Alberto Monteiro wrote: > Russell Chapman wrote: > >> The same source puts Brazil at 5th in the world for the >> same reason - ironically due to US AGW prevention measures >> >> > The deforestation in Brazil has _zero_ correlation with AGW > prevention, biofuels, or anything like that. It's just the > continuous push of civilization against forests, the same > event that devastated European forests 500 years ago and > USA forests 200 years ago. > My understanding (from the other side of the world, of course - I'm not trying to say I know what's going on there) was that Brazil's biofuel production is predominantly from sugar cane, and the only country in the world where it is being effectively used for a net reduction in emissions BUT that US policies on ethanol from corn makes corn so lucrative for US agribusiness that not enough farms in the USA are growing soybeans. This has pushed soybean prices so high that Brazilian farms where soybean production was marginal or where cattle were raised were now being turned over to soybean production, pushing the cattle graziers further into former rainforest areas. 300,000ha (that's 750,000 acres for the unenlightened) of the Amazon basin was deforested just in the 6 months from July to December last year. Brazil's population isn't growing that fast, but international demand for their agricultural products is. I specifically mentioned US AGW prevention, because Brazil has managed to prove the viability of biofuels through sugarcane, but the US is intent on doing it through corn or switchgrass, which just can't manage the yield per hectare. (In an odd piece of synchronicity, I was just reading how the Kamayura tribesmen use their biodiesel to run generators so they can watch soap operas on TV, then Alberto's population growth post talked about the same thing! Those soaps must be popular in Brazil!)
Cheers Russell C. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
