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.
I lived in SE Asia for the best part of a decade, and have seen palm oil plantations first hand, and have been to Borneo a number of times.
These plantations are vast. Some cover hundreds of square kilometers. There is an almost complete absence of animal and bird life in these plantations. As you fly over Borneo, rivers that flow out of untouched forest are deep green in colour. Where the forest has been cut down for agriculture and plantations the rivers are mud brown. Not only are these plantations ruining the land and the wildlife, they are ruining the rivers.
Palm oil plantations are the worst ecological disaster of my lifetime. And despite the protestations above that environmentalists are against biofuels from palm oil, you hear almost nothing from them. I have been concerned about this issue for a long time and have followed it closely, so I know.
This post is verging on dangerous ground inho, if the CAGW and AGW activists subgroup are not bad enough, and they are,..the’ parent global conservationist movement are definitely the very worst of contemporary humanity!
No reasons forthcoming at this time as it is so self evident to those whose intuitive faculties are sufficiently developed, and besides,…it will be written into history before very long so be patient just a little longer please..
This is what happens when amateurs get on the environmental campaign trail. There is no such thing as an environmental free lunch and these people need to understand that. All they have done is trade a potential (though unlikely) disaster for an actual disaster. In their arrogance they seem to think that they have stumbled across a solution that those trained in the field of environmental management have overlooked. Unfortunately the amateur in this case has some political power and hence the disaster is bigger than normal. I would venture to suggest that if we looked at the habitat loss associated with this, it would represent an impact greater than all of the marine oil impacts that have ever occurred and the problem is, it is almost permanently irriversible.
Chris says:
October 8, 2012 at 9:28 am
”This is the classical debate on flows versus stocks, of plant physiology versus systems ecology — currently the pulpwood as well as the oil palm plantation sector are fighting the battle with claims that they improve the C sequestration rates from something like 0.5 t C/ha/yr for maturing forest to values of 3-5 t C/ha/yr for fast growing plantations — while the world should care about the release of about 250 t C/ha of existing stocks before this increase in rates can be realized,” van Noordwijk told mongabay.com. “It will take 50-100 years before [carbon storage at this sequestration rate] equals 250. Meanwhile the average life on an oil palm plantation is less than 25 years.”
0.5 is high for a mature forest on some estimates I have seen (depends on the type and maturity of the forest – some are negative), but the figures quoted are a reasonable estimate of the increase in fixation used in a number of studies for calculating carbon credits. What I am not sure from this quotation is where the figure of 250 t C/ha is coming from for “existing stocks” – what does this represent? Is he converting the entire existing stored C in the forest into CO2? This is quite wrong as the majority will remain fixed in the harvested wood and in the soil.
What you have to remember is that no-one is neutral in this debate – everyone is presenting the numbers to support their case, but there are no agreed on parameters for what to include in a “systems” approach. The guy you quote is obviously arguing against palm oil plantations, so he is bringing in another parameter to show it is bad. Someone arguing the other case will argue that this is invalid, or bring in something else.
I have no dog in this fight, since I don’t think increased CO2 is any kind of an issue, but I thought the original study quoted was missing the fact that palm plantations are one of the most efficient CO2 fixation systems around (along with corn and sugar cane). Remember that every carbon atom in the harvested palm oil represents one molecule of CO2 and the amount of oil produced – tons per hectare – is much higher than the increase in biomass in a mature forest. sure, the forest has a lot already stored, but how much is this increasing?
“Plantation expansion is projected to contribute more than 558 million metric tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere in 2020”
I love to see how they dream up these estimates. Absinthe anyone?
“…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…”
28 million vehicles.
Or, to see it another way: In California, the estimated Vehicle Registration by County for the period of January 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011 was 31,802,483 vehicles).
Either stop the land-clearing for oil palm plantations in Kalimantan or cut off California’s oil supply.
Either one lowers the the GLOBAL CO2 by 140 million metric tons of carbon dioxide.
Where is the WWF when they are really needed? Besides too busy getting the most money from big oil…
“This post is verging on dangerous ground inho, if the CAGW and AGW activists subgroup are not bad enough, and they are,..the’ parent global conservationist movement are definitely the very worst of contemporary humanity!”
I think you might be treading on dangerous grounds yourself with that comment. Many of the commenters here including myself are appalled by the loss of highly biodiverse tropical forests to a palm oil monoculture, despite our scientific skepticism of AGW.
Athelstan said
Quote
They illegally allow [turn a blind eye] loggers into the virgin forest, who cut the trees down, the tree boles are roughly dressed, sent to Thailand for sawing to size and then on to China to end up in as furniture in a living room somewhere in Europe etc.
Unquote
It is illegal to export raw or dressed logs from Indonesia.
What happens is that some “traders” bribe the local Administrators and they then get to export the cargo. However, if they paid the wrong people or the wrong amount, pirates seize the ship and sell the cargo.
Its not about Palm Oil. Its about crooks, fraud, corruption across the board.
The Eco warriors choose not to fight the correct battles. As one commenter said, who goes after the EU rules.
Palm oil is a hugely productive food crop. Its use for fuel really is both moot and unnecessary. The attacks and fake claims re CO2 are funded, directed and orchestrated by Big OIL, the Soy and Conola, people. Thats why you never see the same claims against them despite them being far worse offenders (if you like)
We need the food resource, we need the jobs etc. It is not difficult to ensure balance. Start by catching and locking up the crooks. Ensure better practices. Look what practical common sense and law did with our air( ref London and Los Angeles).
.
I’m appalled also dlb by so many things that are going on in the world outside my own local environment, but I would not presume to know absolutely what is ‘best’ for the planet in the context of a multi-billion year old evolutionary journey towards God knows what! Nor do I suspect any mere mortal does yet many think that what makes most sense to them now in this temporary existence, is best for the Cosmos in the absolute terms, what arrogance!
Is this a better photo for palm oil?
http://www.bombayharbor.com/productImage/0867257001251249923/Palm_Oil.jpg
But it’s hardly a train wreck for the smart businessmen who make what they quite appropriately call a ”killing” out of destroying other countries’ forests.
David Cooke says:
October 9, 2012 at 4:10 am
A former fellow traveller of yours, Patrick Moore, who has been to the places you claim are “being destroyed” has some serious evidence that you are incorrect. You will find on this site that you need to substantiate claims with evidence. Also, the sources of you claims will be checked. Time to put up or shut up.
dlb says:
October 8, 2012 at 5:37 pm
‘….Many of the commenters here including myself are appalled by the loss of highly biodiverse tropical forests to a palm oil monoculture, despite our scientific skepticism of AGW…”
Not this one.
The arrogance of (much of) the west in this matter is beyond belief. These countries need development, jobs, income, education…. Brazil was hounded for developing rain-forests and developing their grasslands. I suspect some of the motivation was not wanting the competition in corn, beef and soybean (that sound like Nth America?) Now Brazil ranks as the number one or two world exporter in all those commodities. People are buying and eating that stuff, so I guess someone is happy. No doubt some Brazilians are wealthier.
Want forest? Replant your own, the ones cut down centuries ago. Want biodiversity, don’t worry, it will happen given time, just look after that forest. Want to keep the biodiversity we have got? Buy or lease those old forests in the tropics and supply an income to that populace, and taxes to that government.
I would love to know the real difference between a palm oil estate, a Scottish pine forest, a USA swathe of wheat on the prairies, etc.
I also ask that you compare yields of palm oil, soy oil and conola oil. see who is conning who.
Using palm oil as fuel in the plantation makes sense. But most is used for food and food products, so why would anybody want to boycott it.
The picture above was palm oil fruiting bodies, bit like giant raspberries. the fruit has the palm oil and the seed inside, the palm kernel oil. the resultant seed cake is a good animal feed. As you can see, each body has a huge biomass when used. thus leftovers used as both fuel and fertilser.
When Brazil has cut down its rainforest to grow sugar cane for ethanol it was glorified as an example we should follow. When Brazil has ambitious plans to utilize 5% of its “rainforest”, which the government claims is clear cut forest land that is not rainforest, they are considered barbarians.
If someone kills an endangered hawk or eagle they face a year in jail and fines up to $100,000; unless of course you operate a wind farm. Then the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of hawks, eagles, condors, bats and other birds is ignored.
we have a government that says it wants to help the poor and, by waging a war on fossil fuel, places more and more people in poverty every day.
The truth of the rainforest debate most certainly does not lie at the extremes of either side recorded here.
Al Gore is the train wreck supreme
Grey Lensman says:
October 9, 2012 at 9:58 am
“I would love to know the real difference between a palm oil estate, a Scottish pine forest, a USA swathe of wheat on the prairies, etc.
“I also ask that you compare yields of palm oil, soy oil and conola oil. see who is conning who.”
This doesn’t really address your request, but I venture to say that using palm oil for food or fuel or whatever purpose is less energy-intensive because it doesn’t require a factory to do the extraction. On the other hand, who would have guessed that those dry soybeans and canola contain enough oil to make them a major source of oil.
There are so many cons and scams currently being promoted, it makes my head spin. 😛
Athelstan. says October 8, 2012 at 1:27 pm
“…Someone said [above], the forest can grow back – well that’s debatable….”
No, he is correct – was clearing some roads through land in Indonesia a few years ago (bulldozers, sorry!) – we thought it was original forest (albeit selectively logged) – but what we found underfoot, besides very poor soil, were many broken ceramic rubber cups, and later, clear signs of irrigation channels. A bit of research revealed the whole area had been a large functioning rubber plantation back in the 1930s.
“…… Indonesia makes billions from the oil palm, Indonesia works only via corrupt practice and bribes …..”
Not strictly so – it is a good growing economy and a pretty orderly place. (Great place, great people by the way).
But, an interesting observation re corruption – does not matter at all as long as it is localized. The money all eventually gets back to the community (bribed guy buys new car, renovates s house , eats out more, gets a mistress etc).
The problem (for a community or country) comes when the money is moved internationally.
We joked when greater autonomy was granted to regional governments in Indonesia that they were just regionalising the corruption – instead of going to (or near) the top, money went locally…. Well, it did wonders for the place – 15 years later those regional cities are absolutely thriving!
Another historical “proof” that jungle regrows. As exploration and development “encroached” on the pristine amazon jungle, more and more discoveries were made of lost cities, roads and agricultural areas with really fertile artificial soils, covering vast areas. Along with massive tracts of terra-forming in the very remote Bolivian amazon.
Easy to google the reports and verify. seems one of the unknown secrets of fertile jungle soil was “biochar”
Who would have thought it?
why don’t you actually read the paper? Or perhaps our April 2012 Proceedings in the National Academy of Sciences…I would be eager to respond to any questions! We do full carbon accounting including CO2 from oil palm growth/sequestration, secondary forest regrowth. The paper includes all the leases allocated to companies. There are many other studies comparing oil palm production, soy, sugarcane, corn too.
I have spent 30 years in Kalimantan working on forest dynamics, logging practices – lived 5 years in logging concessions – that were then converted to oil palm plantations. We have long-term studies of local livelihoods both benefits and costs. Over 3.5 million people reside or live around these oil palm plantations. We found ~20-25% of lands converted are agroforests – lands farmed or used by communities for fruit gardens, rubber or other products. We mapped these lands with resident communities who have lived in the very locale for over a century. We are not ecowarriors. I think oil palm has tremendous benefits for income and production – but not how its practiced now. That’s why we did a detailed painstaking effort to get the info as balanced and conservative assessments as possible. This is a 11-13$ B industry – mostly for human consumption and use…cooking oil livestock feed …30% world edible oil. Much much less important for biofuel….btw, Mattius Klum (photographer) and I pitched the Bornean land use story to National Geographic, designed the study, provided the images and information. Our Indonesian collaborators are included throughout the piece. Thanks for your interest.