From Stanford University , more bad news coming from Al Gore’s failed Goldman Sachs palm oil fantasy.
Stanford researchers show oil palm plantations are clearing carbon-rich tropical forests in Borneo
Expanding production of palm oil, a common ingredient in processed foods, soaps and personal care products, is driving rainforest destruction and massive carbon dioxide emissions, according to a new study led by researchers at Stanford and Yale universities.
The study, published online Oct. 7 in the journal Nature Climate Change, shows that deforestation for the development of oil palm plantations in Indonesian Borneo is becoming a globally significant source of carbon dioxide emissions.
Plantation expansion is projected to contribute more than 558 million metric tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere in 2020 – an amount greater than all of Canada’s current fossil fuel emissions.
Indonesia is the leading producer of palm and palm kernel oil, which together account for more than 30 percent of the world’s vegetable oil use, and which can be used for biodiesel. Most of Indonesia’s oil palm plantation expansion is occurring on the island of Borneo, also known as Kalimantan, which occupies a land area nearly the size California and Florida combined. Plantation leases, covering 32 percent of Kalimantan’s lowlands outside of protected areas, represent a major land bank that is slated for development over the next decade, according to the study.
In 2010 alone, land-clearing for oil palm plantations in Kalimantan emitted more than 140 million metric tons of carbon dioxide – an amount equivalent to annual emissions from about 28 million vehicles.
Home to the world’s third-largest tropical forest area, Indonesia is also one of the world’s largest emitters of greenhouse gasses, due to rapid loss of carbon-rich forests and peatlands. Since 1990, development of oil palm plantations has cleared about 16,000 square kilometers of Kalimantan’s primary and logged forested lands – an area about the size of Hawaii. This accounts for 60 percent of Kalimantan’s total forest cover loss in that time, according to the study’s authors.
“Despite contentious debate over the types and uses of lands slated for oil palm plantations, the sector has grown rapidly over the past 20 years,” said project leader Lisa M. Curran, a professor of ecological anthropology at Stanford and a senior fellow at the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment. By combining field measurements with analyses of high-resolution satellite images, the study evaluated lands targeted for plantations and documented their carbon emissions when converted to oil palm.
The study’s researchers generated the first comprehensive maps of oil palm plantation expansion from 1990 to 2010. Using cutting-edge classification technology, developed by study co-author Gregory Asner from the Carnegie Institution’s Department of Global Ecology, researchers quantified the types of land cleared for oil palm plantations, as well as carbon emissions and sequestration from oil palm agriculture.
“A major breakthrough occurred when we were able to discern not only forests and non-forested lands, but also logged forests, as well as mosaics of rice fields, rubber stands, fruit gardens and mature secondary forests used by smallholder farmers for their livelihoods,” said Kimberly Carlson, a Yale doctoral student and lead author of the study. “With this information, we were able to develop robust carbon bookkeeping accounts to quantify carbon emissions from oil palm development.”
The research team gathered oil palm land lease records during interviews with local and regional governmental agencies. These records identify locations that have received approval and are allocated to oil palm companies. The total allocated leases spanned about 120,000 square kilometers, an area slightly smaller than Greece. Most leases in the study occupied more than 100 square kilometers, an area slightly larger than Manhattan.
Using these leases in combination with land cover maps, the team estimated future land-clearing and carbon emissions from plantations. Eighty percent of leases remained unplanted in 2010. If all of these leases were developed, more than a third of Kalimantan’s lowlands would be planted with oil palm by 2020.
Despite these large numbers, accurate information about leases is not readily available for public review and oversight, even after the leases are granted. The average Kalimantan resident is unaware of plans for local oil palm development, which can have dramatic effects on residents’ livelihoods and environment, Curran said.
“These plantation leases are an unprecedented ‘grand-scale experiment’ replacing forests with exotic palm monocultures,” said Curran. “We may see tipping points in forest conversion where critical biophysical functions are disrupted, leaving the region increasingly vulnerable to droughts, fires and floods.”
Combined with results generated from their more detailed district-level study recently published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the researchers emphasize that sustainably producing palm oil – a stated goal of the Indonesian palm oil industry – will require re-evaluation of awarded oil palm plantation leases located on forested lands.
The research study, “Carbon Emissions from Forest Conversion by Kalimantan Oil Palm Plantations,” was supported by the NASA Land Cover/Land-Use Change Program, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Santa Fe Institute and the National Science Foundation.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
![jatropha-curcas-6[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/jatropha-curcas-61.jpg?w=1110)
To destroy rainforest to grow a crop for palm oil is stupid given the loss of diversity and wildlife habitat and that there are other products available such as rape seed oil. But if the attention of the palm growers lapses the rainforest will grow back. Give it ten years untended and we are back to total rainforest.
…and yet Brazil’s effort to replace gasoline with ethanol produced [from] sugar cane is praised and held up as an example of being “green” when 25 million acres of rainforest is being used to produce ethanol.
I wonder how it is that the scientists doing the study never seem to acknoledge that palm trees utilize carbon dioxide.
A crime against humanity, a crime against the orangutans and a crime against nature.
Makes as much sense as “biofuel”. Considering that it has Al Gore involved that’s not much of a surprise.
There is no better example of the evil of the green movement than the push for biofuels with the so obvious “unintended” consequences that went with it.
Well done. Idiots.
Do as I say, not as I do.
I wonder if the scientists doing the study read National Geographic Magazine. NatGeo reported this FOUR years ago.
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/geopedia/Borneo
Palm oil is a disaster for so many reasons.
But please can you illustrate this piece with a photograph of palm oil rather than (presumably) Jatropha.
Yet another headline that has nothing to do with the story.
You do realize that palm oil is a completely different species then jatropha, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palm_oil and that environmentalists have been concerned about tropical deforestation caused by palm oil plantations for years? http://ran.org/palm-oil
But anything goes to find an angle to smear Al Gore and Goldman Sachs, right?
Cut. Paste.
ThinkAs many have predicted, the dash for biofuels – especially of the palm oil variety – will lead to a ravaging of tropical rainforests on a scale hitherto unseen, whilst doing next to nothing to abate co2 emissions.
Sadly, now that the legislation has been enacted in the EUSSR, no power can reverse it. Brakeless and without steering, the machinery of the State will continue moving forward, even while it is staring down into the abyss.
Even Orwell, in his most fevered “doublespeak” imagination, would never have imagined how burning down tropical rainforest to grow crops that are then burnt in the engines of vehicles could have been called green by the men at the Ministry, much less that the public would have believed them.
If You have a look around the web it`s interesting to note that there seems to be as many green groups wanting to ban palm oil from foodstuffs because of it`s environmental impact as there are those promoting it as biofuel . Usual schizophrenic econut mindsets at work
Growing things to feed people = BAD
Wiping out rainforests to make dodgy and expensive fuel that is prone to a whole host of problems and causes people a lot of inconvenience = GOOD
Shooting a wild duck for supper = BAD
Slaughtering raptors and bats with dodgy and expensive wind turbines that don`t generate any useful supply and causes people a lot of inconvenience = GOOD
Cutting down a tree to make any number of usefull items = BAD
Banning burning off and the thinning of scrub to create firebreaks in fire prone areas so that next fire season 173 people die and almost two thousand homes are burnt down = GOOD
The only thing the Green zealots seem to be consistent in is their overwhelming misanthropy , so much so that making humans suffer or die seems to take precedent over any environmental concerns
It is always fascinating to witness the claims from the exact same people who profess to be “helping to save the Planet”, are really the worse polluters of all. Al Gore can definitely take a bow for his concerted efforts which all seems to boil down to making the mighty dollar. What is it with Democrats and their hypocrisy and why is it always linked to the money.
We had to destroy the rain forest in order to save it!!!
I don’t get the AlGore reference. Did he invest in palm oil?
Heading an article on Palm Oil is a picture of Jatropha. Does not make a lot of sense, much like the paper. Totally different plants
Industrial toxic oils such as Rape, should be burnt and valuable foods such as palm oil promoted. Notice how Rape, GM corn, Soy oils get promoted as healthy foods but Palm Oil is “industrial.
Notice also no flack at all directed at the soy destruction o the Amazon Rain Forest not at its ability to mimic female hormones and block mineral adsorption, with concomitant nasty effects on people. No mention is made of the vastly higher yield of Palm oil, nor its preference for poor soils. Neither is mention made of what alternative crops the people can grow, wheat maybe, or Brussels sprouts?
I think the far-left might discriminate against palm oil because it tastes good.
The Malaysian province of Sarawak, also on the island of Borneo, is also turning over very large amounts of land to palm oil production. The victims of the process are the peoples and animals of Sarawak. The fight against palm oil should focus on the environmental destruction and its consequences. CO2, at less than 400 parts per million, is good for all living things.
You can’t make much money of off rain forests.
@dahun, what uses more CO2 rain forest or a plam tree plantation? If you’ve ever been to a rain forest you’ll know it can grow quite thick.
…and Shevva, rain forests are continuously dying and decaying into carbon dioxide, so when all is taken into consideration the difference is minimal. The fact is people need to eat and palm oil is food. So-called environmentalists want to stop production of palm oil except that they don’t mind it when it is burned for fuel.
The arguement against palm oil is just another unscientific, ill-thouight out, agenda based a campaign based on an agenda rather than any real problem.
More CO2 in the Atmosphere?
Good!
Anthony: Why in the world is this article accompanied/headed by a photo of Jatropha Curas? Jatropha, while used to produce organic oil which can be turned into diesel-type fuel, is NOT a palm and has nothing whatever to do with palm oil plantations. Oil Palms are of the genus Elaeis and look like, well, palm trees.
My question is: To what extent is demand for palm oil driven by subsidized blending of biofuels into diesel worldwide? I ask because if there is any relationship here, the author of piece has gone far out of his way in avoiding almost all mention of it. There is one reference only to this use, and only in passing: “…which can be used for biodiesel.”
Does anyone have a sense of this?
Not sure palm oil is so bad compared to what we do in the west – seems very efficient – no cultivation required once planted, provides tree cover, good yields:
Palm: average oil yield of 3.66 tonnes/ha/year,
Soy: 0.4 tonnes/ha/per year
Rapeseed (canola) 0.6 tonnes/ha/per year.
Maybe its all a plot by big (soy and canola) oil?
Sorry, but this is a poor analysis. The new palm oil plantations will fix massive amounts of CO2 – probably more than the old-growth forest was doing. You may not want to clear old-growth forest for other reasons, but CO2 emissions are not one of them.
Out of simple economic good sense, a modern palm oil plantation has virtually zero inputs. Used fruit bodies and dead fronds are used as fertilizers. Used fruit bodies are also used as fuel to fire the refinery. Bio diesel, made from their own palm oil is used to fuel the vehicles.
rodents are controlled by breeding and keeping barn owls.
insects are repelled by growing selective plant barriers.
The plantation powers the homes of the workers.
over their 17 year life plus the palms consume vast amounts of co2.
When they are needed to be replaced all the old palms are recycled.
The yields per acre are astronomical compared with any other bio product. Just look them uo and compare.
But they are now using the land under the palms. Doubling its usage. many schemes are beig tested and verified.
Just wondering why your illustration is not of a palm oil tree.
And that reminded me of a commercial.
Palmolive – “You’re Soaking In It”