The New Biomassters - Synthetic Biology and The Next Assault on Biodiversity and Livelihoods

8/8/2019 The New Biomassters - Synthetic Biology and The Next Assault on Biodiversity and Livelihoods

1/84


2/84The New Biomassters i

About the cover The New Biomass Harvest by the Beehive

Design Collective, 2010 after AlphonseMuchas Autumn (from The Seasons Series1896, as shown below). According tohistorian Vaclav Smil, the 1890s was the lastdecade in which the global industrialeconomy ran primarily on biomass. Fortodays biomass economy Mucha mightdepict a very different harvest.

AcknowledgementsThis report resulted from close

collaboration with many allies in civilsociety who have actively participated in itsgenesis, research, writing and review. In particular we owe a large debt of gratitudeto Dr. Rachel Smolker of Biofuelwatch, as well as to her colleagues Almuth Ernsting and Deepak Rughani. Part of the originalresearch and framing of this report wascarried out by Rachel and much of what welearned about biomass we learned first fromher. We are also very grateful to DelphineDeryng and Jose Borras Ferran whocontributed original research and writing asinterns at ETC Group.Thank you to David Lee and Lara Lucretiaand all at the Beehive Design Collective who have not only provided excellentoriginal artwork, but inspiration,camaraderie and some neat phrases. Thanksalso to Helena Paul of Econexus for providing comments on very early versionsof this report and to Anne Petermann andOrin Langelle of the Global Justice EcologyProject. This report has its roots in a seriesof meetings organized by civil society toexplore the implications of BANG(converging technologies), including aninternational seminar in Montpellier,France, in November 2008 convened byETC Group, The What Next? Project,BEDE, Fondation Sciences Citoyennes andsubsequent regional meetings convened by(amongst others) Centro Ecolgico (Brazil),FASE (Brazil), African BiodiversityNetwork (Ethiopia), African Centre

for Biosafety (South Africa), CASIFOP(Mexico), Alliance for HumaneBiotechnology (US), EQUINET,SEARICE (Philippines), Friends of theEarth (US), ICTA (US), Center forGenetics and Society (US) and MovemeGeneration (US). We are extremely gratto all of the participants and others whohave helped shape our thinking on thesematters. ETC Group gratefullyacknowledges the financial support of SwedBio (Sweden), HKH Foundation(USA), CS Fund (USA), Christensen Fu(USA), Heinrich Bll Foundation(Germany), the Lillian Goldman CharitTrust (USA), Oxfam Novib (NetherlandBen and Jerrys Foundation (USA) and Norwegian Forum for Environment andDevelopment (Netherlands).

ETC Group is solely responsible for the views expressed in this document.

Copy-edited by Leila MarshyDesign by Shtig (.net)Original Artwork by the Beehive DesigCollective and Shtig The New Biomassters: Synthetic Biologand the Next Assault on Biodiversity anLivelihoods is ETC Group Communiqu# 104First published in October 2010Reprinted in November 2010 www.etcgroup.org All ETC Group publications are availabfree of charge on our website: www.etcgroup.org

Whoever produces abundant biofuelscould end up making more than just big bucksthey will make historyThe companies, the

countries, that succeed in this will be theeconomic winners of the next age to the sameextent that the oil-rich nations are today.

J. Craig VenterSynthetic Genomics, Inc., 20 April 2009


3/84ETC Group ii www.etcgroup.o

The NewBiomassters

Synthetic Biologyand the Next Assaulton Biodiversity and

Livelihoods


4/84iii

Overview

Issue

Under the pretext of addressing environmentaldegradation, climate change and the energy and foodcrises, industry is portending a New Bioeconomy andthe replacement of fossil carbon with living matter, nowlabeled biomass. The most productive and accessiblebiomass is in the global South exactly where,by 2050, there may be another 2 billionmouths to feed on lands that (thanks toclimate chaos) may yield 20-50% less.Although this would seem to be the worst time possible to put new pressures on living systems,governments are being told thatSynthetic Biology a technology just being invented will make andtransform all the biomass we will ever needto replace all the fossil fuels we currently use.Meanwhile, new carbon markets are turning plant-lifeinto carbon stocks for trading (in lieu of reducing emissions). But, the companies that say trust us are thesame energy, chemical companies, agribusinesses andforestry giants that created the climate and food crises inthe first place.

At StakeFood, energy and national security. With 24% of the worlds annual terrestrial biomass so far appropriated forhuman use, todays compounding crises are anopportunity to commodify and monopolize theremaining 76% (and even more in the oceans) that WallStreet hasnt yet reached. Industrial sectors with aninterest in switching carbon feedstocks to biomassinclude the energy and chemical, plastics, food, textiles, pharmaceuticals, paper products and building suppliesindustries plus the carbon trade a combined market worth at least $17 trillion.1

Actors

The business media report on start-up companies Synthetic Genomics, Amyris Biotechnologies andbut, behind the headlines, the money to developsynthetic biology is coming from the U.S. DepartmEnergy and major energy players like BP, Shell,

ExxonMobil, chemical majors like BASF DuPont and forestry and agribusiness

giants such as Cargill, ADM, Weyerhaeuser and Syngenta. Whil

initial demonstration facilities arebeing developed largely in EuropUSA, ultimately geography isdestiny for the biobased econom

countries with the most living plan will also end up having the most

production plants. Industry is alreadylining up Brazil, Mexico, South Africa an

Malaysia as testing grounds for the new technologOECD governments, meanwhile, are pumping ovebillion of subsidies into the biomass economy.

ForaEven leading companies and scientists involved insynthetic biology agree that some oversight is necand they acknowledge potential new biosafety hazfrom novel microbes and plants. Although synthetbiology and the biomass economy will have a maupstream impact on land use, biological diversity,environment and human well-being, those implicaare being ignored by most governments and resea Within the United Nations, only the Convention onBiological Diversity (CBD) is addressing synthetibiology. Despite the implications for food securityUN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) andConsultative Group on International AgriculturalResearch (CGIAR) seem blissfully unaware of recdevelopments.

Amidst rising hunger and

climate chaos this would seem to be the worst time possible to put new pressures on living

systems.

The New Biomassters


5/84ETC Group iv www.etcgroup.o

In the UNFCCC (climatechange) negotiations, South

governments seem to beunaware that technologytransfer will be leveraged toextend industrys monopolyover biomass technologies tothe Souths lands and resources.The implications of the NewBioeconomy are so vast thatthey should be on the agendaof every UN agency and must,especially, be addressed at theRio+20 Summit to be held inBrazil in 2012.

PoliciesAnnouncements during 2010that synthetic biologyresearchers can substantiallymanipulate DNA to buildartificial, self-replicating microorganisms that havenever before appeared on Earthhave immediate implicationsfor biodiversity, biosafety andnational economies.Synthetically constructed lifeforms should not be releasedinto the environment, and the

UN and national governmentsshould establish at the veryleast moratoria to prevent such releases. As urgently,studies must be undertaken to determine theimplications of what the U.S. government calls the bio-based revolution for climate change, the worldsecosystems, food and energy supplies and for livelihoodsand land rights.

Civil society and social movements organized aroagriculture, land rights, forest protection, marine iemerging technologies, chemical toxins, climate cenergy justice and consumption urgently need to fmeans to share analysis and co-ordinate resistanceaddressing common threats arising from the NewBioeconomy.

Biomassacre by the Beehive

Collective


6/84The New Biomassters v

Contents

12

33333

5

566777

88899999

101011

11

111111

11

1212

12

121314

1515161717181919

202122

23

2323

242525

2626

Introduction: Beware BiomassBox: Who are the new BioMassters? What is being switched? Its not just biofuels

Transport FuelsElectricityChemicals and PlasticsFertilizer

Part 1: Here Comes the Bioeconomy

Box:Three Bioeconomies What is Biomass?Box:The Bioeconomy, also known as...Cellulose the Wonder SugarChart:How Bioeconomy Advocates see PlantsGetting Elemental Its still the carbon

economy, stupid

Graph:How much Carbon?Getting geopolitical Its all in the SouthMap: Where is the Biomass?Sourcing Biomass A Global Take

Natural ForestsPlantationsAgri-EcosystemsGrasslands

Marine EcosystemsDeserts and Wetlands

Back to the Future? Carbohydrate vs.Hydrocarbon

From cracking oil to hacking plants

Selling the Switch1. Sugar Dreams: The carbohydrate economy2. Green Dreams: Renewable resources and

the hydrogen economy3. Cool Dreams: The carbon-neutral

economy

4. Patriot Dreams: Energy independence5. Leapfrog Dreams: Clean development

and the green jobs movement6. Geek Dreams: Converging technologies

and cleantechBox:Grab, not a SwitchCounting the Bioma$$ economy Chart: Where is the Money in the Biomass

Economy? Whose Biomass? A tale of two bioeconomiesMarginal Lands for Maximal ProfitTable: A tale of two bioeconomies A Land Grab for Biomass A New Trade in Biomass Shipping ChipsEnergy crops Changes down on the farmThe Carbon Neutral MythGraph:CO 2 emissions from different types

of fuel A serious global accounting errorTrading biomass-based carbonTrading biomass-based carbon:

Take II getting REDD-y for a grabTransferring Biomass Technologies

Climate Technology InitiativeBox:InfraREDD Mapping the biomassThe Green Economy A cozy home for

the bioeconomy Busting the Earths Biomass Budget?Ecosystems Count FirstChart:Net productivity of different types of

biomass expressed as power (terawatts)Box:Is Biomass really renewable?Planetary Boundaries for Biomass Extraction?


7/84ETC Group vi www.etcgroup.o

272729

3030

31

35

35

3535353636

37

38393939

4040

41

4242

424242

42

43

4343

44

44

45

4647

474950

51525252535354

545555

57

66

Not enough Biomass? Lets boost itBox:Biomass or Biomassacre?Geoengineering the planet with biomass

Biomass Dumping Ocean Fertilization (Marine Algae)Biomass Energy with Carbon Sequestration

(BECS)The New Biomass Economy: 10 myths

Part II The Tools and Players

The New Bio-Alchemy Tooling up forthe grab

CombustionChemistryBiotechnology / Genetic Engineering Nanotechnology

Synthetic Biology The Game Changerfor Biomass

Synthetic Biology: Unpredictable, untestedand poorly understood

Synthetic Organisms as BiofactoriesSynthetic Enzymes for CelluloseSynthetic Plants Changing the feedstocksBox: Cellulose crunchers and fuel fermenters

on the loose?Synthetic Bioelectricity?Synthetic Biologys Grab on Livelihoods

Displacing CommoditiesBox:Nanocellulose Shrinking biomass to

grow new markets What Is Switching?Switch 1: Switching Power Burning biomass

for heat and bioelectricity Low Hanging FruitBox: Biomass Burning in the USABiomass Power in the South

Counting the Costs of Biomass Electricity I:Gobbling fields and forests

Counting the Costs of Biomass Electricity II:Threatening human health

Box: Incineration in DisguiseSwitch 2: Liquid BioFuels: Liquefying

Biomass for TransportScoring an F Failures of First Generation

BiofuelsSurvivors of Generation F Sugar

and JatrophaGeneration NeXt: Switching fuels

and feedstocksCellulosic FuelsBeyond Alcohol to Hydrocarbons

Biogasoline, butanol, isopentanol,hexadecane, farnesene

Beyond Cellulose: Algal BiofuelsThe New Algal Crowd

Switch 3: Switching Chemicals Bioplasticand Biobased Chemicals

Bio-based Building BlocksThe Future is (Bio)Plastic?Do Bioplastics Biodegrade?Can Bioplastics be Recycled?Are Bioplastics toxic?Are Bioplastics Sourced Sustainably?GM Crops, Synthetic Biology and

NanotechnologyCan Bioplastics Be Done Right?

Conclusions: Earth Grab!Recommendations: Towards Global

Governance

Annex:Table of Next-GenerationBiofuel Companies

Endnotes


8/84The New Biomassters 1

Introduction: Beware Biomass

Note on units:

In this report,tonnerefers to 1 metric tonne = 1000 kg (2204.6 pounds);ton refers to 1 short ton = 2000 pound(907.2 kg); 1 billion = 1000 million

Around the world, corporate and government strategiesto address climate change, energy, agriculture, technology

and materials production are increasingly converging around one telling concept: Biomass.Biomass encompasses over 230 billion tonnes of living stuff 2 that the Earth produces every year, such as trees,bushes, grasses, algae, grains, microbes, and more. Thisannual bounty, known as the Earths primary production, is most abundant in the global South intropical oceans, forests and fast growing grasslands sustaining the livelihoods, cultures and basic needs of most the worlds inhabitants. So far, human beings useonly one quarter (24%) of terrestrial (land-based)biomass for basic needs and industrial production3

and hardly any oceanic biomass, leaving 86 percent of the planets full biomass production (both land and sea) as yetuncommodified.But, thanks to technologicalchanges particularly in the fieldsof nanotechnology and syntheticbiology this biomass can nowbe targeted by industry as a sourceof living green carbon tosupplement or partially replace theblack fossil carbons of oil, coal and gasthat currently underpin Northern industrialeconomies. From generating electricity to producing fuels, fertilizers and chemicals, shifts arealready underway to claim biomass as a critical

component in the global industrial economy. Part I of this report provides an overview of the current situationand what the emergence of a so-called New Bioeconomymeans for people, livelihoods and the environment. PartII provides a snapshot of the New Biomassters theindustrial players and the technologies they areharnessing.

What is being sold as a benign and beneficial swiblack carbon to green carbon is in fact a

hot resource grab (from South to Norto capture a new source of wealth.

the grab succeeds, then plunderithe biomass of the South tocheaply run the industrialeconomies of the North will bact of 21st century imperialismthat deepens injustice and wor

poverty and hunger. Moreover, pillaging fragile ecosystems for

carbon and sugar stocks is amurderous move on an already

overstressed planet. Instead of embracinfalse promises of a new clean green bioeconomy, society should reject the new biomassters and theiassault on land, livelihoods and our living world.

Biomass: Living (or once living) stuff;

narrowly refers to the weight of living matter (plants, animals,

bacteria, fungi, etc.) found in a specific

area. Now used by industry to refer tothe use of non-fossilized biological and waste materials as a feedstock for

the production of fuels,chemicals, heat and

power.

Biomass in the making Photo: Asea


9/84ETC Group 2 www.etcgroup.o

Who are the new BioMassters?

The same transnational companies that fostereddependence on the petroleum economy during the 20thcentury are now establishing themselves as the newbiomassters. When that coup is complete, manyfamiliar corporate players will still be sitting at the headof the global economic order. That their cars run onbiofuel, their computers run on bioelectricity and theircredit cards are made of bioplastic is not the majorissue; they will have achieved a firmer clutch, perhapseven a death grip, on the natural systems upon which we all depend.

Forestry and agribusiness giants that already controlland and biological resources worldwide are at theforefront of developing the bioeconomy and the newmarket in biomass. Familiar names include Cargill,ADM, Weyerhaeuser, Stora Enso, Tate & Lyle, Bunge,Cosan Ltd.

High tech companies (biotech, nanotech andsoftware) are providing the new tools to transformmeasure and exploit the biological world, helpingdevelop genetic information as a commodity. Theinclude Microsoft, Monsanto, Syngenta, AmyrisBiotechnologies, Synthetic Genomics, Inc., GeneNovozymes.

Pharma, chemical and energy majors are partnering with the new bio-entrepreneurs to switch their production processes and feedstock sourcing. Wafor moves by DuPont, BASF, DSM, Duke EnergyBP, Shell, Total Oil, Chevron, ExxonMobil.

Financial services companies and investment banksare drawing up new ecosystem securities, tradingmarkets and land investments even as previoussecurities collapse around them: Goldman Sachs,Morgan, Microsoft.

Consumer products and food companies are turning to bio-based products, packaging and ingredientsmake green marketing claims: Procter & GambUnilever, Coca-Cola.

Illustration: the Beehive Collective



What is being switched?Its not just biofuels

Many think of biomass mainly as a source for liquid fuel products such as ethanol and biodiesel. But biomass can also be converted to a multitude of products we use every day. In fact, there are very few products that are made today from a petroleum base,including paints, inks, adhesives, plastics and other value-added products, that cannot be produced frombiomass. David K. Garman, U.S. Under Secretary of Energyfor Energy, Science and Environment under George W.Bush4

We have modest goals of replacing the whole petrochemical industry and becoming a major sourceof energy. J. Craig Venter, founder Synthetic Genomics, Inc.5

A simple way to understand the proposed ambition of the new Biomass Economy is to glance at a list of fossil-fuel dependent products and services currently being produced. Then, imagine each sector switching to living plant matter as a feedstock instead of the oil, coal andnatural gas associated with fossilized plant matter:

Transport Fuels

Currently, over 72% of petroleum6

ends up as liquid fufor cars, trucks, airplanes and heating. Agrofuels (biofuels) such as ethanol and biodiesel mark just tbeginning of converting the liquid fuel market tobiomass. Some next-generation agrofuels arehydrocarbons that have the same chemical propertgasoline and jet fuel.

Electricity

Coal, natural gas and petroleum are currently respfor 67% of global electricity production.7 However, co-firing coal with biomass is on the increase and themove to burn woodchips, vegetable oils and muni waste as the fuel for electricity production. Meanwnano-cellulose and synthetic bacteria are being investigated to make electric current from living cturning biomass to electricity without the need forturbines.

Chemicals and PlasticsCurrently around 10% of global petroleum reserveconverted into plastics and petrochemicals.8 However, tohedge against rising petroleum prices and to green public image, large chemical companies such as Dare setting ambitious targets for biomass feedstockas sugar and maize for the production of bioplastitextiles, fine and bulk chemicals.

Fertilizer Global fertilizer production is an intensive user ofgas. Proponents of biochar (carbonized biomass) cthat they have a bio-based replacement for improvfertility, which can be produced on an industrial sc



Illustration: the Beehive Collective



Part 1: Here Comes the Bioeconomy

Hunting-and-gathering economies ruled for hundreds of thousands of years beforethey were overshadowed by agrarianeconomies, which ruled for about 10,000 years. Next came the industrial ones. The first began in Britain in the 1760s, and the first to finish started unwinding in the U.S.in the early 1950s. We're halfway throughthe information economy, and from start to

finish, it will last 75 to 80 years, ending in

the late 2020s. Then get ready for the next one: the bioeconomy. Futurists Stan Davis and ChristopherMeyer,Time, May 20009

It is now over two years since a sharp escalation infood prices created a crisis that broke onto front- page headlines around the world. Suddenly, thediversion of crops for biofuels (dubbed agrofuelsby opponents) was a topic of intense controversyand opposition among rural communities, particularly in the global South. While headlinesfocused on industrys enthusiasm for palm oil andcorn ethanol (the ethanol rush),10 this was only a visible tip of a much deeper transition andtrajectory in industrial policy. That trajectory toward the bio-based economy is now gathering speed, political clout and many billions of dollarsin public subsidy and private investment. Whetherit delivers on its promises, the payload of the newbioeconomy carries the same threat to people,

livelihoods and the planet as the ethanol rush buteven more so.

The rhetoric of a new bioeconomy, howeverimprecise, is woven throughout current agendasand headlines and wrapped in the post-millennialbuzzwords that permeate environmental, industrialand development policies: sustainability, the greeneconomy, clean tech and clean development.

Three BioeconomiesBioeconomy describes the idea of an industrial order that reliesbiological materials, processes and services. Since many secthe global economy are already biologically based (agriculturefishing, forestry), proponents often talk of a new bioeconomydescribe a particular re-invention of the global economy one more closely enmeshes neoliberal economics and financing mechanisms with new biological technologies and modes of production.

It turns out that the term bioeconomy is used to describe at lethree distinct but interrelated and mutually reinforcing conceptbased on the notion that biological systems and resources can bharnessed to maintain current industrial systems of production,consumption and capital accumulation:

Inputs: The Biomass Economy Sometimes termed the bio-basedor carbohydrate economy. The key concept is that industrial production moves from the use of fossil and mineral resource petroleum and natural gas) toward living biological raw mate primarily biomass plant matter such as woodchips, agricult plants and algae.

Processes: The Biotech Economy As the DNA found in living cells is decoded into genetic information for use in biotechnoapplications, genetic sequences are acquiring a new value as building blocks of designed biological production systems. Bhijacking the genetic instructions of cells, plants and animalforce them to produce industrial products, industry transformtransgenic and synthetic organisms into bio-factories that candeployed elsewhere on the globe either in private vats or plantations. Nature is altered to meet business interests.

Services: The Bioservices Economy As ecosystems collapse and

biodiversity declines, new markets in ecosystem services etrading of concocted ecological credits. The declared aim isincentivize conservation by creating a profit motive in ord justify interventions in large-scale natural systems such ashydrological cycles, the carbon cycle or the nitrogen cycle.11 Like theservices of an industrial production system, these ecosystemservices, created to privatize natural processes, will become progressively more effective at serving the interests of busine



Hidden in the rhetoric of the bioeconomy is an assault onolder bio-based economies represented by billions of people with preexisting claims on the land and coastal waters wherebiomass grows. Their knowledge systems and livelihoods areinterdependent with a complex array of organisms that sustainus all: the so-called biomass (forests, soils, plants andmicrobes) that has been nurtured for millennia. To those whohave found themselves on the receiving end of new industrial waves before, the story of the coming bioeconomy will befamiliar. Its yet another heist on the commons that willdestroy the resources and territories and sovereignty of small

farmers, peasants, fisherfolk, pastoralists and indigenous peoples those who have been preserving biodiversity and producing our food while not contributing to global warming.

The new bioeconomy as currently envisioned by foresters,agribusiness, biotech, energy and chemical firms furthers theongoing enclosure and degradation of the natural world byappropriating plant matter for transformation into industrialcommodities, engineering cells so they perform as industrialfactories, and redefining and refitting ecosystems to provideindustrial support services.

What is Biomass?Strictly speaking, biomass is a measure of weight used in thescience of ecology. It refers to the total mass of all living things(organic matter) found in a particular location.12 Fish, trees,animals, bacteria and even humans are all biomass. However,more recently, the term is shorthand for non-fossilizedbiological material, particularly plant material that can be usedas a feedstock for fuel or for industrial chemical production.13

According to the UN Conference on Trade and Develo(UNCTAD), Biomass includes organic matter availabrenewable basis, such as forest and mill residues, agriccrops and residues, wood and wood residues, animal wlivestock operation residues, aquatic plants, fast-growiand plants, and the organic portion of municipal and reindustrial wastes.14

On closer examination what governments and industryas biomass includes tires, sewage sludge, plastics, trelumber, painted construction materials and demolition industrial animal manures, offal from slaughterhouseoperations and incinerated cows.15

Plants in particular, have been a source of fuel and mat production for millennia but the new use of the termbiomass marks a specific industrial shift in humanityrelationship with plants. Unlike the term plant, whichindicates a diverse taxonomic world of various speciesmultiple varieties, the term biomass treats all organic mthough it were the same undifferentiated plant-stuff. as biomass, plants are semantically reduced to their codenominators so that, for example, grasslands and forecommercially redefined as sources of cellulose and cathis way biomass operates as a reductionist and anti-ecterm treating plant matter as a homogenous bulk commLike those other bios (biofuel and biotechnology), ththe term biomass to describe living stuff is often a red industrial interests are at play.

The Bioeconomy, also known as...

In this report we use the terms bioeconomy or biomaeconomy. Here are some of the terms by which otherinstitutions refer to the industrial vision of turning livbiological material into goods and services:

The Biobased Economy OECDKnowledge Based BioEconomy (KBBE) the Europ

UnionIndustrial Biorefinery industry World Economic Fo White Biotechnology or Industrial Biotechnology

Biotechnology Industry OrganizationThe Green Economy and Biodiversity Services Un

Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP)The Carbohydrate Economy Institute for Local Self

Reliance

The Bioeconomic Revolution the Biomass ResearcDevelopment Board of the U.S. government

I l l us t r at i on: t h e B e e h i ve Col l e c t i ve



Cellulose The Wonder Sugar The sturdy oak and the stately palm, the grass that covers the good Earth, the lichens that clothe therocks, even the minute algae that flourish in the sea, all are manufacturing cellulose. It is the great primary substance of the whole vegetable kingdom. Williams Haynes, Celullose:The Chemical that Grows, 195316

If you were to scrape off the thin layer of living material on planet Earth and boil it down to its constituent parts, most of what you would get is one green sugar called cellulose. It isfound in all plants, as well as some microbes, as long chains of glucose in a fibrous or occasionally crystalline structure.17 Thiscommon molecular component is rapidly becoming thedarling of industry for four reasons:

Abundance: The Earth makes about 180 billion tons of

cellulose every year.18

This makes it the most abundantorganic compound on the planet.

Energy: Cellulose is the principle source of energy for animalnutrition and heat for humans (when plant materials areburned).

Flexibility: Many of the early plastics were basedon plant cellulose. Cellulose can bechemically modified and functionalizedin different ways to produce new polymers, coatings, oils andcombustibles.19 Recent work hasalso shown that cellulose nano-fibres can be modified to exhibitfurther novel properties.20

Cellulose is not (necessarily) food: While vegetables and grains have alarge cellulosic component, so too,do the non-food components of plants. Biofuel proponents argue thatthe cellulose found in plant stalks and leavescan be appropriated for industrial use while

leaving the fruit or grains in the food supply.

But while cellulose may be abundant, one significant catch hasbeen the difficulty of separating it from other plantcomponents (see diagram above). In most instances cellulose isbound within a matrix of compounds known as lignocellulose, which in turn is composed of lignin (a hard, carbon-richsubstance) and hemicellulose (a mixture of other sugars).

How biomass advocates see plants(typical chemical composition of 'biomass')

Cellulose38-50%Polymer

of glucose,very good

biochemicalfeedstock Hemicellulose

23-32%Polymer of 5 & 6

carbon sugar

Lignin15-25%

Complex aromaticstructure, very high

energy content

5%Other

Source: USDA

Breaking cellulose away from lignin and reducing it tosugars requires either an intense heat process or the

application of strong chemicals or enzymes, such afound in the guts of cows and termites. The

of industrially separating cellulose has become one of the most active areas

research in energy and materialsscience.21

Getting Elemental Its still the carboneconomy, stupid

It is the carbon content of thisbiomass and its applicability to

many uses that make it the valuab feedstock of the future.

Energy Matters, U.S. Department oEnergys Industrial Technologies Program

Newsletter, Summer 2010

The basis for a bioeconomy is the generation of carbon using renewable resources, like crops and obiomass, instead of relying upon nonrenewable, petroleum-based carbon. Georg Anderl, President of BIOWA DevelopmAssociation, 200422

Lignocellulose:

woody material; atangled matrix of cellulose fibres,

hemicellulose fibres and lignin that is the mainconstituent of the woody part of plants.

Lignin

Cellulose

Hemicellulose

Esters



In an era of increasingly constrained oil supplies, commercialexcitement about cellulose as a new unconventional source of carbon is not surprising. Companies involved in biofuels andbiomaterials commonly refer to plants simply as a source of carbon molecules, rendering invisible their other componentsand functions. The accounting of global carbon reserves byenergy companies reveals that the billions of tonnes of carbonlocked up in global biomass stocks far outstrip known oil andnatural gas reserves, rival shale and tar sands combined and areexceeded only by coal deposits. Recoverable global stocks of carbon in all fossil fuels are estimated at 1.1 trillion tonnes23

while global biomass holds about half that amount of carbon(503 billion tonnes see see below, How much carbon?). Asbiofuels business analyst Rosalie Lober notes: Biofuels areabove-ground oil fields, a different kind of proved reserve.24

Getting geopolitical Its all in the South

If you look at a picture of the globe its pretty easyto see where the green parts are, and those are the places where one would perhaps optimally grow feedstocks. Steven Koonin, U.S. Department of Energy UnderSecretary for Science and former head of research atBP, 200925

A new international division of labour in agriculture is likely to emerge between countries with

large tracts of arable land and thus a likely exporter of biomass or densified derivatives versus countrieswith smaller amounts of arable land (i.e. biomassimporters, e.g. Holland). The biggest biomass export hubs are expected to be Brazil, Africa and North America. World Economic Forum26

While from space the planet may look green and rich withbiomass, the dirty little secret of the biomass economy is that just like fossilized carbon reserves (oil, coal, natural gas) the living carbon reserves are not equally distributed. Worldwide, land-based vegetation stores an estimated 500billion tonnes of carbon. However 86% of that (430 billiontonnes) is stored in the tropics and sub-tropics, while borealand temperate eco-regions store only 34 billion tonnes and 33billion tonnes, respectively.27 The tropics is also where biomassreplenishes the quickest and where marine biomass, principally phytoplankton, is most productive.28

Not coincidentally, these areas of the planet where bio

already most concentrated are now attracting the interecompanies wanting to produce biofuels, bio-based cheand bioelectricity. Brazil in particular has witnessed a increase in bioeconomy-driven investment. Indeed theEconomic Forum has suggested that a new internationdivision of labour in agriculture is likely to emerge bbiomass-producing tropical countries and Northern cou although what is so new about this division of labouunclear.29

How much carbon?Estimated global stocks of recoverable carbonreserves

Ocean standing stock of biomass - 3 GTC

0 500 1000Gigatonnes of Carbon (GTC)

Source: Dr. Jeff Siirola (American Institute of Chemical Engineers), Mark Maslin and IPCC

Recoverable Gas Reserves 75 GTC

Recoverable Oil Reserves 120 GTC

Estimated Oil Shale 225 GTC

Estimated Tar Sands 250 GTC

Terrestrial Biomass 500 GTC

Recoverable Coal 925 GTC

Where is the Biomass?Above and below ground biomass carbon density

Source: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/global_carbon/ FINAL_DATASETS.jpg



The industry has realized that geography is destiny, saysMark Bnger, who tracks the bioeconomy as a ResearchDirector at Lux Research. Bnger explained to TechnologyReviews Antonio Regalado that only a few places on the planet have the rain, sun, and land mass needed to makebiofuels at the scale and price that can have a real impact.30

While Brazil ranks first, sub-Saharan Africa is a close second,evidenced by a rush of land claims and rising interest in planting sugarcane in the region.31

As we looked at the world and looked at where thelowest cost, largest scale biomass was, we found that Brazil really was the Saudi Arabia of renewables. John Melo, CEO of Amyris Biotechnologies,Inc.32

Sourcing Biomass A global takeIn the near term, nations with significant remaining forestsand expanding plantation acreage (Brazil, USA, Indonesia,Canada, Russia and Central African nations) will be jockeying to establish themselves as the Saudi Arabia of biomass.33 Intime, however, agricultural ecosystems, grasslands, deserts andocean ecosystems will also increasingly become the targets of the biomass grab. Each of these ecosystems has advantages as abiomass resource. Even though the biomassters claim they willone day be able to use any available biomass, today they aretargeting the same plants already being exploited by industrialagriculture and forestry corn, sugar, soy and fast growing eucalyptus, poplar, oil palm and pine trees.

Natural Forests

Making up the largest repository of existing terrestrial biomass,natural forests are indeed experiencing most of the immediate pressure from new biomass extraction. Though forests havebeen diminished by centuries of unsustainable logging practices, they are still home to millions of indigenous peoples,some of the most diverse ecosystems on the planet, and they play a crucial role in regulating climate. Over time, the

political and ecological costs of removing biomass from the worlds remaining natural forests may prove too high for abiomass industry to depend on. Already climate change iscreating huge stresses on forest ecosystems, so that any amountof biomass removal will increase the risk of fires, pests and soilsaturation, among other negative consequences.34

Plantations

Monoculture plantations of fast-growing trees rich in csuch as eucalyptus, poplar and pine, or oil-bearing tree palm and jatropha, are already proliferating, particularglobal South, often on formerly forested land. Since 1tropical forest plantations have expanded by almost fiv35

Pursuit of biomass is accelerating that trend. Largely

proprietary, with minimal biodiversity value and signinegative impacts on water and soils, plantation trees an will be the major source of biomass for industrial use coming decades, disrupting societies and ecosystems, land and water fights and inequity. The forest industry pretend such plantations should be classified as forestshowever, monoculture tree plantations, in terms of ecobear little resemblance to natural forests.

Agri-Ecosystems

The most highly organized and efficient biomass grab planet is the 1.5 billion hectares of food and fibre crop

36

While there are obvious reasons for concern if the prim purpose of agriculture is shifted from food productionmaterials and energy production, industry views agri-ecosystems as attractive sources of biomass because thalready well designed for harvest, storage and transpormarket. In agriculture, the near term focus for biomass will be in capturing plant wastes from commodity cras corn stover, rice straws, wheat husks and cotton, as introducing fast growing cellulosic grasses such as bamswitch grass and miscanthus. Unfortunately, the removgreen wastes from the land will likely have significantdeleterious effects on agricultural soils; fast growing gcould increase water use and become invasive. Meanw pressure to surrender prime soils to biomass productiofurther erode food sovereignty and conservation measu

Grasslands

While prairie grasslands and meadows have so far largcommercially limited to fodder for grazing animals, thfor biomass is introducing a new market for such landsRegularly mowing diverse low-input prairies for hay h proposed as an ecological solution for biomass extract would allegedly maintain native biodiversity in situ. Bassumption that prairie landscapes can remain biodivesuch management conditions is contested, as is the potany real energy gain.37 However, as the search for new souof biomass intensifies, grasslands may become increasimportant in the equation or become increasingly convcropping and plantations with impacts on livestock production, grazing rights, and biodiversity.



Marine Ecosystems

Algae and seaweeds in the worlds oceans account for almost half of annualglobal biomass production (48.5%), which thus far has been difficult toaccess for industrial uses or for food.38 As such, oceans represent a hugeuntapped resource and the search for biomass is inevitably going to have animpact on marine ecosystems. Current industrial farming of seaweeds andculturing of other algae are small-scale compared to the vast resourceavailable. Oceans are difficult to operate in and largely under commongovernance, so harvesting a larger share of existing ocean biomass orextending seaweed mariculture may require new technologies and possiblynew international legal arrangements. In the near term algae farming willlikely expand on land, particularly in desert ponds. However, companies arealready experimenting with harvesting wild algae from bays and coastlines forfuel and chemical production (e.g., Blue Marble, Seattle, USA).39 Others areexploring growing algae in offshore farms and mowing the seabed.

Deserts and Wetlands

While not the immediate target for biomaextraction, deserts, marshes and other lanclassified as marginal are under pressurebiomass sourcing changes land use and othuman activities, such as settlements, are into these more remote and more fragileecosystems. Deserts and drylands, by virtample sunlight, are already being targetedlarge-scale algal production in ponds andglass and may well be sowed with new vaof grasses and crops engineered to be drotolerant. Meanwhile the development of stolerant crop varieties may also invademarshland ecosystems.

'Biomass Flow Globe' by the BeehiveCollective



Back to the Future? Carbohydrate vs.Hydrocarbon From cracking oil tohacking plantsAdvocates of the biomass economy like to talk of a coming switch from a (fossil based) hydrocarbon economy to a (plantbased) carbohydrate economy. Chemically speaking, thedifference between a hydrocarbon and a carbohydrate comesdown to a few oxygen atoms. Carbohydrates are sugarscomprised of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen and are consideredorganic matter. Hydrocarbons by contrast are composed of only hydrogen and carbon and are classified asminerals.

But historically speaking, and still in localand indigenous communities today, it is plant carbohydrates that have held theupper hand in meeting humanneeds. As recently as 1820,

Americans used two tonnes of vegetables for every tonne of minerals as the raw material fordyes, chemicals, paints, inks,solvents and even energy. By 1920the ratio had reversed, and by the mid-1970s Americans consumed 8 tonnes of minerals for every tonne of plantcarbohydrate.41 Two factors enabled thatmost recent switch:

The higher energy density of fossil fuels: One half-tonne of coal contains the same amount of energy as 2 tonnes of green wood. Coal, and later petroleum (which is denser still andmore transportable), took over as the preferred fuel for theindustrial revolution.42

The success of petrochemistry: The first synthetic chemistslearned to transform coal tar into profitable dyes and,eventually, to crack petroleum into many molecules thatcould be refined into fuels, waxes, explosives, pesticides, plastics, paint, pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, textiles, rubber,gasoline, asphalt and much more.43

Today, however, volatile markets, the money-making potentialof carbon markets, the development of new technologies and worries over peak oil are helping drive a switch back to living biomass. In particular, just as 19th century developments insynthetic chemistry made possible the hydrocarbon economy,so today, innovation in synthetic biology is allowing companies to retrofit the hydrocarbon economy toaccommodate carbohydrate feedstocks.

Selling the SwitchETC Groups analysis suggests that what is really drivinvestment in the new bioeconomy is good old capitalopportunism. Nonetheless, advocates have plenty of neclothes with which to dress up their old-style imperialiBelow are just a few of the agendas commonly used tothe new grab on biomass.

1. Sugar Dreams: The carbohydrate economy

The term carbohydrate economy was originally coinactivists from the Institute for Local Self Relianc

(ILSR) who, in the early 1990s, described vision of making chemicals and indust

materials from plant materials instea petroleum.44 Their interest in bio-

based (that is, plant based) mater was driven by the hope that sucmaterials could be designed todegrade more fully in theenvironment, unlike most

petroleum-based plastics.

2. Green Dreams:Renewable resources and

the hydrogen economy

Biomass has consistently been includeddescriptions and definitions of what constit

renewable resource as, theoretically, plants and treback after harvest. Biomass is also occasionally descriform of solar energy since plants harvest energy from (See below, "Is Biomass Really Renewable?") Biomasregarded as a key resource for developing another gre vision, the notion of a Hydrogen Economy, as hydrogalso be extracted from plants.

A third of theworlds land is non-arable; 11%is used to grow cereals and other

crops and 55% is in pasture, prairie, savannah and forest. It appears there is

plenty of land. Steven Koonin, U.S. Department of

Energy Under Secretary for Science andformer head of research for BP, on

finding land for biomass crops,200840

Definitions:

Carbohydrates: sugars and starches; organic moleculecomposed mainly of carbon, hydrogen and oxygenfound in living plant material. The most abundantcarbohydrate is cellulose.

Hydrocarbon: carbon-rich mineral; a mix of carbon anhydrogen, the term is often used to describe fossilfeedstocks such as coal, oil and methane (although are hydrocarbons that are not fossil fuels).



Senior scientists and venture capitalists in the U.S. havdubbed this next wave of environmental technologies Tech a multi-billion dollar area of investment that cobiofuels, bioenergy, bioplastics, and most bio-based min general, as well as the underlying enabling technoloas synthetic biology and nanotechnology.

3. Cool Dreams: The carbon-neutral economy

The contemporary urgency to address the problem of human-induced climate change has put biomass at the centre of government energy policies. Because plants can sequestercarbon dioxide from the atmosphere, policymakers haveregarded plant matter as a carbon neutral feedstock forenergy production, arguing that any emissions released in

bioenergy production are re-sequestered with replanting.(See below, "The Carbon Neutral Myth") In 2008, theInternational Energy Authority (IEA) reckoned that biomass-derived energy represented 77% of global renewable energy production.45

4. Patriot Dreams: Energy independence

In the U.S. at least, the idea of a home-grown bioeconomy as a patriotic bulwark against terrorism and oil wars has popularappeal. By reducing dependence on foreign oil, the mantragoes, biofuels and bioplastics strengthen national sovereignty while withdrawing funds from extremist petro-states. Thisnotion cuts across political lines, tapping into anti-warsentiment on the left and jingoism and security fears on theright.

5. Leapfrog Dreams: Clean developmentand the green jobs movement

How can you help poorer economies develop while avoiding the dirty industries and resource consumption of thedeveloped world? Thats the supposed dilemma that advocatesof environmental leapfrogging set out to square by using newtechnologies to create cleaner, greener development. At theUN level, this idea has taken form in UNEPs GreenEconomy vision. (See below, "The Green Economy")Meanwhile, an emerging green jobs movement argues thatthe green technologies of the bioeconomy can rescue astagnating North American and European industrial workforce.

6. Geek Dreams: Converging technologiesand cleantech

Converging technologies refers to the way in whichseemingly distinct technological fields such asnanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology androbotics can combine to create a powerful hybrid technology platform. In European science policy circles, it is proposed thatconverging technologies could be principally directed tosustainable applications such as bioenergy and climatetechnologies to drive economic growth.46

A Grab, not a SwitchAttributing the recent rise of the bioeconomy andburgeoning interest in biomass to green-minded ornationalistic consciousness only is to assume wronglthe captains of large corporations and OECD economare moved by such concerns. As with any previousindustrial transition, whats behind the dash to biomanot high ideals but the calculated interest of the corpbottom line. Far from changing to a new economy, thbiomass transition describes the retooling of the sam

economy of production, consumption, capitalaccumulation, and exploitation only now a new soof carbon is being plundered to keep the industrialmachines going.

In economic terms, the effect of turning cellulose andother sugars into viable feedstocks for fuels, chemicaelectricity is to imbue previously unprofitable grasseseaweed and branches with profit potential. Moresignificantly, any land or body of water that can sustcellulosic plants acquires an enhanced value as a potsource of biomass, a fact that is already accelerating global land grab that was originally undertaken to sefood supplies. If the biomass coup is successful, thentechnologies of biomass transformation (particularlynanotech, biotech and synthetic biology) become vakeys to extracting value, and elevating the industriescontrol them.

It is no coincidence that the most dogged proponentsthe biomass economy in the past decade have been nenvironmental NGOs, but large biotech, chemical,forestry and agribusiness corporations.



Counting the Bioma$$ EconomyTurning straw (and other cellulose) into (financial) gold is notnew. A 2008 report from the USDA points out that worldwide, over $400 billion worth of products are already produced annually from biomass including pulp and paper,lumber, paints, greases and lubricants.47 The only consolidatedestimate publically available for how much money can be

made from the new bio-based energy, chemicals, plastics, fuelsand associated markets is from The World Economic Forumthat guesses at a $300 billion dollar market by 2020.48 Asampling of predictions (below) total around one half-trilliondollars by 2020 possibly considerably more.

Bioma$$ electricity According to Pike Research, themarket value of electricity generated from biomass in theUnited States will increase steadily to $53 billion by 2020, upfrom approximately $45 billion in 2010.49 The WorldEconomic Forum puts global value of biomass heat and powercombined at $65 billion by 2020.50

Bioma$$ fuels Pike Research claims that biodiesel andethanol markets account for $76 billion dollars in sales in2010 and that figure might rise to $247 billion by 2020. Thetotal global biofuels market could surpass $280 billion by2022.51

Bioma$$ and bio-based chemicals In 2005, McKinsey &Company estimated that bio-based materials and products(for example, bioplastics, bio-derived chemicals, and chemicalsrefined using biotechnology) accounted for 7% of global salesand $77 billion in value within the chemical sector.52 By 2008the value had increased to $170 billion and was predicted toreach $513 billion by 2020.53 A 2008 estimate by USDA(based on 2006 figures) predicted that bio-based chemicals would account for 22% of all chemical industry sales by2025.54 These figures, however, do not distinguish betweenbiomass-based chemicals and biotech-aided production. Astudy by Frost & Sullivan in March 2009 found that revenuesfor the global bio-renewable chemicals market (that ischemicals made from biomass rather than petroleum) reachedonly $1.63 billion in 2008 (only 4% of sales) but may climb to$5.01 billion by 2015.55 The World Economic Forum reportsthat bio-based chemicals are expected to increase their share inoverall chemicals production to some 9% of all chemicals by2020 citing a $6 billion figure.56 According to bullish analysisfrom Helmut KaiserConsultancy, bioplasticsalready account for 10-15% of the total plastics market andcould increase their marketshare to 25-30% by 2020.57

The Bioma$$ Boondoggle One inescapable conclusionfrom analyzing the biomass economy: at this stage its aggressive backers are governments that allocate billiodollars to subsidize biofuels, in particular. Surveys by World Bank and the Global Subsidies Initiative (GSI) that annual government subsidies for biofuels are currexcess of $15 billion and could rise to over $50 billion2020.58 For the years ahead, governments seem to havesignalled that the sky is the limit, explains GSIs DireSimon Upton. According to the World Bank, 24 counthave mandated biofuel targets, while 12 countries plusEuropean Union offer tax exemptions and credits on buse and production.59

Bioma$$ investments The emerging biomass industry positioned itself on a hot spot of venture capital fundincalled clean tech. A study by Lux Research of over 1 venture capital investments in the biosciences sectordocumented a marked upturn in investment deals in

bioenergy when the U.S. government set ethanol mand2005.60 Between 1998 and 2008, at least $4.17 billion o venture capital flowed into the field. Many of the lead venture capital firms that had bankrolled the Internet bswitched over to environmentally-friendly technologi particularly solar energy and biofuels.61 Silicon Valleys DraFisher Jurvetson, which originally funded Skype and H were among the earliest investors in synthetic biology, providing start-up capital for Craig Venters SyntheticGenomics, Inc. (focused primarily on biofuels). AnothSilicon Valley venture house, Kleiner Perkins Caufield

Byers, whose previous successes include Google, AOLAmazon.com and Sun Microsystems, had reportedly bfive different cellulosic biofuel companies by 2008,62 advisedby luminaries Al Gore and Bill Joy. Meanwhile, Bill Joformer business partner Vinod Khosla of Khosla Ventudubbed the baron of biofuels for seeding over a dozebiofuel startups, mostly in ethanol production, of whicleast five are synthetic biology companies.

According to the Renewable Energy Policy Network f21st Century (REN21), biofuels received $19.6 billionasset finance in 2007, though financing dropped to $1billion in 2008 and plummeted to just $5.6 billion in 2REN21 sees the trend reversing, however, with largeinvestments in Brazilian biofuels now underway. At th

time, private investments inbioelectricity projects haverisen from $9 billion in 20to $10.4 billion in 2009.63

Bioenergy: energy from biomass; refers to any process thattransforms biological material into energy including production and use of biofuels, generation of biomasselectricity and biomass for heating and cooking.



Where is the Money in the Biomass Economy?Projected global revenues in biomass production chain 2010

Source: The World Economic Forum predictsthe biomass economy will be worth $295billion by 2020 (values by sector, in US$ billions).

64

Biorefining inputs

$10 billion

Enzymes, Organisms& Pretreatment

chemicals

Biomassproduction

$89 billionShort rotation forestry Energy crops

Sugarcane

Biorefining

fuels

$80 billion First and second

generation biofuel production

Agricultral Inputs

$15 billion

Seeds, Crop protection& Fertilizers

Biorefining chemicals &downstream chemistry

$6 billion

Fermentation of bulk chemicals, Polymerization& Downstream

reactions

Biomass Trading

& Logistics$30 billion

Biomass aggregation, Logistics & Trading

Biomasspower & heat

$65 billionCo-firing

Dedicated CHP

What if you took half the corn stover off the fields [of Iowa], leaving half for erosion control. How much would you have in any given year? The number comes up to about 24 million tons.

If you turn 24 million tons into two cents per pound, that's a billion dollars. What if we could move it further up the value chain and take that 24 million tons and make it worth as much as an ag plastic,worth about $1.50 per pound? Then, youre talking about adding $72 billion to the states economy.

You're in essence almost doubling the state's economy. Floyd Barwig, Director, Iowa Energy Center, 200465



Whose Biomass?A tale of two bioeconomiesEvangelists of the new bioeconomy like to frame it as a returnto a previous, sustainable economy, in which humancivilization relied on the natural bounty of the present ratherthan robbing from the mineral deposits of the past. But whilethe global economy as a whole might have taken a century-long detour from that bio-based economy, billions of peopledid not. They that is, peasants, indigenous peoples, pastoralists, fisherfolk, forest dwellers and other traditionalcommunities remained independent of the hydrocarboneconomy; however, as climate change accelerates, they are paying its costs

Two centuries after the industrial revolution began burning coal, three billion people, two-thirds of whom live in theglobal South, still depend upon firewood as their primarysource of fuel for heat and cooking.66

One hundred thirty years after Edison enabled electricitydistribution, 1.6 billion people have no access to electricity whether sourced from coal, wind, water or woodchips.67

One hundred forty years after Siegfried Marcus firstattached a combustion engine to a vehicle, 2 billion peoplestill rely on animals as their main source of power foragriculture and transport; indeed, half of the farmland in theglobal South is tilled exclusively by animals.68

These biodiversity-based economies depend

on exactly the same natural resources(plants, land, water, animal products)that the new bioeconomy intends tocapture for conversion into industrialchemicals and energy. Moreover, theso-called biomass that industryintends to grab is not only alreadyused as a resource by thesecommunities, but it is alsointerdependently connected with theircultures and knowledge systems.

The Land Grab: current rush to buy land in the globalSouth. The past few years have witnessed a massiveupswing in the number of deals buying and leasing agricultural land in the tropics by Northern investors andstates. The term was coined by civil society organizationGRAIN.

Marginal Lands for Maximal Profit

Biomass advocates refer to marginaunproductive, idle, degraded abandoned lands and wastelandthe target for biomass extraction,claiming that as many as 500 millihectares of abandoned or marginal

are available worldwide for growinbiomass crops.69 Such claims appear to

based on satellite data showing areas oformer cropland. However, a closer look

these marginal lands from ground level revthat they are often where marginalized people subsfrom being abandoned or degraded, their uses are minvisible to a system that recognizes only private owneand industrial agriculture (and carries out its assessmenouter space).

Land best suited for biomass

generation (Latin America,Sub-Saharan Africa) is the least

utilized. Presentation by Steven Chu (nowU.S. Secretary of State for Energy)

at the Asia Pacific PartnershipConference, Berkeley, USA,

19 April 2006

An existing bioeconomy alreadydepends on biomass

for fuel, power and materials. Photo: Adam Jones



Table: A tale of two bioeconomiesBiomass-based economies

Homogenous - Defines plantand other organic life by lowestcommon denominators: asundifferentiated providers of feedstocks sugars, starch,cellulose, oil, etc.

Monoculture - Organizeslarge-scale sourcing of monoculture crops, plantations,forest destruction and landclearance.

Market driven - Based onindustrial transformation of biomass into bulk commoditiesfor the global market e.g.,electricity, biofuels, bulkchemicals, pharmaceuticals, textiles.

High tech - Uses, proprietary,capital-intensive technologies totransform biomass e.g., biotech,synthetic biology, syntheticchemistry. Innovation occursquickly and diffuses rapidly on alarge scale often prematurely.

Reductionist Nature is viewedin terms of its commercial valueand profit potential.

Biodiversity-based economies

Heterogenous - Defines plant life and organic lifeheterogeneously by differentiating individual species and parts of plants and animals with specific properties and uses.

Diverse - Organizes small-scalecultivation of diverse cropping andgathering of wild harvests. When itoccurs, land clearance is onrotational or shifting basis.

Subsistence driven - Based oncommunity or individualtransformation of plant and animalmaterials for personal or communityuse e.g., as medicines, food,cultural and spiritual uses.

Appropriate tech - Uses humanscale, community-centredtechnologies to transform plants e.g., drying, fermenting, cooking.Innovation may occur quickly but onsmall scales and diffuses slowly tolarger scales.

Holistic - Nature is imbued withcultural and spiritual values andoften seen as sacred.

As a coalition of CSOs reports in aninvestigation of the marginal lands mythCommunities that use these biodiversitylands for food, income, grazing and meddo not appreciate the denial of their existNor do they always agree that the converof their lands for agrofuel production wilbring development benefits.70 A study byGren Berndes, who has reviewed 17bioenergy feasibility studies, found that, reported to be degraded is often the basesubsistence for the rural population.71

For example, grasslands are described aseven when they provide subsistence to pa peoples and nomads who require extensigrazing coverage to maintain a light impdelicate ecosystems. Jonathan Davies, glcoordinator of the World Initiative for

Sustainable Pastoralism, based in NairobKenya, comments, These marginal landnot exist on the scale people think. In Afmost of the lands in question are activelymanaged by pastoralists, hunter-gathererssometimes dry land farmers.72 Davies goes oGiven the current cavalier approach to lappropriation, or the disregard of the landrights of rural inhabitants in many countris inevitable that agrofuel production wildone by large investors at the expense of

communities.Disturbingly, far from being an innocentoversight, the denial of small farmer and pastoralist rights and the grabbing of thelands appear to be part of the plan. Forexample, a 2004 report by leading Europresearchers noted that the bulk of biofuel potential comes from pasture land and asthat, A prerequisite for the bioenergy potential in all regions is that the preseinefficient and low-intensive agriculturalmanagement systems are replaced in 205the best practice agricultural managemensystems and technologies.73 In other words,remove the peasantry.

Indeed, what is clear from this emphasis targeting the lands of marginalized peoplthat the so-called new bioeconomy can otake root by displacing pre-existing bioeconomies.

I l l u s t r a t i o n : t h e B e e h i v e C o l l e c t i v e



A Land Grab for BiomassThe vision we have is there is a fantastic opportunityto help some of the African countries to develop newindustry by reallyum...er...exploring some of the agricultural land they have and creating fantastic employment opportunities. I look at it as this is thebest opportunity for the tropics to benefit from thedemand of many of the developing countries and thedeveloped world. John Melo, CEO of Amyris, Inc.74

In 2008, the civil society organization GRAIN lifted the lidon a massive intensification of farmland acquisitions across theglobal South by rich states and foreign private investors.75 Two years later, a World Bank report, relying on GRAINs research,counted 464 projects covering at least 46.6 million hectares of land, largely in sub-Saharan Africa.76 According to GRAIN,

those driving the land grab in large part investors seeking asafe haven for their money amidst crashing financial markets are seeking to buy land cheaply and make it economically productive in a short period of time, allowing them to realizeas much as 400% return on investment within as few as 10 years.77

The emerging biomass economy, with its promise of turning bountiful sugars, cellulose and oil crops into high-valuecommodities, provides clear incentive for land grabbing.Indeed, a 2010 Friends of the Earth analysis of land grabs in11 African countries found that at least five million hectares of land an area the size of Denmark is already being acquired by foreign companies to producebiofuels mainly for Northern markets.78

The World Bank calculates that 21% of land grab projects are biofuel-driven79

and explicitly acknowledges thatNorthern policies, such as biofuelmandates, have played a key role:Biofuel mandates may have largeindirect effects on land use change, particularly converting pasture andforest land, with global landconversion for biofuel feedstocksexpected to range between 18 and 44million hectares by 2030.80

A New Trade in Biomass Shipping ChiWood is very quickly becoming a very importan

part of the energy mix and in a few years will be a global commodity much like oil. Heinrich Unland, Chief Executive Officer of NEnergy GmbH, Germany82

The land grab for biofuels is only a part ofcorporate grab on Southern land and

resources. This is already underway cellulose (and woody biomass in particular) takes on increasing

industrial value. Perhaps the cleaexample is the emergence of a gtrade in wood chips, wood pelleand sawdust as a commodityfeedstock for biomass burners to

produce electricity. This trade iscurrently relatively small and most

within Europe (70% in Baltic stateshowever, a recent industry report fores

an 80 to 150-fold increase in the coming years,83 with industry admitting that there will

likely be a move to produce pellets (compacted sawdufast growing energy crops, ultimately fuelling deforest

The expansionof biofuels on our

continent is transforming forests and natural vegetation into fuel crops,

taking away food-growing farmland from communities, and creating conflicts

with local people over land ownership. Marianne Bassey, food and agriculture

coordinator for EnvironmentalRights Action/Friends of the

Earth Nigeria.81

Miscanthus Giganteus, a tall weedy grass, is one of the most popular 'energy grasses' now promoted to

farmers as a biomass crop. Photo: Bruce M Walker



According to industry estimates, wood pellet production, which was virtually non-existent 15 years ago, reachedapproximately 10 million tons in 2008. It is expected todouble within the coming 4-5 years and some industry expertsforecast an annual growth of 25-30% globally over the nextten years.84 Europes mandated targets for fuel from biomass in particular are driving the search for cheaper woodchips in theglobal South as well as sourcing from the United States.

MagForest, a Canadian company operating in theDemocratic Republic of the Congo, is reportedly shipping 500,000 tonnes of wood chips annually to Europe.

IBIC Ghana Limited claims it can export 100,000 tonnes of tropical hardwood and softwood every month from Ghanaas biomass feedstock.

U.S.-based Sky Trading is offering to supply up to 600,000tonnes of woodchips as biomass from the United States orBrazil.

According to documents reviewed by TheGlobal Forest Coalition, Brazil is gearing up to meet the European woodchipdemand by expanding tree plantationsby 27 million hectares, mostly of exotic species like eucalyptus.85

Energy crops Changes downon the farm

Though bioeconomy advocates claim thatmoving to cellulosic biofuels wont harmfood production, nonetheless some pretty majorchanges are scheduled down on the farm. The intentionto remove more straw and stover as well as to increase theamount of land devoted to energy crops (or e-crops) as a viable farm commodity will significantly change land-use patterns and farm systems and introduce additional stresses onrural landscapes.

According to Jack Huttner, formerly of DuPont DaniscoCellulosic Ethanol and now Executive Vice President of Commercial & Public Affairs at U.S.-based Gevo, which isdeveloping next-generation biofuels, making cellulosic biofuels viable requires not only building hundreds of biorefineries butalso surrounding each one with thousands of acres of land planted with energy crops such as prairie grass. We're talking about a fairly substantial transformation of the rural economiclandscape, Huttner told BusinessWeek in 2009. Biofuelscompanies will have to organize farmers to grow millions of acres of a dedicated energy crop like switchgrass.

I'm concerned about organizing basically a new econsaid, explaining that big players, not small companies,only ones that have the capacity to make that happen.87

Harvesting, baling, drying and storing vast quantities ocellulosic grasses and corn stover also raise new challeSome of the first profits in the new bioeconomy appeato flow to equipment manufacturers such as farm equipmaker John Deere, which recently signed a researchcollaboration agreement with Monsanto and Archer DMidland to capture crop residues. Packing harvested sttightly enough to be transported economically to a pro plant, for example, turns out to be a major hurdle as densuring that the collected biomass dries enough to sto without gathering mould and does not contain soil thainterfere with fermentation processes. Sam Acker, direharvesting & precision farming marketing at Case IH NAmerica, told Corn and Soybean Digest in November

that it may be difficult for stover to become a

ethanol feedstock based on moisture anddensification challenges.88

Nor is it clear that the new energygrasses, such as miscanthus orswitchgrass, are benign for agri-ecosystems. In September 2006 ateam of researchers writing inScience pointed out that such grasses arehighly likely to become invasive

species. Most of the traits that aretouted as great for biofuel crops

known pests or diseases, rapid growthigh water-use efficiency are red fla

invasion biologists, said Robert N. Wiedenmann, a professor of entomology at the

University of Arkansas who points to Sorghum halepe Johnsongrass, as an example of a seemingly benign introduced into U.S. agriculture that became invasive acauses up to $30 million a year in losses to the cotton soybean industries in three states alone.89

In August 2009, the U.S. federal advisory board on inv

species sounded its own alarm. Absent strategic mitigefforts, there is substantial risk that some biofuel cropsescape cultivation and cause socio-economic and/or echarm, warned the Invasive Species Advisory Commit white paper, Cultivating Energy Not invasive Species90

The paper points out that [c]ertain plant species propobiofuel production (e.g., reed canarygrass [Phalarisarundinacea], giant reed [Arundo donax], and miscant[Miscanthus sinensis]) are already invasive in regionsU.S. and/or elsewhere in the world.

I thinkthe biggest problem

for everybody is how arewe going to grow, gather,

store, and treat the biomass. Brent Erickson, lobbyist forthe Biotechnology Industry

Organization.86



Worryingly, the committee stopped short of advising againstusing invasive energy crops, recommending instead thatbreeders of such crops incorporate desirable traits to avoidinvasiveness such as sterility or reduced seed production,inability to regenerate by stem fragments.91 While this refers primarily to the development of sterile cultivars of miscanthusthrough hybridization, such language may also prove adangerous invitation to equip biofuel crops with so-calledgenetic use restriction technologies (GURTS) such asTerminator technology.

The Carbon Neutral MythMany regulators and negotiators at international climameetings now operate on the false assumption that bioenergy does not contribute to global warming becausecarbon released from biomass can theoretically be re-freplacement plants. Its a nice theory that breaks downexamination. Consider the following:

Burning biomass can release more CO2 than fossil fuels.This is because much more biomass needs to be burne

achieve the same energy output. According to thegovernments Energy Information Agency, b

hardwoods produces slightly less CO2 per enerunit than coal, but much more than oil oIndeed some analysts assert that smokeemissions from burning biomass are ehigher than burning coal when the hum(the amount of water still left in thebiomass) is high.93

Carbon dioxide from biomass is releasedquickly but may take decades to re-sequester.

When burned for energy, a mature tree (80-10old) takes minutes to release its full load of carbon i

atmosphere, but its replacement, if grown, takes a full to re-sequester that carbon. For those 100 years, the CO2 is stialoft in the atmosphere helping push the climate towar point of dangerous change, and yet carbon accountingtreat it as non-existent. (See below, A Serious GlobalAccounting Error) Bioeconomy advocates propose r

mature trees with fast growing varieties such as poplareucalyptus, claiming these are more efficient carbon siold forests. Such claims have been roundly rejected in years, and the new orthodoxy is that old growth forestbetter than new growth at storing atmospheric carbon.94

Disturbing soils and changing land use to grow or harvestbiomass results in large greenhouse gas emissions. Just thetop 100 cm of soil worldwide is believed to store an es1555 billion tonnes of carbon, held in microbes, plant organic compounds present in soil aggregates, insects soil fauna.95 This is more than twice (2.5 times) the amoustored in all worldwide terrestrial surface plants and absame magnitude as the amount already in the atmosphDisturbance of these soils for industrial agriculture,deforestation and chemically intensive monoculture plas well as other land-use changes is one of the largest carbon emissions. Even the very conservative 2006 Steon the economic costs of climate change estimated tha2000, land use change was the second largest source oemissions, after the power sector.96

CO2 emissions from different fuel typesAmount of CO2 from the smokestack or tailpipewhen burning fuel to produce 1 million BTUs:

0 100kg CO2 / MMBtuSources: (1) Annual Energy Outlook 2010 with Projections to 2035 May 11 2010 http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/carbon_dioxide.html

(2) EIA Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Program Fuel Carbon Dioxide Emission Coefficients, online at

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/coefficients.html

97.10

90.65

88.45

73.84

73.15

70.88

70.88

65.88

53.06

Bituminous coal

Municipal solid waste

Dry wood biomass

Biodiesel

Diesel fuel

Motor gasoline

Jet fuel

Ethanol

Pipeline natural gas

Carbon Neutral: net zero emissions of carbondioxide; refers to processes that overall do notadd extra carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.Biomass proponents claim that industrialuse of biomass is carbon neutral becausegrowing plants fix carbon dioxide so thatbiomass-based processes absorb whatever

carbon dioxide they put out. This ismisleading and usually inaccurate.

We clutch at straws (and other

biomass) in our desperation to believe there

is an easy way out. George Monbiot,

The Guardian,200992



According to Stern, a full 18 percent of GHG emissions werethe result of land-use changes, with deforestation the largestcontributor, accounting for over 8 billion tonnes of carbondioxide per year.97 Removing cellulosic material from fields isliable to further degrade soils, reducing their ability to storecarbon. Studies have shown that U.S. agricultural soils, forexample, have already lost between 30% and 50% of theirorganic carbon since cultivation began (little over a centuryago in many cases). A 2009 paper shows that removing anylevel of stover (unharvested stalks) that are usually ploughedback into fields would further lower soil carbon levels as wellas reduce yields in subsequent years.98

Agricultural production and transport of biomassfeedstocks is greenhouse gas intensive.According to analysisby the civil society group GRAIN, the industrial food andagriculture system is the leading cause of climate change,generating 44-57% of total global greenhouse gas (GHG)emissions.99 This estimate includes land clearance, the energy

used for seed production, machinery to drill, harvest andtransport production, irrigation, emissions from animals, anddisturbance of soils from the production and use of pesticidesand fertilizers. Forest destruction and plantation managementare also associated with major greenhouse gas emissionsincluding from the transport and use of cutting and hauling equipment. Hauling biomass by truck wastes more energythan transporting coal, oil or gas because of the low energycontent of the biomass itself. This is particularly true of biomass intended for production of biofuels and bio-basedchemicals rather than for bioelectricity. Converting to these

end products has a poorer energy conversion rate thancombustion and there is generally also a residue left over thatneeds to be hauled away adding to the overall energy cost.

Taking cellulosic material from fields for biomass willrequire more fertilizers to maintain soil fertility. Nitrogen phosphate based fertilizers release nitrous oxide agreenhouse gas 298 times more potent than CO2.

100 Globaluse of fertilizers has already risen 31% between 1996 and 2008due in part to agrofuel cultivation.101 Besides their own directemissions impact, fertilizers are energy intensive (and hencecarbon intensive) to produce and apply in the first place. A1998 study102 estimated that fertilizer production isresponsible for approximately 1.2% of total GHG emissions equivalent to the full greenhouse gas emissions of Indonesia orBrazil. In the U.S. alone, fertilizer use and production accountfor thirty percent of energy use in agriculture. Fertilizers canalso exert a further (indirect) impact on greenhouse gasconcentrations when nitrates leaching from fertilized fieldsform oceanic dead zones that may also be releasing enormousquantities of CO2, methane and nitrous oxide.

Vegetation removal for biomass can also worsen climatechange by changing the amount of heat that is kept in theatmosphere. In Australia, for example, scientists estimathe loss of native vegetation reduced cloud formation ameant that less heat was being reflected back to spaceexacerbated the impacts of recent climate related drouraising the temperature an additional 2-3 degrees celsiuAustralia these changes contributed to the collapse inagricultural productivity for the region.103

A Serious Global Accounting ErrorMany national and international policy instruments to climate change are based on the false assumption that derived from biomass is intrinsically carbon neutral. of this common mistake lies in the carbon accounting practices enshrined in the UN Framework ConventionClimate Change (UNFCCC).

In 2001, the scientific body advising the UNFCC, the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) fidescribed the use of biomass for energy as Low-carbsupply systems and baldly stated that [l]iquid biofuesubstituted for fossil fuels will directly reduce CO2 emissionsTherefore, a combination of bioenergy production withcarbon sink options can result in maximum benefit fromitigation strategies.104 By 2007 the IPCCs enthusiasm hdampened a bit: Biofuels might play an important roladdressing GHG emissions in the transport sector, depon their production pathway.105



Nonetheless, the impression had been well established in theminds of policy makers that promoting biomass energy uses innational strategies was a legitimate, and relatively easy, route tofulfilling commitments related to climate change.

Indeed, the rules for calculating carbon emissions under theKyoto Protocol currently go as far as to exempt entirelybiomass energy as a source of emissions, regardless of how thebiomass is sourced and how much additional carbon isreleased in that production process. This was the result of adecision made by the IPCC to count the carbon emissionsassociated with making bioenergy as part of land use changes,rather than counting it under energy uses (to avoid doublecounting). However the Kyoto Protocol only countedemissions from energy and so biomass energy got a free pass.This exception sets up a powerful economic incentive fornations to switch to the cheapest biomass energy sourcesavailable in order to meet carbon dioxide emissions targets andearn carbon credits. According to one recent modeling study,

the policy of exempting biomass-derived energy fromemissions counting could drive nations to displace virtually allthe worlds natural forests and savannahs with bioenergy crops.Such massive displacement of forests would release potentiallyhundreds of billions of tonnes of carbon during a shorttimescale (less than 20 years) a scenario that would drivecatastrophic biodiversity loss and dangerous climate change within less than a century.106

That prospect has so alarmed even proponents of biomassenergy that in October 2009 thirteen scientists and policyexperts, some of them closely identified with the originalKyoto accounting protocols, warned that the exemption of biomass from carbon accounting protocols was a far-reaching and serious flaw in the global climate agreement.107

They proposed that this accounting error could be fixed if emissions from biomass energy were measured at the tailpipeor smokestack just like fossil fuels and that any sequestrationbenefits should be separately measured and credited byaccounting the actual land management and production practices for different biofuels and biomass technologies.Drawing an analogy with the recent financial crisis, theauthors mostly advocates of cellulosic biofuels hinted thatthis issue of false accounting might eventually discredit theentire biomass agenda. Just like with financial audits, itsimportant for carbon audits to be correct from the start, saidMichigan State University professor and co-author PhilipRobertson. The promise of cellulosic biofuels is huge for ourclimate and economy. We dont want to find out later that weve built a new industry on a house of cards.108

Trading Biomass-based CarbonNot only has the UNFCCC falsely blessed biomass as neutral in its emissions accounting, the convention hasup institutional mechanisms to financially reward the gof the new biomass economy. While reducing nationalgreenhouse gas emissions (primarily carbon dioxide) hthe centerpiece of the Kyoto Protocol, delegates in the

negotiations acquiesced to proposals by the United Staintroduce so called flex mex (flexible mechanisms) t would allow trading in emissions allowances within anestablished and tightening cap as well as options to mobiological and geological carbon sinks within thosemechanisms.109

Article 3.3 of the Convention further allows states to rcredits or debits on their emissions reductions dependihow they managed their own carbon sinks. By sinks advocates of the flex mex had in mind that plants, sooceans naturally sequester carbon dioxide from theatmosphere and therefore argued that measures to protenhance sinks, such as growing more trees or reducingerosion, should receive tradable credits. These credits issued, for example, under the new Clean DevelopmeMechanism (CDM) of the Protocol or under what are as joint implementation projects. In particular, the CDencourages investment by Northern companies and stasequestration or climate mitigation projects located in global South.

Although agriculture and forest projects were initially

restrained to satisfy only a small part of CDM projects2001 more loopholes were opened in the flex mex, allfor biomass in existing forests to be more easily creditmonetized. Bioenergy firms and biobased chemical cohave since been diligent in lobbying for the CDM to eits financing to all parts of the biomass economy. Frommethodologies were approved for financing the producelectricity from burning plantation residues such as subagasse, rice husks and palm oil fruit bunches. FromSeptember 2006, the CDM accepted the use of biomashot water production. From 2009, projects that produc

biodiesel on so-called degraded lands also became eliCDM credits. In February 2010 the CDM board furtheapproved granting credits to electricity power plants foburning biomass, including coal-fired power stations thfire with biomass.110



As of October 2010, 705 biomass projects were eitherapproved or seeking approval for 45 million certified carboncredits under the CDM mechanism, with India (318 projects),China (101 projects) and Brazil (94 projects) taking thegreatest share. That amounts to 12.75% of all CDM projects,third only to wind and hydropower projects.111 At current prices, these credits would be worth around one-half billiondollars adding to the overall value of the biomass economy.112

Meanwhile an unregulated voluntary carbon credit industryhas emerged outside of the Kyoto framework withent

The New Biomassters - Synthetic Biology and The Next Assault on Biodiversity and Livelihoods

Documents

Transcript of The New Biomassters - Synthetic Biology and The Next Assault on Biodiversity and Livelihoods