March 2007 - Transpo - list.sfgreens.org

Newsom Balks At Youth Pass Covering In-City BART Trips
by Eric Brooks 29 Mar '07

29 Mar '07

Newsom Balks At Youth Passes Covering In-City BART Trips Pretty amusing that he takes this position after publicly musing about free Muni a couple weeks ago... see below or: http://www.beyondchron.org/news/nucleus/plugins/print/print.php?itemid=4355 (3/4th's way down page) "At a March 27th meeting at City Hall, the San Francisco Youth Commission unveiled its budgetary priorities to an attentive and responsive Mayor Gavin Newsom. “Your priorities are certainly my priorities,” said Newsom after hearing all of the Commission’s various committees report out on their principal concerns. ... Newsom’s only moment of reluctance came in response to the Youth Commission’s proposal to have Youth Fast Passes on Muni to cover BART rides between Balboa Park and Embarcadero – as adult passes do. The Mayor agreed with the concept, but asked: “What’s the cost? Do we raise the fares for seniors? Do we cut lines?” He then elaborated on the $25.4 million budget deficit that the City faces this year." cheers Eric

1 0

NY Times OpEd - Gone Parkin'
by Susan King 29 Mar '07

29 Mar '07

A good op ed on a recent issue under discussion on this list: > Subject: [sfbike] NY Times OpEd - Gone Parkin' > > > I enjoyed Donald Shoup's OpEd in today's NY Times, although in the > beginning I had the image of certain auto-activists using increased > congestion due to lack of street parking as a bludgeon to the bike > plan EIR. Thankfully, the following paragraphs give a more > reasonable reaction - increasing meter rates. > > Of course another reaction is left unstated: don't drive, use a > bicycle. > > -fb > > from: > http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/opinion/29shoup.html?th&emc=th > =============================================== > March 29, 2007 > Op-Ed Contributor > Gone Parkin’ > By DONALD SHOUP > > Los Angeles > > MOST people view traffic with a mixture of rage and resignation: > rage because congestion wastes valuable time, resignation because, > well, what can anyone do about it? People have places to go, after > all; congestion seems inevitable. > > But a surprising amount of traffic isn’t caused by people who are > on their way somewhere. Rather, it is caused by those who have > already arrived. Streets are clogged, in part, by drivers searching > for a place to park. > > Several studies have found that cruising for curb parking generates > about 30 percent of the traffic in central business districts. In a > recent survey conducted by Bruce Schaller in the SoHo district in > Manhattan, 28 percent of drivers interviewed while they were > stopped at traffic lights said they were searching for curb > parking. A similar study conducted by Transportation Alternatives > in the Park Slope neighborhood in Brooklyn found that 45 percent of > drivers were cruising. > > When my students and I studied cruising for parking in a 15-block > business district in Los Angeles, we found the average cruising > time was 3.3 minutes, and the average cruising distance half a mile > (about 2.5 times around the block). This may not sound like much, > but with 470 parking meters in the district, and a turnover rate > for curb parking of 17 cars per space per day, 8,000 cars park at > the curb each weekday. Even a small amount of cruising time for > each car adds up to a lot of traffic. > > Over the course of a year, the search for curb parking in this 15- > block district created about 950,000 excess vehicle miles of travel > — equivalent to 38 trips around the earth, or four trips to the > moon. And here’s another inconvenient truth about underpriced curb > parking: cruising those 950,000 miles wastes 47,000 gallons of gas > and produces 730 tons of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide. If all > this happens in one small business district, imagine the cumulative > effect of all cruising in the United States. > > What causes this astonishing waste? As is often the case, the > prices are wrong. A national study of downtown parking found that > the average price of curb parking is only 20 percent that of > parking in a garage, giving drivers a strong incentive to cruise. > As George Costanza once said on “Seinfeld”: “My father never paid > for parking, my mother, my brother, nobody. ... It’s like going to > a prostitute. Why should I pay when, if I apply myself, maybe I > could get it for free?” > > Like George Costanza, drivers often compare parking at the curb to > parking in a garage and decide that the price of garage parking is > too high. But the truth is that the price of curb parking is too > low. Underpriced curb spaces are like rent-controlled apartments: > hard to find and, once you do, crazy to give up. This increases the > time costs (and therefore the congestion and pollution costs) of > cruising. > > And, like rent-controlled apartments, underpriced curb spaces go to > the lucky more often than they do to the deserving. While the car > owner with good timing can enjoy his space free or cheaply for > hours or days, others who are late for a meeting or a job interview > are left to circle the block, making themselves — and other drivers > — miserable. The solution is to set the right price for curb parking. > > To prevent shortages, some cities have begun to adjust their meter > rates (using trial and error) to produce about an 85 percent > occupancy rate for curb parking. The prices vary by location and > the time of day. Drivers can usually find a vacant curb space near > their destination, and the search time is zero. Cities can adjust > the price of curb parking in response to demand to keep roughly one > out of every eight spaces vacant throughout the day. Right-priced > curb parking can eliminate cruising. > > The balance between the varying demand for parking and the fixed > supply of curb spaces is the Goldilocks Principle of parking > prices: the price is too high if too many spaces are vacant, and > too low if no spaces are vacant. But when only a few spaces are > vacant, the price is just right, and everyone will see that curb > parking is both well used and readily available. > > Beyond the transportation and environmental benefits, performance- > based prices for curb parking can yield ample revenue. If the city > uses a share of this money for added public services on the metered > streets, residents and local merchants will be more willing to > support charging the right price for curb parking. These funds can > be used to clean and maintain sidewalks, plant trees, improve > lighting, remove graffiti, bury utility wires and provide other > public improvements. Returning the meter revenue generated by a > district to the district can persuade residents, merchants and > property owners to support right-priced curb parking. > > Redwood City, Calif., for example, sets its downtown meter rates to > achieve an 85 percent occupancy rate for curb parking (the rates > vary by location and time of day, depending on demand). Because the > city returns the revenue to pay for added public services in the > metered district, the downtown area will receive an estimated $1 > million a year for increased police protection and cleaner sidewalks. > > The Redwood City merchants and property owners all supported the > new policy when they learned what the meter revenue would help pay > for, and the City Council adopted it unanimously. Performance-based > prices create a few curb vacancies so visitors can easily find a > space, the added revenue pays to improve public services, and the > improved public services create political support for the > performance-based prices. > > If cities want to reduce congestion, clean the air, save energy, > reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve neighborhoods — and do > it all quickly — they should charge the right price for curb > parking, and spend the resulting revenue to improve local public > services. > > Getting that price right will do a world of good. > > ----------- > Donald Shoup, a professor of urban planning at the University of > California, Los Angeles, is the author of “The High Cost of Free > Parking.” > -- > To unsubscribe: > mailto:sympa@lists.riseup.net?subject=unsubscribe%20sfbike > or mailto:sfbike-unsubscribe@lists.riseup.net > > To change your settings (e.g., Digest or NoMail when on vacation): > http://lists.riseup.net/www/info/sfbike >

1 0

The Plastics Recycling Myth
by Eric Brooks 28 Mar '07

28 Mar '07

Hi all, I recently wrote this response to a member on the Our City list, and thought it would be informational to pass it on to the Greens as well... Eric Brooks wrote: Well, it's true that 'recyclable' plastic is shipped overseas to poor countries, however almost none of it is recycled. Most of it is burned in incinerators creating deadly and planet warming pollution. Less than 25% (and probably more like less than 10%) of supposedly 'recyclable' plastics are actually 'recycled'. And I put 'recycle' in quotes for a reason. It is actually a myth that plastics can be recycled at all. It cannot. So called 'recyclable' plastics have chemical bonds that are broken down and shortened each time such plastic is melted down and reformed in to another product. This means that 'recyclable' plastic can only be reformulated, at the most, 5 times, each time being used, not to create the same product 'recycled', but another one that requires weaker plastic bonds. So a bottle, becomes a bag, becomes part of a jacket, then becomes molded into plastic 'lumber', and then it stays in that state, continuing to decay toxic plastic waste into the environment for millenia. This process is more properly named 'downcycling' not recycling. And because this downcycling has gotten people to believe that plastic is benign, we now use massively more of it for packaging than before. For example, before plastics 'recycling' Coca Cola produced zero plastic bottles. Now. Coca Cola -alone- produces 5 billion plastic bottles per year. Even if 25% of that total is downcycled, and even if we pretend that downcycling is somehow 'good', that means, that because of Coca-Cola, by itself, there are now tens of billions more plastic bottles polluting the environment that never would have been produced had it not been for the recycling myth. In fact, the reason that plastics recycling was begun by the plastics manufacturers in the first place, is that a growing number of environmentally aware governments in the 70's and 80's, were about to start banning all plastic packaging and containers. Seeing that this would put them out of business, the plastics manufacturers created 'recyclable plastic' and started putting deceptive 'running arrows' symbols on -all- plastic containers -even- those that cannot be downcycled. For more information see: http://www.earthisland.org/eijournal/new_articles.cfm?articleID=335&journal… and http://www.ecologycenter.org/iptf/recycling/plasticwasteexceedsrecyc.html It is also very important with the new Mirkarimi law that we steer clear of supposedly 'biodegradable' bags containing part plastic and part corn, because the plastic doesn't actually degrade, it just breaks down into smaller and smaller very tough toxic pieces. Some biodegradable bags, like the ones made of potato starch, contain no plastic. However, even here, we have a problem, because the planet is now seeing a decline in arable land for food production, and within a very short time we will actually be growing less food than the human population needs. So using any land to produce bio-bags or bio-fuels will quickly become an exercise in insanity. peace, Eric > Hi Eric, > > Thanks for the reply. I noticed today that plastic bags have been > banned in grocery stores. For me, I have used the plastic bags that I > don't recycle as garbage bags. > > Our family uses very little that goes into the garbage bins. We > purchase a lot of things with minimum packaging and still our large > recycling container that we share with our neighbors is always full. > We also use compostable bags as well as empty milk cartons for our > compost. > > Can you confirm for me something I heard, that our recycling is > shipped overseas to be sorted and recycled? If this isn't true, the > city may want to make an effort to let people what is actually > happening so the rumors of futility aren't so potent.

1 0

Re: [Transpo] Important: Transpo WG Meeting Tonight?
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 27 Mar '07

27 Mar '07

Dave Snyder has already called me and asked about the meeting tonight. I forgot to tell him I was no longer co-chair, but I did say it looked like it had been cancelled. Sue -- Eric Brooks <brookse32(a)aim.com> wrote: Hey all, If any of you want to hold the regular Transportation WG tonight please speak now. If I don't get solid confirmation from at least three other possible attendees besides myself, I am going to cancel so I don't have to come all the way into the office. In the latter event, I propose that we immediately discuss a different regular meeting day and time for the Transpo WG so that we can enable Post Carbon Institute members to attend in the future. cheers Eric B _______________________________________________ Transpo mailing list Transpo(a)sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/mailman/listinfo/transpo

3 2

Re: [Transpo] meeting tonight?
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 27 Mar '07

27 Mar '07

I can't make it either. Sue -- John-Marc Chandonia <jmc(a)sfgreens.org> wrote: Hi, I can't make tonight's WG meeting. If others would like to meet tonight, please speak up on the list so we can arrange to have the office open. Last month, Eric and I were the only people who could make it. JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc(a)sfgreens.org) http://sfgreens.org/ _______________________________________________ Transpo mailing list Transpo(a)sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/mailman/listinfo/transpo

2 1

meeting tonight?
by John-Marc Chandonia 27 Mar '07

27 Mar '07

Hi, I can't make tonight's WG meeting. If others would like to meet tonight, please speak up on the list so we can arrange to have the office open. Last month, Eric and I were the only people who could make it. JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc(a)sfgreens.org) http://sfgreens.org/

3 3

From Biofuels, To The Similar Emerging Threat Of Bio-Plastics and 'Eco-Water'
by Eric Brooks 27 Mar '07

27 Mar '07

Hi all, It is finally becoming clear that bio-plastic is is beginning to be leveraged into the same agriculturally disastrous boom that was first triggered by European bio-fuel subsidies. I have just been introduced, on a Link TV 'Earth Focus' report, to disturbing new programs selling bottled spring water, often in new 'bio bottles', and using the proceeds from the water to support water 'aid' projects in economically colonized communities that are water, and/or clean water, poor. In one case, such a water 'aid' product has been bought up by Starbucks corporation, which is now donating a minuscule 5% of proceeds from this water to water 'aid'. The list of disturbing implications of these programs is too long to take time to post, (I'm sure that your imaginations can figure most of them out), but here is the central synopsis. The same big ag, chemical, fossil fuel, food, and water exploitation entities which have become increasingly merged into a handful of monolithic global parent corporations like Vivendi, Suez, Nestle, Monsanto, and Unilever, are now concertedly launching a blitzkrieg campaign of products which capitalize on the general public's desire to help save the planet, and then steer that very public into consuming an entire new spectrum of ecologically disastrous products. Products which those corporations believe they will use to seamlessly transition themselves from centrally petroleum based production, to centrally agriculturally based production, thereby ensuring that they will not have to sell one less plastic bag or bottle, one less overpriced liter of retailized water or corn syrup based soda, one less personal automobile, nor one less liter of internal combustion fuels... (Ross Mirkarimi's compostable bag ordinance, while probably a supportable positive step in microcosm, must be seen in a whole new perspective in the macrocosm, based on the emerging huge shadow of this global corporate roll-out of bio-plastics, biofuels, and cache' water products. Once Ross's ordinance passes, we -must- make certain that it evolves into a reusable canvass bag program for San Francisco.) The phrase 'out of the frying pan and into the fire' does not begin to equate the gravity of this looming situation. Just as with bio-fuels, we of the SF Greens need to immediately place ourselves at the cutting edge of the movement to fight these products, and turn the world to -real- planet saving measures like returnable glass bottles, returnable canvass bags, a massive shift to truly renewable energy sources, a massive shift to renewable powered electric mass transit, and the kicking of corporations like Starbucks, Nestle, Coca Cola, Vivendi, et al, out every watershed and aquifer on the planet - followed by organized community action to restore all of the Earth's water sources to democracy, and purity. To see show times for the program on which I saw the naively positive report about these new water/bottle programs go to: http://www.linktv.org/programming/programDescription.php4?code=earth_studio Link TV can be seen throughout Saturdays and Sundays in San Francisco on cable channel 27. To see the web site of one of the European versions of this bottled water Frankenstein's monster go to: http://www.belu.org/ peace, Eric Brooks jrizzo(a)sprintmail.com wrote: > Eric Brooks said: > > >> My biggest beef with Environment California is that they are supporting >> bio-fuels. >> > > I just sent someone else a message about biofuels. Eric inspired me to > forward an expanded version here. If you don't want to read my rant, > scroll down to the link to the Chicago Sun Times story below. > > It makes my hair stand on end when I heare Biofuels described as "green" > or "renewable." They are neither. > > Let's start with biodiesel. Biodiesel creates greenhouse gases when it > burns, and uses energy to create it. And, there is only enough used > vegetable oil to create 1 percent of the gasoline used. Biodiesel is > being used as a "gateway fuel" to corn-based ethanol, which is pushed by > Big Agriculture and the Bush administration (and now by Pelosi). The > Bushies recently gave City College $200,000 for a biofuels program. > > Corn ethanol burns to create greenhouse gases. At best, the gas/Ethanol > mixes that are used reduces greenhouse gas emissions by zero to 5 > percent. > > It also takes as much energy to produce it as it gives when it burns -- > there is no net gain. Only 5 to 26 percent of the energy content of > ethanol is "renewable." The balance of ethanol's energy comes from > coal, natural gas and nuclear power necessary to produce corn and > process it into ethanol. > > Biofuels are being promoted by big agriculture: ADM, Monsanto, etc. > Monsanto is interested in new markets for its genetically modified corn > seeds. > > Probably the worst aspect is that biofuels will compete for land used > for food. It would drive up food prices, as corn prices have soared in > Mexica. And it will devour open space, remaining rainforests, etc, as > more farm land is need. There's nothing green about biofuels. > > If **ALL** the corn produced in America last year were dedicated to > ethanol production, U.S. gasoline consumption would drop by only 12 > percent. > > The alternative press has been covering this for years. Now, the > mainstream press is now catching on: > > Chicago Sun Times: Expensive, wasteful ethanol can't solve our problems > http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/231613,CST-EDT-REF27B.article > > Washington Post: ETHANOL HYPE, Corn Can't Solve Our Problem > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/23/ > AR2007032301625.html > > The Independent: The Big Green Fuel Lie > http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2328821. > ece > > This is why I do not support the biofuel program at City College. > > Best, > John > > _______________________________________________ > San Francisco Green Party Active Members List > To unsubscribe or edit your options, go here: > https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/active >

1 1

Re: [Transpo] Meeting Tonight? and Post Carbon Institute Meetings...
by srira＠comcast.net 27 Mar '07

27 Mar '07

Definitely a different date and time would help. Pi -------------- Original message -------------- From: Eric Brooks <brookse32(a)aim.com> > By the way, I had a specific request from Jeanne Rosenmeier, who besides > being a Green is also with Post Carbon Institute. Post Carbon also has > meetings every fourth Tuesday. It is conceivable, we will get more > Transpo attendees if we change our meeting date. > > Even one more person would help kick Transpo into gear again. > > Thoughts? > > Eric B > > brookse32(a)aim.com wrote: > > I can be there to open up if others are planning on showing. > > > > Eric B > > > > jmc(a)sfgreens.org wrote: > > > >> Hi, > >> I can't make tonight's WG meeting. If others would like to meet > >> tonight, please speak up on the list so we can arrange to have the office > >> open. Last month, Eric and I were the only people who could make it. > >> > >> JMC > >> > >> > > _______________________________________________ > > Transpo mailing list > > Transpo(a)sfgreens.org > > https://list.sfgreens.org/mailman/listinfo/transpo > > > _______________________________________________ > Transpo mailing list > Transpo(a)sfgreens.org > https://list.sfgreens.org/mailman/listinfo/transpo

1 0

Fwd: Biofuels & Carbon Credits Booms Spurring Deforestation (Resent To Make Readable)
by Eric Brooks 26 Mar '07

26 Mar '07

http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file=/headlines07/0322-01.htm /Published on Thursday, March 22, 2007 by Inter Press Service <http://www.ipsnews.net/print.asp?idnews=37035>/ * Biofuels Boom Spurring Deforestation **by Stephen Leahy* Nearly 40,000 hectares of forest vanish every day, driven by the world's growing hunger for timber, pulp and paper, and ironically, new biofuels and carbon credits designed to protect the environment. The irony here is that the growing eagerness to slow climate change by using biofuels and planting millions of trees for carbon credits has resulted in new major causes of deforestation, say activists. And that is making climate change worse because deforestation puts far more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire world's fleet of cars, trucks, planes, trains and ships combined. "Biofuels are rapidly becoming the main cause of deforestation in countries like Indonesia, Malaysia and Brazil," said Simone Lovera, managing coordinator of the Global Forest Coalition <http://www.wrm.org.uy/GFC/>, an environmental NGO based in Asunción, Paraguay. "We call it 'deforestation diesel'," Lovera told IPS. Oil from African palm trees is considered to be one of the best and cheapest sources of biodiesel and energy companies are investing billions into acquiring or developing oil-palm plantations in developing countries. Vast tracts of forest in Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand and many other countries have been cleared to grow oil palms. Oil palm has become the world's number one fruit crop, well ahead of bananas. Biodiesel offers many environmental benefits over diesel from petroleum, including reductions in air pollutants, but the enormous global thirst means millions more hectares could be converted into monocultures of oil palm. Getting accurate numbers on how much forest is being lost is very difficult. The FAO's /State of the World's Forests 2007/ <http://www.fao.org/docrep/009/a0773e/a0773e00.htm> released last week reports that globally, net forest loss is 20,000 hectares per day -- equivalent to an area twice the size of Paris. However, that number includes plantation forests, which masks the actual extent of tropical deforestation, about 40,000 hectares (ha) per day, says Matti Palo, a forest economics expert who is affiliated with the Tropical Agricultural Research and Higher Education Center (CATIE) in Costa Rica. "The half a million ha per year deforestation of Mexico is covered by the increase of forests in the U.S., for example," Palo told IPS. National governments provide all the statistics, and countries like Canada do not produce anything reliable, he said. Canada has claimed no net change in its forests for 15 years despite being the largest producer of pulp and paper. "Canada has a moral responsibility to tell the rest of the world what kind of changes have taken place there," he said. Plantation forests are nothing like natural or native forests. More akin to a field of maize, plantation forests are hostile environments to nearly every animal, bird and even insects. Such forests have been shown to have a negative impact on the water cycle because non-native, fast-growing trees use high volumes of water. Pesticides are also commonly used to suppress competing growth from other plants and to prevent disease outbreaks, also impacting water quality. Plantation forests also offer very few employment opportunities, resulting in a net loss of jobs. "Plantation forests are a tremendous disaster for biodiversity and local people," Lovera said. Even if farmland or savanna are only used for oil palm or other plantations, it often forces the local people off the land and into nearby forests, including national parks, which they clear to grow crops, pasture animals and collect firewood. That has been the pattern with pulp and timber plantation forests in much of the world, says Lovera. Ethanol is other major biofuel, which is made from maize, sugar cane or other crops. As prices for biofuels climb, more land is cleared to grow the crops. U.S. farmers are switching from soy to maize to meet the ethanol demand. That is having a knock on effect of pushing up soy prices, which is driving the conversion of the Amazon rainforest into soy, she says. Meanwhile rich countries are starting to plant trees to offset their emissions of carbon dioxide, called carbon sequestration. Most of this planting is taking place in the South in the form of plantations, which are just the latest threat to existing forests. "Europe's carbon credit market could be disastrous," Lovera said. The multi-billion-euro European carbon market does not permit the use of reforestation projects for carbon credits. But there has been a tremendous surge in private companies offering such credits for tree planting projects. Very little of this money goes to small land holders, she says. Plantation forests also contain much less carbon, notes Palo, citing a recent study that showed carbon content of plantation forests in some Asian tropical countries was only 45 percent of that in the respective natural forests. Nor has the world community been able to properly account for the value of the enormous volumes of carbon stored in existing forests. One recent estimate found that the northern Boreal forest provided 250 billion dollars a year in ecosystem services such as absorbing carbon emissions from the atmosphere and cleaning water. The good news is that deforestation, even in remote areas, is easily stopped. All it takes is access to some low-cost satellite imagery and governments that actually want to slow or halt deforestation. Costa Rica has nearly eliminated deforestation by making it illegal to convert forest into farmland, says Lovera. Paraguay enacted similar laws in 2004, and then regularly checked satellite images of its forests, sending forestry officials and police to enforce the law where it was being violated. "Deforestation has been reduced by 85 percent in less than two years in the eastern part of the country," Lovera noted. The other part of the solution is to give control over forests to the local people. This community or model forest concept has proved to be sustainable in many parts of the world. India recently passed a bill returning the bulk of its forests back to local communities for management, she said. However, economic interests pushing deforestation in countries like Brazil and Indonesia are so powerful, there may eventually be little natural forest left. "Governments are beginning to realize that their natural forests have enormous value left standing," Lovera said. "A moratorium or ban on deforestation is the only way to stop this." /This story is part of a series of features on sustainable development by IPS and IFEJ - International Federation of Environmental Journalists./ © 2007 IPS - Inter Press Service

1 0

Biofuels & Carbon Credits Booms Spurring Deforestation
by Eric Brooks 26 Mar '07

26 Mar '07

<http://www.commondreams.org/> <http://commondreams.org/views07/0320-23.htm> * Home <http://www.commondreams.org/> | Newswire <http://www.commondreams.org/newswire.htm> | About Us <http://www.commondreams.org/about.htm> | Donate <http://www.commondreams.org/donate.htm> ** | Sign-Up <http://www.commondreams.org/email.htm> | Archives <http://www.commondreams.org/archives.htm>* * Friday, March 23, 2007 * *Headlines* <http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file=/headlines07/0322-01.htm>Printer Friendly Version <http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file=/headlines07/0322-01.htm> <http://www.referralblast.com/cs/com/co1.asp> E-Mail This Article <http://www.referralblast.com/cs/com/co1.asp> /Published on Thursday, March 22, 2007 by Inter Press Service <http://www.ipsnews.net/print.asp?idnews=37035> / *Biofuels Boom Spurring Deforestation * *by Stephen Leahy * Nearly 40,000 hectares of forest vanish every day, driven by the world's growing hunger for timber, pulp and paper, and ironically, new biofuels and carbon credits designed to protect the environment. The irony here is that the growing eagerness to slow climate change by using biofuels and planting millions of trees for carbon credits has resulted in new major causes of deforestation, say activists. And that is making climate change worse because deforestation puts far more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire world's fleet of cars, trucks, planes, trains and ships combined. "Biofuels are rapidly becoming the main cause of deforestation in countries like Indonesia, Malaysia and Brazil," said Simone Lovera, managing coordinator of the Global Forest Coalition <http://www.wrm.org.uy/GFC/>, an environmental NGO based in Asunción, Paraguay. "We call it 'deforestation diesel'," Lovera told IPS. Oil from African palm trees is considered to be one of the best and cheapest sources of biodiesel and energy companies are investing billions into acquiring or developing oil-palm plantations in developing countries. Vast tracts of forest in Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand and many other countries have been cleared to grow oil palms. Oil palm has become the world's number one fruit crop, well ahead of bananas. Biodiesel offers many environmental benefits over diesel from petroleum, including reductions in air pollutants, but the enormous global thirst means millions more hectares could be converted into monocultures of oil palm. Getting accurate numbers on how much forest is being lost is very difficult. The FAO's /State of the World's Forests 2007/ <http://www.fao.org/docrep/009/a0773e/a0773e00.htm> released last week reports that globally, net forest loss is 20,000 hectares per day -- equivalent to an area twice the size of Paris. However, that number includes plantation forests, which masks the actual extent of tropical deforestation, about 40,000 hectares (ha) per day, says Matti Palo, a forest economics expert who is affiliated with the Tropical Agricultural Research and Higher Education Center (CATIE) in Costa Rica. "The half a million ha per year deforestation of Mexico is covered by the increase of forests in the U.S., for example," Palo told IPS. National governments provide all the statistics, and countries like Canada do not produce anything reliable, he said. Canada has claimed no net change in its forests for 15 years despite being the largest producer of pulp and paper. "Canada has a moral responsibility to tell the rest of the world what kind of changes have taken place there," he said. Plantation forests are nothing like natural or native forests. More akin to a field of maize, plantation forests are hostile environments to nearly every animal, bird and even insects. Such forests have been shown to have a negative impact on the water cycle because non-native, fast-growing trees use high volumes of water. Pesticides are also commonly used to suppress competing growth from other plants and to prevent disease outbreaks, also impacting water quality. Plantation forests also offer very few employment opportunities, resulting in a net loss of jobs. "Plantation forests are a tremendous disaster for biodiversity and local people," Lovera said. Even if farmland or savanna are only used for oil palm or other plantations, it often forces the local people off the land and into nearby forests, including national parks, which they clear to grow crops, pasture animals and collect firewood. That has been the pattern with pulp and timber plantation forests in much of the world, says Lovera. Ethanol is other major biofuel, which is made from maize, sugar cane or other crops. As prices for biofuels climb, more land is cleared to grow the crops. U.S. farmers are switching from soy to maize to meet the ethanol demand. That is having a knock on effect of pushing up soy prices, which is driving the conversion of the Amazon rainforest into soy, she says. Meanwhile rich countries are starting to plant trees to offset their emissions of carbon dioxide, called carbon sequestration. Most of this planting is taking place in the South in the form of plantations, which are just the latest threat to existing forests. "Europe's carbon credit market could be disastrous," Lovera said. The multi-billion-euro European carbon market does not permit the use of reforestation projects for carbon credits. But there has been a tremendous surge in private companies offering such credits for tree planting projects. Very little of this money goes to small land holders, she says. Plantation forests also contain much less carbon, notes Palo, citing a recent study that showed carbon content of plantation forests in some Asian tropical countries was only 45 percent of that in the respective natural forests. Nor has the world community been able to properly account for the value of the enormous volumes of carbon stored in existing forests. One recent estimate found that the northern Boreal forest provided 250 billion dollars a year in ecosystem services such as absorbing carbon emissions from the atmosphere and cleaning water. The good news is that deforestation, even in remote areas, is easily stopped. All it takes is access to some low-cost satellite imagery and governments that actually want to slow or halt deforestation. Costa Rica has nearly eliminated deforestation by making it illegal to convert forest into farmland, says Lovera. Paraguay enacted similar laws in 2004, and then regularly checked satellite images of its forests, sending forestry officials and police to enforce the law where it was being violated. "Deforestation has been reduced by 85 percent in less than two years in the eastern part of the country," Lovera noted. The other part of the solution is to give control over forests to the local people. This community or model forest concept has proved to be sustainable in many parts of the world. India recently passed a bill returning the bulk of its forests back to local communities for management, she said. However, economic interests pushing deforestation in countries like Brazil and Indonesia are so powerful, there may eventually be little natural forest left. "Governments are beginning to realize that their natural forests have enormous value left standing," Lovera said. "A moratorium or ban on deforestation is the only way to stop this." /This story is part of a series of features on sustainable development by IPS and IFEJ - International Federation of Environmental Journalists./ © 2007 IPS - Inter Press Service ### <http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file=/headlines07/0322-01.htm>Printer Friendly Version <http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file=/headlines07/0322-01.htm> <http://www.referralblast.com/cs/com/co1.asp> E-Mail This Article <http://www.referralblast.com/cs/com/co1.asp> FAIR USE NOTICE This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. *Common Dreams NewsCenter <http://www.commondreams.org/>* A non-profit news service providing breaking news & views for the progressive community. * Home <http://www.commondreams.org/> | Newswire <http://www.commondreams.org/newswire.htm> | Contacting Us <http://www.commondreams.org/contactingus.htm> | About Us <http://www.commondreams.org/about.htm> | Donate <http://www.commondreams.org/donate.htm> | Sign-Up <http://www.commondreams.org/email.htm> | Archives <http://www.commondreams.org/archives.htm>* © Copyrighted 1997-2007 www.commondreams.org <http://www.commondreams.org/>

1 0