Indonesia Threatens to Withdraw From Paris Agreement Over Palm Oil

From Telesur

Indonesia’s Coordinating Minister for Maritime Affairs Luhut Binsar Pandjaitan referenced the U.S. and Brazil’s withdrawal from the agreement.

As the European Union proceeds with a plan to ban crude palm oil (CPO) from use in raw bio-fuel materials, the government of Indonesia is threatening to back out of the Paris Agreement under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

RELATED:
Activists Decry UN Climate Meeting on ‘Unsustainable’ Biofuels

The European Commission has approved acts that classify CPO as a non-sustainable product, removing it from a list of raw materials for the eco-friendly transport fuel. The European Union’s parliament will decide in a couple of months whether or not this classification will be enforced by 2030.

Indonesia’s Coordinating Minister for Maritime Affairs Luhut Binsar Pandjaitan referenced the United States and Brazil’s withdrawal from the accord saying, “if the United States and Brazil can exit from the climate deal, we will consider it as well, because it is linked with the interests of the Indonesian people.”

Approximately 20 million Indonesians rely on the palm oil sector, which has alleviated some of the poverty in the country through the creation of jobs. However, palm oil plantations are attributed to causing deforestation, which threatens the habitats of several endangered species.

Read the full story here:

And here is additional commentary by Joanne Nova

0 0 vote
Article Rating
114 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Herbert
May 17, 2019 6:32 pm

I was unaware that Brazil had formally withdrawn from the Paris Agreement.
I knew it had abandoned the 2019 Summit and refused attendance or support for another conference.
Bolsinaro is obviously following President Trump but I am unaware they are out as a signatory to Paris.
As a near neighbour of Indonesia, Bravo!

Greg
Reply to  Herbert
May 18, 2019 12:33 am

More to the point Trump has still done nothing but TALK about withdrawing the USA. He is routinely either despised or lauded for “pulling out” be he never did.

Schitzree
Reply to  Greg
May 18, 2019 1:08 am

Didn’t he give them formal notice that the US was withdrawing? I thought that after notice was given there was a wacting period and then the actual withdraw was to happen in 2020.

At this point he’d have to formally reenter the agreement to STOP us from withdrawing.

~¿~

Emily Daniels
Reply to  Schitzree
May 20, 2019 10:04 am

Yes, the State Department provided formal notice to the UN back in August 2017 of the US intent to withdraw from the agreement. That’s all that can be done until 2020. Greg just keeps repeating this assertion without apparently doing a simple search for the news reports on it almost 2 years ago.

2hotel9
Reply to  Emily Daniels
May 20, 2019 2:24 pm

Since it was never ratified by Congress it is a zero to begin with, totally un- enforceable. And exactly where would UN or Paris get the military it needs to enforce this “agreement” to begin with?

Kaiser Derden
Reply to  Greg
May 18, 2019 4:10 am

troll … he notified them that we are out … it takes years to actually get out …

Reply to  Greg
May 18, 2019 1:11 pm

The Senate never approved the treaty, so I am inclined to pay little notice of what Trump does regard to the withdrawal.

nw sage
Reply to  Chad Jessup
May 18, 2019 5:54 pm

The ‘treaty’ was never submitted to the US Senate for ratification. Therefore the US was never ‘in’ and the terms and conditions of the treaty (proposed) never had any force and effect on and US Government activity. Since we were never in, we never had to get out and all Trump had to do was basically announce we are no longer going to pay any attention to that non agreement. The agreement was only between Obama and the other signatories, no one else.
If the ‘treaty had been submitted there were some very serious US Constitutional issues to resolve ie Can agreements such as this be used to change the US Constitution?

2hotel9
Reply to  nw sage
May 19, 2019 5:46 am

Kamala Harris claims she can change the Constitution with nothing more than an Executive Order. Pretty sure Barri thought same about Paris Accord, too.

May 17, 2019 6:37 pm

Its only the Western World type countries who really worry about ”
“Saving the Planet””.

The rest of the world considers that the welfare of their people too be far
more important than a possible ” Problem””.

While such 3rd world countries expected money as a result of signing the
Paris accord, when this sort of thing happens they soon change their minds.

MJE VK5ELL

Greg
Reply to  Michael
May 18, 2019 12:36 am

Yet more unintended consequences of naive and unthough-out enviro policies backed up by totalitarian attitudes.

JBom
May 17, 2019 6:53 pm

(y)

Cheers!

R Shearer
May 17, 2019 6:56 pm

Need to destroy the rain forests for the environment.

WR2
May 17, 2019 6:58 pm

Do these idiot bureaucrats think that tropical rainforest will just turn into desert? Of course the farmers are replanting trees, because they want to be paid, but even if they didn’t the jungle would take it back over within a few years. It’s pretty much as sustainable an operation as is possible on earth. But I’m glad that other countries are starting to realize there are strings attached to that free money.

Greg Freemyer
Reply to  WR2
May 17, 2019 7:08 pm

Reality disagrees with you. Look at all the purple in Brazil. That’s deforestation triggering a loss of annual average leaf area:

comment image

WR2
Reply to  Greg Freemyer
May 17, 2019 8:24 pm

Reality disagrees with you. Your cute little picture doesn’t have dates or a source. It also shows the majority of Brazil as green. And it doesnt disprove my point that if left alone it would recover in a few years. Warmth and rainfall tend to do that.

Greg Freemyer
Reply to  WR2
May 17, 2019 9:22 pm

It’s a comparison of 2017 to 2000. Sure, part of the country is seeing greening, but a shocking amount saw a reduction in vegetation.

This is the source:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-019-0220-7

Schitzree
Reply to  Greg Freemyer
May 18, 2019 1:19 am

but a shocking amount saw a reduction in vegetation.

Ya, that’s called ‘Farming’. And if you did a before and after comparison of the farmland in Indiana you’d get the same results. Of course, you’d have to go back a little bit further then 20 years for the ‘before’.

And yet, for some strange reason Indian isn’t a wasteland devoid of all life.

When I was a kid they pumped our heads full of this “Save the rainforest” nonsense. It was only after I grew up that I came to understand that those people were trying to control whole other nations, and keep them from developing. There’s no reason that places like Brazil can’t have their farmland AND keep the wild places free just like we have.

~¿~

Kaiser Derden
Reply to  Greg Freemyer
May 18, 2019 4:14 am

NYC used to have farms … so what if some folks are farming in Brazil … Last time I checked farms grow things … which makes them CO2 sinks … which is supposed to be good right ?

tty
Reply to  Greg Freemyer
May 18, 2019 9:31 am

Schitzree

The soil in Indiana is loess in Brazil it is laterite. There is a difference to put it mildly.

Richard Patton
Reply to  tty
May 18, 2019 1:45 pm

Thank you for the clarification. I realize now that what I had learned in Geology 101 (many moons ago) about the rain forest was based on the Brazilian rain forest. BTW I live only 40 miles away from a rain forest that has a long history of being logged and re-planted to no detriment of the environment. I am quite sure that the Tropical rain forests can be managed quite as well. The problem is that the Eco-Freaks don’t want man to use anything. They literally want all humanity dead.

MarkW
Reply to  Greg Freemyer
May 18, 2019 10:11 am

Showing that portions of the rain forest has been cut down does not prove that it won’t grow back.

Reply to  WR2
May 18, 2019 7:05 am

The terrestrial plant community depends upon the thickness and richness of the “O” layer (organic-rich humus) layer of soil and the underlying (where present) “A” layer of partially-degraded mineral grains. Good “O” and “A” layers = “ecosystem resiliency”.

There is more to rainforest regrowth than just warmth and rainfall. Due to the millennia of heavy rainfall, below the thin, surface “O” and “A” soil layers, all that remains are dense, heavily-leached “laterites”. Under normal conditions, the heavy leaf cover tends to slow down and disperse the impact of the rain upon the surface soil layers.

With deforestation, the existing soils (and any remaining ash from the “slash and burn” clearing) are exposed to the full impact of the rain, resulting in erosion and loss of nutrients as well as the loss of the underlying “A” layer’s suitability as a rooting medium. So despite the richness of diversity, the “rainforests” have poor resiliency in regards to large-scale disturbances.

icisil
Reply to  ontherocks
May 18, 2019 9:44 am

Trees are still going to grow back with a vengeance. I once lived on the property of a former tobacco farm. Few things deplete soil like tobacco does. Yet trees reclaimed the fields and grew like everywhere else in that area.

Reply to  ontherocks
May 18, 2019 10:07 pm

icisil;

Not all soil profiles are equal. Some are better for natural plant growth and recovery than others.

From the tobacco farming comment, I would guess that you live in a Temperate climate with moderate rainfall, probably in a Temperate Deciduous Forest Biome (Ecosystem) (as I do), characteristic of much of the Eastern United States. Our moderate rainfall (40 in./yr. +/-) provides generous “O” and “A” soil layers that promote good plant recovery after disturbances, without the excessive soil erosion and nutrient-leaching found in the Tropical Broadleaf Evergreen Biome (with rainfall >80 in./yr.).

When the Tropical rainforest is undisturbed, the warm temps and abundant rainfall provide rapid nutrient-cycling, i.e., any fallen leaves, limbs, etc., are converted into humus rapidly and “taken up” rapidly by the verdant plant growth, which prevents the accumulation of a thick “O” layer. With the widespread loss of the canopy, there is nothing to protect that layer of organics from erosion from the regular convection storms.

Joel Heinrich
Reply to  Greg Freemyer
May 18, 2019 1:35 am

most of that purple isn’t rainforest but savannah (Sertao) and very much affected by El Nino.

Greg Freemyer
Reply to  Joel Heinrich
May 18, 2019 3:58 am

Thanks, I had not compared the purple regions to where the Amazon forest is.

Looking at https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcSSwarr7ZHHa-vGGBu11Eb9AmYM02YoBeqI1WIzqW3YBtnfMG5Y

I’d say half of the purple is in the rain forest and half is what is labeled “caatinga” or “savannah”.

It seems that “sertoa” is just the caatinga portion, not the savannah.

tty
Reply to  Joel Heinrich
May 18, 2019 9:35 am

It is actully neither sertao or caatinga (two other vegetation types), it is mostly cerrado (scrub forest). This is much easier to farm and the soil is more fertile than in the rainforest. Cerrado is disappearing at an enormous rate and being turned into soybean fields for export to China.

Cerrado is now a much more threatened habitat than rainforest, but it is not as glamorous, so WWF and other greenies don’t bother.

Loydo
Reply to  WR2
May 17, 2019 7:08 pm

“It’s pretty much as sustainable an operation as is possible on earth.”

Really? 12 million ha and increasing rapidly, lungs of the earth and all that?

lee
Reply to  Loydo
May 17, 2019 8:14 pm

And don’t forget those “lost” tribes that use slash and burn techniques for their “truck” gardens.

WR2
Reply to  Loydo
May 17, 2019 8:26 pm

Source? Lungs of the earth is an activist term. Have you ever been to the tropics? Everything grows very rapidly. Man disappears and it’s jungle again in a few years. Earth will do just fine. Relax and go find another excuse to implement world socialism

2hotel9
Reply to  WR2
May 18, 2019 7:20 am

Actually rainforest growth can over take a cleared area in about 2 years, and all that new growth is sucking up Co2 at a prodigious rate, so it is a climate positive. Don’t tell that to environtards, they will be very cross with you. Oops, too late, they already mad at you! 😉

Bryan A
Reply to  Loydo
May 17, 2019 11:25 pm

Correct Loydo, there is nothing at all sustainable about any Green Technology

MarkW
Reply to  Loydo
May 18, 2019 10:13 am

80% of the world’s oxygen comes from the oceans.

Schitzree
Reply to  MarkW
May 18, 2019 2:55 pm

I’ve often wondered how much oxygen we are releasing by smelting iron ore. But then, you have to burn fuel to do it, so maybe that’s an oxygen neutral process.

~¿~

Stephan
Reply to  Schitzree
May 18, 2019 4:23 pm

Iron ore is an oxide. You use coal since carbon (and carbon monoxide) has a higher affinity to oxygen than iron. So in the process, the plant life enhancing CO2 is released into the atmosphere.

Schitzree
Reply to  Schitzree
May 21, 2019 5:19 pm

Ya, that’s what I meant by oxygen neutral process. The oxygen from the iron ore is consumed by the burning coal, so you’re producing CO2 instead of releasing oxygen.

Joel
Reply to  WR2
May 17, 2019 10:00 pm

Last time I read about it the rainforest soil is mot very thick or rich. No reason it can’t be damaged by deforestation.

tty
Reply to  WR2
May 18, 2019 9:28 am

Actually it takes a very long time for tropical rainforest to regrow since the soil is usually poor in nutrients. Most of the nutrients is bound up in the trees, once they are gone, it takes centuries before the forest regrows.

icisil
Reply to  tty
May 18, 2019 11:22 am

Centuries before it regrows to its original size, or before trees re-sprout? Original size probably took centuries to achieve.

Richard Patton
Reply to  icisil
May 18, 2019 1:54 pm

I just looked it up. In a mature tropical rain forest the vegetation is <100 years old. In a mature temperate rain forest the vegetation is 500-1,000 years old. So it seems to me that a tropical rain forest should re-grow pretty quickly. Just look at what happened to Angor Watt and the cities of the Aztecs. Less than a couple hundred years and you can't even find them without aerial surveillance the rain forest had done such good job of reclaiming the land.

2hotel9
Reply to  icisil
May 18, 2019 3:27 pm

New growth consumes Co2, old growth sits. If there actually is an actual problem with too much Co2 then the endlessly screeching screechers should be screeching for all old growth to be cut down and crops planted over the entire planet. They can volunteer to be the cutters and planters, and being good little marx,,,,,ahhh,,,environmentalists they can subsist on a diet collected entirely from the Evil Old Growth Forest they are eliminating. I don’t see a problem with their plan at all. I will merrily volunteer to stand guard and assure they actually perform the tasks they are set to.

2hotel9
Reply to  tty
May 18, 2019 3:08 pm

Ahh, no. Timber operations leave behind all manner of brush, leaves, vines and detritus from trees, all of which return to the soil. Burn offs put all manner of nutrients and minerals directly into the soil. Only time I saw tropical type burn offs not grow back rapidly was when the acreage was immediately turned to crop raising. Oops! Oh,,,,, never mind, they grew back rapidly. Just with crops. My bad.

Loydo
May 17, 2019 7:02 pm

Looking at the headline photo, how can they say humans are causing “several” species to go extinct. Ridiculous, there are more varieties now than ever. Hell, its 12 million hectares of useless, tropical rainforest.
Don’t they realise how improtant the economy is? Stupid ecologists, what would they know?

lee
Reply to  Loydo
May 17, 2019 8:15 pm

What is the number of extinctions du jour?

Bryan A
Reply to  lee
May 17, 2019 9:39 pm

3 verified between 2001 and 2018
Some Apociclipse, time to move to Tomorrow-morrow Land

Schitzree
Reply to  Bryan A
May 18, 2019 6:51 am

Bryan – did that include the inbred Norway rats living on a sandbar near Tasmania?

Lost for all time. Clearly we will never see that noble creature again.

<¿<

tty
Reply to  Schitzree
May 18, 2019 9:37 am

Not Norway rats, not near Tasmania and probably not extinct. Otherwise correct.

Schitzree
Reply to  Schitzree
May 18, 2019 3:16 pm

Hey, your right.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bramble_Cay_melomys

They were a breed of the Melomys ( Mosaic tailed rat) that are all up ad down the area between New Guinea and Northern Australia.

Hmm, I could have sworn there was something similar with a family of inbred ship rats near Tasmania. But maybe I’m think of something else.

~¿~

Bryan A
Reply to  Schitzree
May 18, 2019 4:32 pm

Ayup, the Bramble Cay melomys are one of the three, then
The Christmas Island pipistrelle (bat) in 2009 and
The Saudi gazelle in 2008

LdB
Reply to  Loydo
May 17, 2019 10:14 pm

They are ecologists they know how to serve you fries at mcDonalds anything after that is a stretch.
If you look at the average pay for an ecologist you can see just how much they are valued by society.

TheLastDemocrat
Reply to  LdB
May 18, 2019 7:21 am

as long as that beep reminds them to pull the fries out of the fryer.

ghalfrunt
Reply to  Loydo
May 18, 2019 3:02 am

Loyodo you forgot to say that orangutans add nothing to world economy and therefore will be no loss. Tigers and rhino horn as a source of Chinese medicine are good for global economy and should be treated as such and harvested whenever possible. What is more important an elephant that can wreak havoc on local crops harming the economy of locals, or ivory from this useless critter?

Roll on silent running

MarkW
Reply to  Loydo
May 18, 2019 10:15 am

You really need to take classes in sarcasm.

Bryan A
May 17, 2019 7:08 pm

Perhaps the entire debacle will unravel before the next U.S. election and being “In” or “Out” will become a non-issue. U.S., Brazil, and Indonesia makes a great first step.

Schitzree
Reply to  Bryan A
May 18, 2019 6:55 am

Someone remind me, how much CO2 did Indonesia promise to cut for the Paris accord?

Smart Rock
May 17, 2019 7:24 pm

Anything that takes food and uses it as fuel is a criminal activity.

There are still a lot of hungry people.

Richard Patton
Reply to  Smart Rock
May 17, 2019 8:58 pm

I’ve said that for 35+ years. In the late `80’s when I lived in Hawaii NPR had this thing on ‘All Things Considered’ about how great that was. I sent them a letter pointing out the downsides of using food for fuel which was read on air only identifying me as living in Pearl City HI. A week or so later I got a phone call in phone call from a literally frothing at the mouth in Eco-freak in Connecticut who screamed and cursed at me for raping the planet. This was way before the internet so he had to spend hours going to a library that had a phone directory from Hawaii to find my phone number so he could display his derangement.

Kenji
May 17, 2019 7:31 pm

But, but, but … what about all the new ‘green’ jobs for the Indonesians ? And aren’t they scheduled to receive $Billions in redistribed Western capitalist wealth if they just play along with the UN Communists? Isn’t that the game? Only a mental midget would think any of this has anything to do with ‘climate’

Joel
Reply to  Kenji
May 17, 2019 10:04 pm

I suspect that with the US out there is less money to hand out.

ghalfrunt
Reply to  Kenji
May 18, 2019 3:07 am

“The west” has plundered the planet. The “third world” needs to do the same to improve their wealth. This will certainly deplete resources a few times faster and wreck more of the ecology.
How can the 3rd world raise their economies if we say don’t destroy? They need help (financial and technological) to accomplish this.
It is only human to help those worse off than oneself. This means money in general, freely given.

Schitzree
Reply to  ghalfrunt
May 18, 2019 7:17 am

“The west” has plundered the planet.

BULLSHIT!

I’ll say it again, in case you didn’t catch it the first time. BULLSHIT!

Name a single resource the the West has ‘Plundered’ that has been used up. Hell, name one that isn’t being produced in larger quantity now then a hundred years ago. The only thing that comes to mind is whale oil, and that isn’t because the world ran out of whales (despite any predictions made by Star Trek)

Now personally I have no problem with the developed nations helping the developing ones on the path to industrialization. But you don’t do that by handing $Millions$ to kleptocrats and dictators. And you certainly don’t do it by demanding the only use methods that have never worked for anyone else, like ‘Green’ Energy and ‘Sustainability’.

You do it by building a lot of cheap energy power plants so they don’t have to start from scratch like WE did.

And I can’t believe I’m saying this, but thank God the Chinese are doing just that. I just hope the people in those developing nations don’t come to find out that Chinese power comes with some nasty strings attached.

~¿~

MarkW
Reply to  Schitzree
May 18, 2019 10:18 am

Like most leftists, there is nothing he hates more than someone other than himself having good things.

The fact that the west has created the wealth that all of the world enjoys just causes him no end of jealousy and hatred.

ghalfrunt
Reply to  Schitzree
May 19, 2019 5:36 am

Schitzree May 18, 2019 at 7:17 am
wow such anger!
Plunder does NOT mean using all resources.
The infrastructure in uk was built on cheap coal resources – cheap because some sacrificed their lives for a pittance.

Obviously if you incorrectly think that there is no GAGW problem and no resource shortages then it would be ok to allow the third world to follow our industrial heritage with all its rich/poor split.
We have done this and we cannot change what has been done. But we could help developing nations to skip this rather despicable stage.

You state that to help them develop they need to use cheap electric plants.
I ask you who pays for this? Who pays for and supports the infrastructure ? Just what are they to do with this cheap power? Where will the water come from to power the turbines and cool the steam? When the developing world produces steel at cheaper price than USA will the US buy this or will they slap a huge import tariff on it so indigenous suppliers are not forced out of business. Why is the US now doing just this

2hotel9
Reply to  ghalfrunt
May 19, 2019 5:52 am

“Obviously if you incorrectly think ” There is no “incorrectly think” involved, Human Caused Globall Warmining is a politically driven religious hysteria. Climate changes, constantly. Humans are not causing it and can not stop it. Now go do something useful with your life, parasite.

ghalfrunt
Reply to  ghalfrunt
May 19, 2019 12:06 pm

2hotel9 May 19, 2019 at 5:52 am
“Obviously if you incorrectly think ” There is no “incorrectly think” involved, Human Caused Globall Warmining is a politically driven religious hysteria. Climate changes, constantly. Humans are not causing it and can not stop it. Now go do something useful with your life, parasite.
————————-
Such anger! Again. It must be something to do with your thought processes. I just asked a few questions!
If you have proof that current warming is not human caused then please post the scientific evidence.
You call me a parasite. do you have proof of this?

2hotel9
Reply to  ghalfrunt
May 19, 2019 4:52 pm

(SNIPPED)

[Intolerant language. Mod]

Schitzree
Reply to  ghalfrunt
May 21, 2019 5:41 pm

If I’m angry, it is because people like you will never do anything but double down on the stupid. If you can’t understand that the poor are much better off in an ‘unfair’ Capitalist society then in any Communist one ever, then you are too ignorent to help.

As for who will pay for the power plants and what ever other nonsense you spout, I already said it. The Chinese are doing it, because ‘The West” was too busy trying to force poor nations to try thing that don’t work and never will, in an attempt to ward off the guilt Leftists feel because Capitalism has been sooo damn successful.
And it looks like it’s working just fine for the Chinese. And I’m willing to bet that it will work out pretty well for the developing nations too, IF the Chinese don’t go full Communist Empire like Russia did and suck these nation dry to keep their own country afloat.

Unfortunately we won’t have much say in that, since our governments decided that virtue signaling on a national scale was more important then actually making the world a better place.

~¿~

MarkW
Reply to  ghalfrunt
May 18, 2019 10:17 am

Plundered the planet?

Is there anything you believe that is actually correct?

Walter Sobchak
May 17, 2019 8:01 pm

If you want to save the world from palm oil, you should use lard, tallow, and butter for all of your cooking.

ozspeaksup
Reply to  Walter Sobchak
May 18, 2019 3:09 am

smart people already do, and olive oils good too;-)

Kaiser Derden
Reply to  ozspeaksup
May 18, 2019 4:16 am

smart people ? no, virtue signaling fools do …

Schitzree
Reply to  Kaiser Derden
May 18, 2019 7:55 am

Somehow I never considered my preference for olive oil in cooking to be virtue signaling.

I bet my useing real butter instead of margarine make me a literal Hitler.

~¿~

Kenji
Reply to  Schitzree
May 18, 2019 9:59 am

I eat butter … in bulk. There’s nothing more wonderful on the planet than sweet cream butter. And my LDL is under 100, and my total Cholesterol is about 160. You see … I eat a DNA diet … I eat what generations of my French and German ancestors ate. My body is tuned to it. Palm oil? Sorry … no Polynesian DNA in this body. Just wonderful WHOLE milk from cows eating fresh green grass.

Schitzree
Reply to  Schitzree
May 18, 2019 2:42 pm

Kenji, dude, please don’t tell me this DNA diet is really a thing.

I’m descended from WELSH. Do you know what the Welsh eat? Crazy stuff. Welsh Rabbit and Glamorgan Sausage, both of which are made of cheese and not meat. Week old Cawl soup. Cabbage and Leeks.

There’s a reason Great Grandad married a German women. She could cook.

^_^

markl
May 17, 2019 8:24 pm

When it comes down to saving the rest of the world or saving your own people the intelligent choice always wins. The West can be scammed into believing they are the bad people responsible for holding back the poor countries but how will they convince the ROW to take part in the same lunacy?

Spuds
May 17, 2019 8:28 pm

The biggest threat to bio fuels are bureaucrats that have little or no interest in producing a truly sustainabile product. All they care about is who can win a pissing match by building an empire based on ego and be at the next photo op-ribbon cutting.
When MTBE was finally banned in the US as an oxygenater to help comply with more restrictive air quality regulations, the industry turned to ethanol, but the corn lobby took control of it so it could distribute monies to both sides of the aisle. What should of happened was the production of less fertilizer intensive like switchgrass and miscanthus which can grow almost anywhere, especially in fallow agricultural areas and produce multiple crops per year. This would also reduce suburban sprawl which has its own inherent negative environmental impacts.
By no means is ethanol a panacea, but common sense use of plants that can produce more, use less water and fertilizer and can promote land conservation plus water resource protection should be the way to go. It all comes down to proper management of your resources.

Dr. Bob
Reply to  Spuds
May 18, 2019 10:10 am

Spuds,
There are several issues with your comments. MTBE was not banned to comply with more restrictive air quality requirements, it was banned because people thought it would contaminant ground water if leaks occurred in fuel storage tanks. This issue was fixed by using double wall tanks. MTBE was a far superior “oxygenate” than ethanol. It has no RVP issues whereas EtOH causes a huge increase in gasoline vapor pressure causing light ends in conventional gasoline to be left out of the blend. RBOB (Reformulated Blendstock for Oxygenate Blending) is now required for E10. Butane and much of the pentane are left out of RBOB which could be in normal gasoline. Thus EtOH actually reduces gasoline supplies instead of increasing them (or just replaces some normal gasoline blend components with no net savings).
And your comment about using other energy crops ignores the fact that there are no commercial processes to convert “grasses” and the like to fuel ethanol. These “Cellulosic Ethanol” processes have been technical and commercial failures much like the Range Fuels and Kior biofuel failures, amongst many others. These failures have cost investors and taxpayers well over $5B and will continue. GEVO and Butamax will also fail at making Butanol as a fuel additive for a number of reasons. One is that they fuel distribution system cannot handle these “boutique” fuels. It is hard enough to handle E10 and E85 (which is also another dismal failure).

dan no longer in CA
Reply to  Dr. Bob
May 18, 2019 4:17 pm

Dr Bob: Perhaps you can answer this: I have spent hours online looking for credible numbers and have failed to find them. That is, how many Joules in petroleum fuels are used to create 1 Joule of combusted ethanol. That’s the fuel used to plant the corn, fuel used to cultivate the corn, fuel used to harvest the corn, fuel used in processing the corn, fuel used to transport the corn and ethanol. Then add in the energy needed to create and transport the fertilizer. In short, what is the ratio of energy in to energy out?
Thanks

Greg Freemyer
Reply to  dan no longer in CA
May 19, 2019 8:27 am

Ethanol production in the US for new plants theoretically reduces CO2 emissions by about 21-22% relative to using diesel.

Details:
The EPA is tasked with doing that calculation for the full lifecycle of ethanol production.

I can’t speak to the accuracy of the calculation but a full break down is in the approval paperwork for new ethanol plants.

Every discrete study is at: https://www.epa.gov/renewable-fuel-standard-program/approved-pathways-renewable-fuel

You have to scroll way down, but they are all there.

POET makes about 10% of US ethanol.

The paperwork for their last plant to be approved us at:
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2019-02/documents/poet-groton-deter-ltr-2019-02-04.pdf

You will find the final number isn’t in that paperwork since its approving a non-operating plant, but it details how the calculation will be done.

dan no longer in CA
Reply to  Greg Freemyer
May 19, 2019 12:30 pm

Greg, thanks for that. I read the linked articles, and the first thing that jumped out at me is that the EPA is a bureaucracy. The second thing was that they never calculate energy in / energy out. Their calculations are all based on kg CO2. Furthermore, it looks like they assume the full lower heating value of the ethanol and ignore the efficiency of the end user (road going Diesel engines) If the road engines are 30% efficient, the 22% reduction in GHG becomes a net loss, not a gain in GHG reduction. Finally, I saw no estimate of the kg Diesel used to cultivate and harvest the feedstocks; that number seems to be well buried in their assumptions. Their assumptions include a number of kg CO2 per KWH from the grid, but I betcha those numbers assume nameplate production from wind turbines.

Hasbeen
May 17, 2019 8:56 pm

How many people have actually experienced rain forest, particularly tropical rain forest? Living in one is a recipe for a short tormented life. They are full of biting & often dangerous insects & animals. They are a hot steamy environment that will rot your clothes as quickly as it rots your body. I know, I’ve had to walk through a little of them.

How many people have experienced a palm oil, [or copra] plantation. Yes I’ve been in more than a couple of them too. In the 70s I did a number of Rabaul Kimbe yacht races. Kimbe was a small areas, developing a palm oil industry. You could drive out of town in a ute about 5 miles before you ran out of road. Not many lived there, including villagers. The few villages were mostly on the coast.

One village I visited a few miles inland, the locals slept in hollow logs, [logs are big up there], with woven coconut fond screens pulled down over each end to keep out some of the mosquitos. to say it was a horrible place to live is putting it mildly.

Today the roads radiate almost 200 kilometres from the town, with many miles of palm oil plantations, many villages & much higher & more prosperous population. Compared to tropical jungle, a plantation is a very pleasant place. The palms founds are high, allowing the breezes to blow far inland, cooling the place, & reducing the mozzie infestation. Stinking swamps have been replaced by groves of palms. I can’t imagine anything that could have increased the liveability of the area for the locals so much so quickly.

And could someone please tell me just what is the difference between palm trees, [oil or coconut], & jungle, as far as the planet is concerned. Do palm trees consume a different type of CO2, or do they use it just like other trees?

Typical of the clown bureaucrats that run the EU. First they push people into diesel cars, before discovering diesel is “BAD”. Meanwhile they have pushed the development of a palm oil industry to fit their mandate of bio fuel. Now they want to close down the palm oil industry to help push people into electric cars. To hell with those they have encouraged to produce palm oil.

What is it about western civilisation, at least in Europe, that turns the brains of the elite to jelly, unable to see past the end of their noses, to get any idea of what catastrophe their latest thought bubble will lead to? Huge pollution in China from battery production anyone?

Ken
Reply to  Hasbeen
May 17, 2019 10:43 pm

10+++++++

ghalfrunt
Reply to  Hasbeen
May 18, 2019 3:21 am

Hasbeen May 17, 2019 at 8:56 pm
And could someone please tell me just what is the difference between palm trees, [oil or coconut], & jungle, as far as the planet is concerned. Do palm trees consume a different type of CO2, or do they use it just like other trees?
————————————
you cannot be serious!!!!!!!!!!!!!
have you never heard of biodiversity?
have you not heard of the plight of orangutans?

compared to jungle a palm plantation is a desert.

Kaiser Derden
Reply to  ghalfrunt
May 18, 2019 4:20 am

so what … the city you live in is even worse compared to a jungle … AND much more pleasant to live in … enough with the talking points nonsense …

ghalfrunt
Reply to  Kaiser Derden
May 18, 2019 5:13 am

you are joking I hope!

R Shearer
Reply to  Kaiser Derden
May 18, 2019 5:50 am

Palm oil to diesel fuel is not needed and is based on the premise that it reduces CO2 emissions, which is probably not the case.

With regard to biodiversity, it is true that orangutan habitat is being destroyed. Some people have it in their heart to protect the habitat and the orangutans. What is wrong with that?

MarkW
Reply to  ghalfrunt
May 18, 2019 10:20 am

The orangutans were in trouble long before the environmentalists created the palm oil craze.

You really are behind the times, the new phrase is wildlife, biodiversity is so last decade.

R Shearer
Reply to  MarkW
May 18, 2019 12:54 pm

I’d much rather see orangutans in rain forest than a zoo, but if they could be trained to harvest palm and such, I’d probably pay to see that too. But I actually like the idea of conserving some wilderness in a mostly “natural” state for things like national parks, etc.

Paul Miller
Reply to  Hasbeen
May 18, 2019 3:35 am

Has been
“What is it about western civilisation, at least in Europe, that turns the brains of the elite to jelly, unable to see past the end of their noses, to get any idea of what catastrophe their latest thought bubble will lead to?”
Great rhetorical question. Answered best by F A Hayek:
“The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they know about what they imagine they can design.”
The hubris of the powerful is arguably the greatest danger we face because it is essentially unbounded while being practically blind. To balance it we have liberty and the boundless creativity of people with local knowledge making the world measurably better day by day. I am guardedly optimistic about the eventual outcome in spite of our species’ tendency to naively build governments with too much power. I live at the richest point in human history so far. And it is still one of the freest despite the myriad of threats that will always be with us since, as Solzhenytzen (sp) reminded all of us, the line between good and evil runs right though the heart of ever human being (not a quote but close).

Kenji
Reply to  Hasbeen
May 18, 2019 11:19 am

Bravo!
Answer: power and control.

And what the elites have discovered is what CS Lewis warned against … that they have seized their power by tickling the ears of the masses into believing they are being “saved” … and “cared-for” by the elites. They haven’t seized power and authoritarian control by brute force … nope … they’ve done it with kittens, rainbows, and unicorns.

Shit! They even got a majority of Californians to sell their futures for a really FAST choo choo train that will be “cheaper”and “faster” than a 40min. plane ride. Just think of allllll the Obbamakkaresque FAKE Economic calculations that went into selling that fantasy! The elites finallly have the dumb and docile subjects they’ve dreamed about. And they’re actively recruiting 100k/mo. to hop our borders and vote. And breed. Yes … they will eventually collapse the system. And we will all be living in government-provided hollowed out logs. Most likely all supplied under generous government contract by the Native People’s of North America.

John Pickens
May 17, 2019 9:35 pm

Only in the warped mind of a Global Warming zealot is it better to use solar panels produced using Chinese coal powered electricity than palm oil.

n.n
May 17, 2019 10:03 pm

Neither green nor Green.

Ken
May 17, 2019 10:47 pm

What is the difference between palm oil for EU diesel and pellets for UK Drax? Why aren’t the Groonies (green loonies) screaming about pellets?

Greg Freemyer
Reply to  Ken
May 18, 2019 4:21 am

Fire on a massive scale is used to clear land for palm groves in Indonesia.

The fires release more CO2 than the biodiesel (from palm oil) will cut over the course of a few decades.

Land is not being burned down to support Drax.

Ken
Reply to  Greg Freemyer
May 18, 2019 12:39 pm

Minuscule difference, ecologically. Yes, more is being lost ecologically, but to a Groonie, the loss of a tree is no different than the loss of a square mile of forest. So why are the Groonies not raising cane about Drax pellets? Seriously. Quit trying to divert me from asking a serious question. Acres of American forests are being ravaged to feed British power needs. When acid rain threatened American forests, the Groonies went crazy. What, exactly, is the difference?

Earthling2
Reply to  Ken
May 19, 2019 1:29 pm

The difference is that most of the wood pellets are made out of residual wood waste from lumbering operations. Stuff that used to be burnt in giant bee hive burners for decades until it was pelletized for a cash return and return of useful energy on what used to be considered useless and was burnt as garbage. And even if a USA lumberman wants to sell his crop of 2nd-3rd generation planted trees on private lands for wood pellets instead of toilet paper or pulp, who the hell are you to tell me what I can sell my trees for or what product I can make out them? The highest and best use of the tree always goes to the product that makes the most economic sense. There is no added CO2 from doing this than there would be if the wood rotted, or burnt up in a forest fire and is most definitely retuning to Methane/CO2 at the ends of its natural life cycle anyway. The issue with wood pellets is because of stoopid subsidized policies in the UK with Drax burning these instead of the coal beds that are nearby but have been closed down due to the extremest ignorant war on fossil fuels.

Hereward
May 17, 2019 11:38 pm

Banning palm oil from biofuel will make no difference. The oil palm is far the most productive oil crop, so when soya bean or rapeseed oil are used for fuel instead, palm oil will replace that oil for edible purposes. Most soya bean expansion is in the Amazon basin, and compared to oil palm it takes nearly 10 times the area to produce a ton of edible oil. So banning palm oil from biofuel is likely to increase deforestation, not decrease it. The whole idea of burning food for fuel is wrong, but for edible oil, palm oil is the way to go.

ozspeaksup
Reply to  Hereward
May 18, 2019 3:14 am

why do you think palm oil is good for humans to eat?
its not
and its being removed from many foods as its a saturated fat of the bad kind

Carbon Bigfoot
Reply to  Hereward
May 18, 2019 3:17 am

In the 80s I did an engineering project for a palm oil/chocolate producer–can’t remember their name.
They produced a feedstock for chocolate manufactures. Didn’t know that? You’d be shocked to learn that most of the chocolate you consume is Palm Oil and fillers and the Biggies that use it. Read it and weep:
https://www.ethicalconsumer.org/palm-oil/palm-oil-free-chocolate

Doug
May 18, 2019 12:24 am

Well, I’ve lived in Indonesia, speak the language, and seen plenty of rainforest replaced by palm oil. I would rather we didn’t wipe out so much vibrant ecosystem for such an unhealthy monoculture food source. Plus the palm oil companies make the evil oil companies I consult for look downright altruistic.

In the end, it is their sovereign country not ours to tell them how to run it.

ozspeaksup
Reply to  Doug
May 18, 2019 3:16 am

all we have to do is refuse to buy the oil for food or fuel , and the damnd drops, problem solved orangutans happy, land happy, grow real FOOD crops instead no one loses work

Carbon Bigfoot
Reply to  ozspeaksup
May 19, 2019 11:05 am

OZZIE:
With respect to the statement…..”no one loses work”
Except a majority of people that work for “CHOCOLATERS” including Nestle, Mars, Hershey and Cadbury and hundreds of others listed in my May 18th post above, just a minute after your reply with respect to the inedibility of palm oil. I think you need to do some research B4 making comments about the subject…..just sayin. Or are you pissed about the Aussie elections and just venting?

Kaiser Derden
Reply to  Doug
May 18, 2019 4:26 am

“I would rather we” ???? is that the royal we ? because they did the wiping out not “we” (nonsense term btw wiped out)
They don’t want or need “our” permission to survive in this world … and WE don’t get to tell them how to do it …

Doug
Reply to  Kaiser Derden
May 18, 2019 8:19 am

Yep, the royal “we” referring to the whole friggin planet. I like rainforests and hate to see them suffer the fate of becoming a palm oil project.

If you actually read my entire short post, you’d see that we ( meaning you and me) agree that that Indonesia does not need our permision to use their land as they choose.

May 18, 2019 1:26 am

Hasbeen, May 17.

I agree, I was there in Rabaul in 1962 to 64.

MJE VK5ELL

Hereward
May 18, 2019 1:51 am

I have also seen plenty of rainforest replaced by palm oil, and would rather I hadn’t, but much of the world still has less than the recommended amount of vegetable oil in their diet, and palm oil is as good as any other oil. If it is a choice between losing 10 million hectares of Indonesian forest for oil palm or 100 million hectares of Brazilian forest for soya bean, which is worse?

The important point is: don’t just ban palm oil for biodiesel, ban biodiesel! Just use the minimum area possible to grow the food we need.

Rod Evans
May 18, 2019 2:17 am

The COGS (Constantly Offended Green Socialists) have a well written history of getting things completely wrong. It was the Greens who encouraged ever more diesel engine vehicles be used to save the planet, because diesels produced less CO2 then petrol engines/mile. The result was a disaster for crowded well trafficked cities. Now, those cities are planning to ban all internal combustion engine vehicles as an overreaction to the Green folly, they originally embraced??
The COGS actively campaign against nuclear power, yet nuclear remains the only option to relieve their false CO2 crisis. No other energy source is as practical, or as available, or as reliable, or as safe, or as discrete, as nuclear power plants are. They do not produce any CO2, and that is what the COGS are most concerned about….apparently.
Despite the upside of nuclear energy the COGS want all nuclear banned. They also want all fossil fuels banned, they want wood burners banned, they want meat eaters banned and they want air travel banned. Small correction, air travel banned, unless you happen to be a Green advocate such as Emma Thompson. In which case, you have a right to fly whenever you need to attend a stop all flights rally on the other side of the world….
I am beginning to see the logic of being a Green supporter. Life is so simple, it becomes an endless rally demanding the banning of anything that provides benefits to humanity.
Except, Green advocates are allowed to use the banned benefits….naturally.

Bruce Cobb
May 18, 2019 3:54 am

The entire biofuel industry is based on a Greenie lie, so it’s the height of irony that the EU, which is infested with the Greenie ideology wants to ban the use of palm for biofuel based on environmental concerns. Whether or not those concerns are based on reality or not is a moot point, but I suspect that they are. Regardless, we skeptics/climate realists should be applauding this development. It signifies yet another chink in the failing CAGW movement.

Mark - Helsinki
May 18, 2019 4:37 am

Lets not forget about the farmers beaten and or murdered when they refused to sell land or convert to palm oil farming in Africa and South America, adding more deaths onto the massive Eco imperialist death toll.

2hotel9
May 18, 2019 7:23 am

Having personally witnessed areas burned out in rainforest regrown rapidly I call BS on environscreechers. New growth sucks up Co2 far faster than old growth.

Dermot Carroll
May 18, 2019 9:13 am

Looks like some are realising renewables also have an environmental impact, when you scale up!

brent
May 18, 2019 5:51 pm

Amazon: Jair Bolsonaro Challenges the Vatican

Unhappy with the interference of the Catholic Church in the domestic politics of his country, Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro wants to organize a “counter-synod” in Rome next September in response to the Synod on the Amazon scheduled for the month of October: a challenge to Pope Francis in the heart of the Eternal City.
Snip
The two points of view are opposed in this thorny issue: for its part, Brazil considers the Amazon as a national resource to be freely exploited by man, while the Holy See insists, since the beginning of Francis’ pontificate, on the right of indigenous peoples to remain on their land, with their traditional way of life.
The tension has not decreased in recent weeks: while the Vatican accuses the head of the Brazilian state of [bleeding the amazon with monetary enticements], this is worrying for a Church playing into the hands of progressives and globalists: “the United Nations (UN) is discussing with the natives the possibility of creating new countries in Brazil,” said Jair Bolsonaro in a radio interview on April 9, 2019.
https://fsspx.news/en/news-events/news/amazon-jair-bolsonaro-challenges-vatican-47637

The Amazon Synod and National Sovereignty

What orientation will this Synod have? Looking at the team of organizers, its predominant trend will be Liberation Theology. This can give rise to an international orchestration involving the Vatican, the UN, the European Union and NGOs from around the world, which would cry out for an internationalization of the Amazon.
It would be the launching of a new catechesis in which catechizing would be secondary and even superfluous because, according to this catechesis, the Indians already live the beatitudes: they have no private property, profit or competition. Why have a homeland if the real thing would be to establish tribal collectivism?
We would therefore be faced with a communist-inspired “New Church” where property is heresy, the owner a heretic, and life in the wild is the full realization of the human ideal.
https://panamazonsynodwatch.com/the-amazon-synod-and-national-sovereignty/

https://panamazonsynodwatch.com/

Johann Wundersamer
May 19, 2019 6:29 pm

Indonesia’s Coordinating Minister for Maritime Affairs Luhut Binsar Pandjaitan referenced the U.S. and Brazil’s withdrawal from the agreement.

As the European Union proceeds with a plan to ban crude palm oil (CPO) from use in raw bio-fuel materials, the government of Indonesia is threatening to back out of the Paris Agreement under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Can’t do that –

Ferrero™, Lindt chocolate™,  Ferrero™ already rely on (CPO) !

%d bloggers like this: