Russell Chapman wrote: > >> The deforestation in Brazil has _zero_ correlation with AGW >> prevention, biofuels, or anything like that. It's just the >> continuous push of civilization against forests, the same >> event that devastated European forests 500 years ago and >> USA forests 200 years ago. > > My understanding (from the other side of the world, > of course - I'm not trying to say I know what's going > on there) was that Brazil's biofuel production is > predominantly from sugar cane, > I might say "almost exclusively" - except for experimental plants, all ethanol comes from sugar cane.
> and the only country in the world where it is being effectively > used for a net reduction in emissions BUT that US policies > on ethanol from corn makes corn so lucrative for US agribusiness > that not enough farms in the USA are growing soybeans. > This has pushed soybean prices so high > that Brazilian farms where soybean production was marginal > or where cattle were raised were now being turned over to > soybean production, pushing the cattle graziers further into > former rainforest areas. > In theory, this scenario makes sense. But in practice, there are problems in this causality. Soybean (and soy oil) were so ridiculously low a couple of years ago that it was economically viable to hydrogenate soy oil and produce diesel. There is no time to cause all this movement in less than two years. > 300,000ha (that's 750,000 acres for the unenlightened) of > the Amazon basin was deforested just in the 6 months from > July to December last year. Brazil's population isn't growing > that fast, but international demand for their agricultural > products is. > Yes, but it's agricultural products to feed people, not cars. > I specifically mentioned US AGW prevention, because Brazil > has managed to prove the viability of biofuels through > sugarcane, but the US is intent on doing it through corn > or switchgrass, which just can't manage the yield per hectare. > I think the idea behind USA ethanol is to introduce it, no matter the cost, so that more efficient ways to produce it will appear in the future. Ethanol is the perfect substitute to remove lead from gasoline, but it has its own problems. > (In an odd piece of synchronicity, I was just reading > how the Kamayura tribesmen use their biodiesel to run > generators so they can watch soap operas on TV, then > Alberto's population growth post talked about the > same thing! Those soaps must be popular in Brazil!) > I think these tribesmen live in areas with access to (normal) electricity (mostly from hydro power). And it's too bad that they are watching soap operas, this may revert the recovery of their population, specially after the tribesgirls start wearing bras and getting breast cancer. Alberto Monteiro _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
