Ethanol Production in Brazil May Drive Deforestation in Amazon - Term Paper Example

Ethanol production in Brazil Ethanol production in Brazil may drive deforestation in Amazon Introduction and background information In recent years, our environmental issues have been brought to the limelight. These issues have mostly been attributed to the global warming phenomenon which has managed to impact significantly on our planet. The use of oil and fuel has been attributed as one of the main causes of global warming due to its emission of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) into our atmosphere. These gases trap the heat from the sun in our atmosphere instead of bouncing it back into space. As a result, our global temperature is elevated and our normal weather patterns have been reacting accordingly. Our extreme weather temperatures (heat waves and extreme cold temperatures), super typhoons, droughts, floods, and similar occurrences have all been traced back by scientists and other experts to global warming. Due to these concerns, efforts to cut back on fuel or oil use have also been conceptualized and strong support for the use of alternative sources of fuel has been suggested. One of these methods is the use of ethanol from sugarcane as an alternative fuel source. Ethanol can be blended with or used directly as fuel and its properties create less pollution and environmental damage. Ethanol is already being utilized in different countries, including Brazil, Scandinavia, United States, Germany, Japan, and New Zealand, among others and many car manufacturers have made the necessary adjustments and accommodations in their cars in order to ensure that they would run well on ethanol fuel (Peyton and Nalco, p. 298). The use of ethanol is however, not without its problems. Brazil’s ethanol is mostly made from sugarcane and some environmentalists have pointed out that the growing demand for the fuel may push sugarcane growers into the Amazon. Hence, the global demand for ethanol may threaten the Amazon rain forest in Brazil, causing large scale deforestation of the area. This paper shall now discuss the negative impacts of the ethanol production in Brazil’s Amazon rainforest. It shall also conceptualize possible solutions in order to alleviate these problems. Body Indirect threat: indirect land-use changes Surveys reveal that from the years 1960 to 2007, the land area in Brazil planted with sugarcane increased from 1.4 million to 7 million hectares. With this increase in land cover for sugarcane plantations, the production of sugarcane also increased from 45 to 75 Mg/ha. Such an increase in productivity was caused by improved agricultural techniques and improved breeding programs (Martinelli and Filoso, p. 886). In recent years, the increase in productivity and land use for sugarcane has been attributed to the production of ethanol as an alternative fuel source. Brazil ethanol has proven to be economically competitive with gasoline and oil; and Brazil’s use of biofuels is now serving as the world model in the production of alternative fuel sources (Hearn, p. 1). South America is considered the world’s largest producer of ethanol, with about 4.4 billion gallons manufactured from sugarcane on an annual basis (Hearn, p. 1). However, concerned authorities are suggesting that the unregulated use of biofuels could also mean a deleterious impact for the Amazon rain forest. The increase in large scale agriculture in order to grow sugarcane is speculated to increase loss of species diversity, cause water quality issues, and habitat refragmentation in the world’s biologically diverse areas (Hearn, p. 1). Their concern is based on the fact that these biofuels might directly or indirectly increase losses to Brazil’s high biodiversity areas, such as the Cerrado which is considered to be one of the highly diverse and sensitive ecological regions or savannas in the world (Hearn, p. 1). This concern is not without basis as can be seen by the continuous expansion in the land use for sugarcane planting caused by the increased worldwide demands for ethanol use. About 740,000 square miles in the Cerrado region is considered to be the largest savanna in the world because of its bird, reptile, fish, and insect species (Hearn, p.1). About 50% of this area has already been converted to pastureland and such conversion has caused soil erosion, biodiversity loss, and the spread of nonnative grasses. Such expansion is set to impact on the entire Amazon region where lands are being destroyed by cattle ranching and soybean farming. About 2 million hectares of land, 1,400 acres of which include native forests, two-thirds are found in the Amazon region of Brazil (Hearn, p. 1). Sugarcane cannot be planted in rain forests because they sometimes need to undergo a period of drought in order to attain the desired level of sweetness. Hence, the efforts to plant more sugarcane are related to efforts of clearing away rain forests and planting sugarcane instead in these areas. This eventuality is not to be easily dismissed when the worldwide trends are to be considered. In fact Sao Paulo in Brazil used to be one of the main cattle farming areas in Brazil; however, these cattle grazing areas have now been set aside for the growing of sugarcane. These cattle have instead been pushed towards the Cerrado and the Amazon region (Hearn, p. 2). Soil degradation caused by erosion and compaction is a major concern in the areas where sugarcane is to be planted. Soil erosion is considered to be a significant issue in the planting of sugarcane because the bare soil upon which the sugarcane is planted is exposed to the elements. Prior to the conversion process, the grasses in the lands are killed in order to prepare the land for planting sugarcane; and then again in the time between crop harvesting and regrowth, the sugarcane stalks are replaced every 5-6 years and this process leave the lands exposed to the harsh elements (Martinelli and Filoso, p. 887). Soil compaction is seen in the process of heavy machinery use when the lands are cultivated and the plants are harvested. This process destroys the porosity and the density of the soil, thereby reducing water infiltration. In effect, the soil becomes of little use for other agricultural or similar enterprises, except for sugarcane planting (Nepstad, et.al., p. 1737). In applying this same concept to the Amazon, it is prudent to consider the reality that the increased ethanol production would likely affect the land area which would be utilized to accommodate these sugarcane plantations. Another issue in the issue of ethanol production and its impact on the Amazon is related to the deterioration of aquatic systems. When the colluvium sediments are washed downhill from sugarcane fields, they are washed out into wetlands, small streams, rivers, and reservoirs (Martinelli and Filoso, p. 887). This effect was seen in the watershed in an area of Sao Paulo, where about 70% of its area was planted with sugarcane and consequently, the reservoir could no longer be used as a water supply because of the sedimentation effect and the loss of about 50% of its waterholding capacity. In Brazil, most of its water supplies come from damned rivers and reservoirs; and sedimentation is a serious threat to the volume and the quality of their water supply. The sedimentation process can also include contaminants like pesticides and heavy metals used in sugarcane cultivation (Martinelli and Filoso, p. 887). Organochlorides have in fact been documented among fish samples in Piracicabe River in 1997 in Brazil; this is a harsh wake-up call considering the fact that the use of such chemicals has already been banned. Other contaminants like atrazine, which is a herbicide used in sugarcane crops were also seen in rivers and stream beds (Martinelli and Filoso, p. 887). The processing of sugarcane for the production of ethanol and sugar is also another source of water pollution from byproducts and waste coming from the mills. Another pollutant is the vinasse produced in the distillation process. These waste products have organic matter and are likely to increase the biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) of the waters from these effluents (Martinelli and Filoso, p. 887). These BODs have been known to deplete the oxygen supply of the waters; they are also known to cause anorexia. For every liter of ethanol produced from sugarcane, about 12-13 liters of vinasse are also produced (Martinelli and Filoso, p. 887). These are chemicals which threaten the Amazon land use. Even if the sugarcane plantations were to cover areas which are not within the Amazon, their impact would still be felt in the Amazon. The savanna which is home to different animal and floral species would be contaminated by the chemicals which would be used in the process of sugarcane planting. Brazil is currently the planet’s undisputed leader in renewable energy and the United States has recognized the country’s potential in the production of ethanol. During the Bush Administration, the government entered into business arrangements with Brazil in order to tap into Brazil’s ethanol resources. However, a UN environmental official has remarked that such an alliance would offer major risks to Brazil’s Amazon rain forest. Such an alliance would apparently remain a threat if safeguards are not ensured in order to secure the Amazon region (Associated Press). Brazil was able to reduce deforestation in 2006, however, some experts claim that this reduction was mostly caused by the stagnant prices for soybeans in the market which “made it far less lucrative to cut down remote forest plots to grow soybeans” (Associated Press). Scientists predict that the soybean growers would continue to go closer into the Amazon region as farmlands in Brazil move to sugarcane which calls for more infrastructures. Experts claim that we are also experiencing a biofuel boom which is set to reshape the energy consumption of the world (McGowan). The US and Brazil are considered the world’s biggest ethanol producers and while the US makes it ethanol from corn, Brazil makes its ethanol from sugarcane. Americans are using up more ethanol than they can actually produce; hence, the US needs to import ethanol from other countries, like Brazil. At present Brazil is actually exporting some of its ethanol to other countries, mostly to the US, Japan, and India (McGowan). Making ethanol on a more significant scale will likely use up a lot of land and the US is suggesting an increase in ethanol supply by the year 2017 for up to 35 billion gallons. As a result, in order to fill in these increased demands for ethanol, Brazil is set to increase the lands set aside for sugarcane planting – prospectively covering the Amazon region (McGowan). Brazil actually registers the highest rates of deforestation because of its agricultural products which include soybean, oranges, coffee, and sugar exports. Brazil grows its sugar cane on about 6 million hectares and about half is earmarked for ethanol (McGowan). Most of its sugarcane is grown in Sao Palo. It is Brazil’s wealthiest state and was once covered by the Atlantic Rain Forest. This rain forest however has been decreased in land area and even now is being threatened. It is important to note that the Cerrado is a vast savanna and a rich biological reserve as it is home to about 400 species and 10,000 plant species; it houses about 5% of the world’s flora (McGowan). This region is disappearing at a significant rate with more than 50% of its original vegetation already destroyed by ranching and agriculture; and it is continually facing deforestation at a rate of 1.5% every year. These are alarming figures which would continue to impact on the biological diversity of Brazil and its protected regions, including the Amazon. The annual rate of deforestation in the Amazon manifested a decline; however the figures which represent land areas of devastation are still major causes of concern with the about 27, 300 sq.km destroyed in 2004 and 29,000 in 2006 (McGowan). As a result, the Amazon has already lost about 17 to 20% of its forest cover and scientists claim that about 20% more will disappear in the next 30 years if the current trends in land use are not reversed. The Amazon is set to be affected by the use of biofuels such as soybeans, palm oil, and ethanol. Although government authorities report that no sugarcane is being planted within the Amazon, a recent raid revealed about 1000 laborers working a sugarcane plantation in the Amazon (McGowan). The increased usage of biofuel will likely affect the Amazon rain forest in different ways. Firstly, the use of biofuel will likely increase production in some form; secondly, since about 700 square kilometers of the Cerrado is located in the Amazon river basin, the deforestation of the Cerrado will also affect the rain forest regions to the north of the Amazon; thirdly, the soybean production and ranching will cover the Amazon as farmers will now shift their investments in sugarcane; and fourthly, the significant allocation of corn in the US ethanol production will increase global demand for Brazilian soy and corn – thereby causing agricultural expansion into the Amazon region (McGowan). Without adequate protective measures, Brazil will lose the many species housed in the Amazon and the Cerrado region. Flora in the Amazon with potential medicinal properties may never be discovered. Moreover, massive deforestation would also lead to soil erosion, damaged watersheds, and climactic change for Brazil (McGowan). These are areas of concern for the land use of the Amazon region if the government does not implement safety measures in order to secure the future of the Amazon rain forest and its Cerrado savanna. Negative impacts of expansion/carbon savings of biofuels There are also negative impacts of expansion in the sugarcane ethanol production because it can overcome the carbon savings from biofuels. A study by Lapola, et.al., (p. 3) reveals that the sugarcane-ethanol and oil palm-biofuels being grown in Brazil are the best feedstocks in terms of carbon savings. It is notable however that the success of the biofuels in Brazil may be compromised if the processes of growing these agricultural biofuels would move over rangelands frontier and onto native habitats (Lapola, et.al., p. 3). Suggestions have been made on indirect land use changes being seen in the Amazon, especially as some of the lands have been changed by soybean and deforestation. Different biofuels also vary in carbon savings. Ethanol from maize and sugar cane and biofuels from soybean, rapeseed from palm oil are the most dominant because of significant public incentives (Lapola, et.al., p. 3). Analysts also claim that if biofuels are planted to replace our forests, then we are going to emit an enormous amount of carbon (Young). Trees burned down to make way for new farmlands would also release stored carbon into the atmosphere; this would then create the phenomenon known as the carbon debt. In this phenomenon, the “carbon lost from deforestation is much greater than the carbon saved from using the current-generation biofuels” (Young). Tropical forests are major sources and storehouses for carbon as they can take in about 340 billion tons – equal to more than 40 years worth of global carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels. Researchers have also revealed that the carbon debt caused by cutting down tropical forests may take many years to replace through carbon savings caused by resultant biofuels (Young). Reducing the forest cover in the Amazon can reduce the amount of carbon saved by our planet. These rain forests help balance out the excessive carbon emissions from our oil-supported industries and automobiles. If the Amazon rain forests were to be transformed into sugarcane plantations, the amount of carbon saved would be reduced – causing more harmful carbon dioxide in our atmosphere and further contributing to the global warming phenomenon. Replacing the amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere would take years to carry out. This is a major concern because in order to fill in the biofuel production targets for 2020, sugarcane needs to cover about 57,000 square kilometers more, roughly about 88% of this would be in areas previously considered as rangeland (Butler). The carbon payback time of four years is needed in order to make up for direct emissions from conversion for cane; more is expected for soybean conversion. Possible solutions for reducing negative impacts of ethanol production In order to reduce the negative impacts of ethanol production, volatile organic compounds can be measured and managed through plant designs (Durante and Buchholz, p. 5). Technologies can also be set in place in order to reduce the generation of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur oxides emitted from the ethanol processing. This includes the imposition of harsh penalties to violations of the standards and legal limits for these emissions. Operating permits must be managed and regulated well by the government in order to guard against emissions and potential plant odors (Durante and Buchholz, p. 5). Better technologies in the ethanol producing industry are being introduced and these technologies must be taken advantage of because they help reduce the negative impact of ethanol production on the environment. One of these technologies is dry fractionation which increases the concentration of ethanol during fermentation – thereby reducing toxic emissions to about 10% less (Durante and Buchholz, p. 6). Fractionation also increases the amount of ethanol extracted from each plant, thereby allowing for the conversion of plants into more useful alternative sources of fuel. Utilizing combined heat and power (CHP) systems can also reduce energy consumption in ethanol plants by 15% (Durante and Buchholz, p. 6). This CHP system would combine electricity and steam in a plant and recover wasted heat for heating cooling and for dehumidifying. CHP can effectively help ethanol processing plants meet environmental goals and can help ensure that efficient remedies for reduction of environmental impact are in place. It is also important for corporations to consider alternative sources of fuel. Although biofuels are one of the most popular and are safer alternatives in energy consumption, the environmental impact of these alternatives is still significant. Innovations must be continually made in order to find alternative and safer sources of fuel. In the meantime, the world must remain vigilant in guarding corporations in the violations of standards in place in the Amazon region in order to protect the Amazon from deforestation. Conclusion Based on the above discussion, ethanol production by Brazil is one of the major dilemmas the country and other environmentalists are facing. As compared to the oil use in our automobiles and industries, ethanol seems to be a much better alternative because of its potential benefits to the environment in terms of toxic emissions. However, the process of coming up with ethanol is also an environmental concern. The increased demands for ethanol is an actual threat to the Amazon, mostly because of the rangelands and farmlands which cannot accommodate the growing demand for increased production of ethanol. Ethanol is likely to affect land use in the Amazon causing these lands to be eroded and to lose their essence as rain forests. Carbon savings from these rain forests would also likely be reduced due to ethanol production. Solutions to reduce the impact of ethanol production on the environment include strict measures for companies involved in ethanol production – for them to stay within the legal and environmental standards in the process of ethanol production and land use. Better technologies can also be used in order to reduce the negative impact of ethanol production to the environment. In effect, although biofuels help to mitigate carbon dioxide emissions, the production must be environmentally sustainable. In order to maximize the benefits from biofuels, proper planning and comprehensive environmental risk assessments for the expansion of sugarcane plantation should be applied. Works Cited Associated Press. Brazils ethanol push could eat away at Amazon. MSNBC. 2007. 06 March 2011 from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17500316/ns/world_news-world_environment/ Butler, R. Amazon rainforest will bear cost of biofuel policies in Brazil. Mongabay. 2010. 06 March 2011 from http://news.mongabay.com/2010/0208-amazon_biofuels.html Durante, D. & Buchholz, D. Issue Brief: Environmental Impacts of Ethanol Production. Ethanol across America. 2009. 06 March 2011 from http://www.ne-ethanol.org/pdf/enviromental_impact_ethanol_2009.pdf Hearn, K. Ethanol Production Could Be Eco-Disaster, Brazils Critics Say. National Geographic News. 2007. 06 March 2011 from http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070208-ethanol.html Lapola, D., Schaldacha, R., Alcamoa, J., Boundeau, A., Kocha, J., & Koelkinga, C. Indirect land-use changes can overcome carbon savings from biofuels in Brazil. PNAS. 2009. 06 March 2011 from http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/02/02/0907318107.full.pdf Martinelli, L. & Filoso, S. Expansion of sugarcane ethanol production in Brazil: Environmental and social challenges. Ecological Applications. 2008, 18(4), pp. 885–898. McGowan, C. Biofuel Could Eat Brazils Savannas & Deforest the Amazon. Huffington Post. 2007. 06 March 2011 from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-mcgowan/biofuel-could-eat-brazils_b_64466.html Nepstad, D., Stickler, C., Soares-Filho, B. & Meryl, F. Interactions among Amazon land use, forests and climate: prospects for a near-term forest tipping point. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B. 2008, 363(1498); pp. 1737-1746 Peyton, K. & Nalco, O. Ondeo/Nalco fuel field manual. 2001. USA: McGraw-Hill Publications Young, C. Biofuels boom could fuel rainforest destruction, Stanford researcher warns. Stanford University. 2009. 06 March 2011 from http://news.stanford.edu/pr/2009/pr-gibbs-030409.html Read More