut.
Coconut can be planted in a rather broad variety of soils, but their 'natural' habitat are sandy beach soils, where the water table is naturally pushed up by the salty table underneath. However, and in this you're right, according to Ohler's "Modern Coconut Management; palm cultivation and products" (a bit like the Bible for coconut cultivation), it is not unfeasible to plant them inland. There is however a difference between this kind of feasibility, and the feasibility to establish large plantations.
Your point about the factors determining land use (poverty, profits), is taken, and it is one we take seriously, because it will determine the sustainability of biofuels in the tropics. (We have a theory, backed up by empirical data, which suggests that biofuel production (a new market) might bring profits that can be invested in better culture techniques which should ultimately result in lowering the pressures that lead to land expansion. In short, producing biofuel feedstocks can bring a revolution in the South by stimulating intensive instead of extensive types of agriculture. But this is another matter.
Furthermore, the statement that coconut plantations never stretch more than one mile inland is false. I have done anthropological work in Southeast Asia for the last dozen years and consistently work in areas where people plant coconuts more than one kilometer inland.
You might be right about smallholders. And in fact, millions of people all over the tropics plant a few trees in their garden, inland. We were more talking about large estates, since the topic was related to biofuel production, and this will involve large scale agriculture. To the best of our knowledge, virtually all large coconut plantations are located in coastal areas.
On the other hand, coconut farming is still largely a smallholder affair. (Ohler's book has some interesting numbers on this).
Another missed point by the people at BIOPACT is the notion that the people planting these crops are agronomists who are necessarily concerned with the productivity of their crops. If you look at Palm oil in Indonesia for example, oftentimes the plantations are slated for areas that are inappropriate for the palms to succeed for a variety of reasons - soil, land incline, etc. Regardless of these factors, plantations are planted because oftentimes planting the plantations is more about the money earned from clearing the forest rather than that earned from subsequent harvests. Thus they make a significant income from selling the wood cleared from the site, and then simply go home. Whether the area is appropriate for the crop or not is irrelevant.
We don't think we have missed this point. In fact, we're trying to help our little bit to avoid these practises, precisely by stressing that there are suitable biofuel crops that are far less damaging to the environment than the eternal oil palm.
If there's one thing we're trying to avoid, it's narrowing down the debate on tropical biofuels to oil palm. This damages the longterm prostects of small farmers in the South who want to enter this market by growing crops like cassava, sweet potatoes, jatropha, sugar cane and other grasses, or indeed coconut.
We would want the media to avoid mixing up all these different potential bioenergy crops. Coconut is definitely different from oil palm. Even though some rainforest may be cleared by coconut farmers, to our best knowledge, the situation is totally uncomparable to that of oil palm (precisely because most coconut plantations are not located in (former) rainforest zones.)
While their goal is admirable, they should more research into the possible consequences of their plans.
Thank you for the encouragement. We agree, a whole lot more research is needed. This is why the current climate that has been created by some media - "all tropical biofuels are bad" - does not really help. The livelihoods and opportunities of hundreds of millions of poor farmers are at stake here. So we would prefer to rely on facts (in this case, generally speaking: "not all tropical biofuels are necessarily bad"). If we get our facts wrong, we correct them of course.
If you happen to read our reply: what do you think of the biofuels opportunity for the coconut smallholders you met during your field work? We would be very interested in hearing your view.
Kind regards,
Biopact team