Q1. How do you see the agricultural habits of production in Brazil shifting given the rise in demand for sugarcane for bioethanol? Do you perceive a negative environmental impact resulting from the use of fertilizers? Have soil quality or water-systems been impacted by the increase in production?
I’m less aware of the situation in Brazil than that here in the US. It is theoretically possible to produce ethanol sustainably, and I believe some small percentage of Brazilian production is in this category. For the most part, though, ethanol production involves soil degradation, deforestation, and negative impacts on biodiversity. Increasing ethanol production just makes all these problems worse.
Q2. How do you perceive the role of big business in the Brazilian bioethanol production? How does it interact with the political sphere in your opinion?
Again, I have little direct knowledge of the situation in Brazil. Here in the US, politics and ethanol are inextricable. Ethanol consumption mandates come from politicians, whose campaigns are paid for by corn and ethanol companies. In general, energy companies have a lot of political power, and they often drive government decisions in directions that make no sense in terms of building a sensible, sustainable energy system. One problem with ethanol is that it has a low energy return on the energy invested in its manufacture. This is less a problem in Brazil than in the US, but it is still significant in either case. From the standpoint of energy economics, ethanol is of marginal value, yet government mandates support its production.
Q3. What are your opinions on the current ways in which fields are assessed for conversion to sugarcane i.e. the ratio of energy input to ethanol output? How does your organization distinguish between direct and indirect emissions?
In my opinion ethanol production should proceed only if it can be shown that:
- Soil will not be degraded.
- Biodiversity will not be impacted.
- Ancient forest will not be cut.
- Energy return on investment will be above the ratio of 5:1 (otherwise the effort is not justified economically).