Talk:Version Zero

From BioenergyWiki

This page is for comments on the RSB's "Version Zero" of draft "Global principles and criteria for sustainable biofuels production". (Click here for more background.)

• This page is for general comments on the principles and criteria. To comment on a specific topic, please use the topic-specific discussion pages by clicking on the relevant topic header on the Version Zero page
• To add a comment, click the "+" symbol at the top of the page after you have logged in.

Analysis of Price and Indirect Land Use Effects

I believe that the statements at the top of page 3 about our lack of knowledge regarding biofuel price and indirect land use effects is obsolete and potentially misleading. Many, very credible studies by top economist have recently provided insights regarding price effects of biofuels. While they differ regarding the period analyzed and the magnitude of the price impacts, all of the published studies indicate that biofuel production has substantially raised food prices. Their estimates range from 10 to 70 percent.

Part of the difficulty resulted from the way that the question was posed. Sorting out all of the causes of recent price increases makes the problem unnecessarily complex. A much more useful way to pose the problem is to isolate key variables that are most relevant in determining how food prices are affected by biofuel demands. For example, one recent study estimates that returning the one-fourth of corn production that is currently used as a biofuel to the feed grain market would reduce the world price of corn by 50 percent.

For much of the past century, the U.S. Department of Agriculture supported the world's crop prices by reducing the supply of corn (idling cropland), so we have a long history in this country of using models (such as the FAPRI model) to analyze crop price effects of reducing the supply of corn or other crops. In order to estimate the price effects, these same models had to estimate the effects on production and land use, all over the world. USDA administered farm price support programs using such models.

Your website cites the Searchinger, et. al. study. This study used the FAPRI model. Once again, the study topic was complex because it included a life cycle analysis. The topic was controversial because so many groups had vested interests in biofuel production. However, the model identified land use change effects and showed in a very credible way that these effects can be large. A study that examined the combined effects of biofuel production in the U.S., E.U., Brazil, and Argentina obviously would have found much larger indirect land use effects. Once again, this model has been used routinely for decades to analyze land use and price effects of programs that reduce the supply of agricultural commodities. Those who conduct these analyses have very good credentials.

On page 3, your preamble suggests that our analysis of this issues is in its infancy. In reality, economists have a very long history of using models to analyze in an authoritative way land use and price effects of programs that reduce the supply of agricultural commodities.

• (This section was added by BioenergyWiki User:Clay)

Voluntary bandaid measures

I have read the Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels (RSB) Version Zero, Principles and Criteria and while the I can find no argument with its intentions, I fear it will ultimately fail miserably.

The main issue surrounding the clearing of land for biofuels is the distinction between those companies who are bound by western consumer accountability and those who are not. The companies who require "green credentials" for business will work within this framework set out by the RSB, albeit cutting corners at every opportunity. Those companies who currently deforest with little or no regard for the best interests of local communities or biodiversity will continue to do so, unphased.

These Principles and Criteria may encourage an improvement in environmental degradation with regard to plantation inputs and outputs, but they will have little real effect on the forest conversions in any developing country.

“The roundtable has no plans to establish a rigorous certification system at this time due to implementation costs and the difficulty of proving the source of blended biofuels. Instead, suppliers can voluntarily strive to follow the standards until a more stringent system is in place.”

Therefore, anything anyone does is voluntary, there is no requirement to follow any of the Principles and Criteria, there is no way to determine whether blended biofuels have satisfied any Principles and Criteria and no one is particularly interested or concerned about these facts, least of all the RSB.

Is it any wonder then that the companies who are doing the wrong thing - deforesting HCV rainforests, ignoring social justice issues, decimating wildlife and polluting the environment with no regard for rainforest eco-services, have probably not even raised an eyelid at this report?

You are preaching to the western, consumer-whipped converted whilst not laying one manicured finger on the worst environmental destroyers.

• (This section was added by BioenergyWiki User:AmandaE)