Varanasi is considered the holiest place on the Ganges River

Please consider them an endangered species,

these people who still have this faith, this living relationship with the river,” pleads Veer Bhadra Mishra, Mahant of the Sankat Mochan Temple of Varanasi, a retired hydraulic engineer and head of the Civil Engineering Department at Banaras Hindu University. “If birds can be saved, if plants can be saved, let this species of people be saved by granting them holy water.”

Veer Bhadra Mishra A Mahant who wants to clean the holy Ganges

But this priest, coming from the riverside laboratory, knows that the Ganges or Ganga River’s holy water must be cleaned before it can be granted to anyone. For almost 25 years, he has led a political campaign, a scientific development project and a holy crusade to save India’s most sacred river.

When his father died, Mishra was 14 years old. He thus became Mahant of the sect of Hinduism that follows sixteenth-century divine poet Tulsi Das, author of the “Ramayana,” one of the most revered Hindu texts. To devotees and to all Hindus– over a billion people worldwide– the Ganga is a living mother goddess, a symbol of purity.

Originally Banaras (Varanasi) was known as Kashi, the holy city from Hindu scriptures. Only here, for 7 kilometers, the river turns northward, back towards her source. It is said that the river fell in love with the city and nearly turned back here. The half loop northwards creates the curved bank where the ghats (stairs close to the river) stand today.

Ganga flows some 2,500 km from the Himalayan Mountains to the Bay of Bengal. Her basin is inhabited by nearly 400 million people, making it the most populous river basin in the world. Each sunrise brings 60,000 people, come to bathe and pray at the various ghats of Varanasi. It is believed that if a person’s ashes are placed in the Ganga after cremation, they will go to Nirvana (Heaven).

Prayers along the Ganges

Therefore, human ashes, and often corpses of those who cannot afford cremation, are immersed in the river. And although the river is sacred, it is used practically for washing clothes and animals, the disposal of chemical waste from textile dying and brass making industries, and solid waste like plastic bags, flower garlands etc. Yet the biggest cause of pollution is untreated sewage. 88% of the pollution comes from 27 cities from along the banks of the Ganga.

Dr. Veer Bhadra Mishra is the co-founder of the Sankat Mochan Foundation (SMF), a secular, non-governmental organization at Tulsi Ghat in Varanasi dedicated to cleaning and protecting the Ganga, especially from sewage since 1982.

The Indian government initiated the first stage of an unrelated Ganga Action Plan (GAP) to clean the river in 1984. Three sewage treatment plants and an electric crematorium were built. Although the major part of the GAP was completed in 1991, testing shows no significant improvement in water quality, not to mention major design flaws, including the backflow of sewage into religious bathing areas, pollution of groundwater throughout the district and backflow of sewage into the streets of the city. The electric crematorium is now used for 80% of cremations, but is plagued by frequent breakdowns which again result in bodies in the water.

The former director of the GAP himself, K.C. Sivaramakrisnan, said, “In spite of working on this plan for 10-15 years, I do not see the levels of maturity increasing.” The Sankat Mochan Foundation established the Swatcha (clean) Ganga campaign, with funding and support primarily from the United States, Sweden, Britain and Australia. With this outside support Dr. Mishra is able to analyze water quality of the Ganga.

The riverside Swatcha Ganga Research Laboratory monitors water quality daily. Local villages are also suffering from the effects of extreme sewage pollution in their water supply, both from the river and well water. The recent tests indicate faecal coliform levels in the wells of theses villages ranges from 21,000 to 80,000 colonies per 100ml. The safe level for drinking water is zero, for bathing water, less than 150 colonies per 100ml.

Faecal coliform are a bacteria found in the intestinal system of warm-blooded animals; their presence in large numbers indicates pollution by sewage contamination.

Every morning in Varanasi 60,000 worshipers bathe in the Ganges

The statistics for the ghats of Varanasi are not much better. Here the fecal coliform count at times is up to 3,000 times the level acceptable for human beings.

People who are dependent on the river for their water supply often become sick from drinking the water, with hepatitis, typhoid or cholera. According to WorldWatch Institute in Washington D.C., eight out of ten people in India suffer waterborne stomach disorders at some time in their lives.

The Sankat Mochan Foundation has mobilized volunteers from all over the world. Aside from the laboratory, they have led a large-scale international awareness campaign, utilizing television, radio, print media and the internet. Dr. Mishra has traveled the world learning about the plight of rivers and how activists and scientists have tried to clean them; he hopes that his work for the Ganga will inspire others to clean the waterways they depend on for life.

Among others, he has worked with Thames21, an environmental group in Great Britain. Swatcha Ganga Environmental Education Centre was started by Oz GREEN and the Sankat Mochan Foundation In 1998. It is a direct people to people project which is funded by Australians. They have provided equipment, training and environmental education resources like water testing kits to schools and community groups. The Asia Foundation, based in San Francisco has also provided core funding for the Sankat Mochan Foundation’s cleaning project.

THE GANGES / BRAHMAPUTRA WATERSHED

Varanasi, in the heart of the Ganges Watershed, is also the epicenter of a new scientific & spiritual movement to eliminate pollution from this sacred river Yellow areas = elevation over 200 meters Map Scale: 100 pixels = 500 kilometers

Since 2001, campaigners have also cleaned up litter, debris and corpses of humans and animals in the river and along all 77 ghats with their own hands. Numerous sources credit them with improving the situation by one third. The Sankat Mochan Foundation has also built tubewells in six neighboring villages, providing clean drinking water to residents who were previously ill from drinking the water of the Ganga.

With the help of William Oswald, an engineering professor at the University of California at Berkeley, Dr. Mishra has developed a plan to clean the Ganga. In his own words, it is “a cost-effective and safe system for cleaning the Varanasi stretch.” It is called an advanced integrated wastewater oxidation pond system.

The non-electric wastewater system would store sewage for 45 days in biological oxidation ponds, using bacteria and algae to eliminate pesticides, heavy metals and deadly coliforms, cleansing the entire 7 kilometer stretch. The system would not only purify water but could be used to irrigate farmland and grow fish. The ponds would be built outside the city limits.

Powered by gravity, the system would save an estimated US$ 55 million annually compared to electrical solutions - which are impractical in Varanasi anyway due to frequent power cuts.

Foundation Members have spoken to the thousands of residents along the river front and in the villages nearby, and more than 6,500 local people have signed a petition demanding the interceptor be built. Over 100,000 people have agreed to help build the dam walls for the oxidation ponds, as an act of religious devotion dedicated to cleaning the river. Nearly 10,000 local residents have volunteered to build the type of non-electrical wastewater treatment system advocated by the campaign. The Varanasi City Corporation has accepted the plans and the funds are available (about 40 million sterling) but, according to the SMF, the Uttar Pradesh state government is behaving unconstitutionally and blocking Varanasi City Corporation’s plan to clean the Ganga.

In 1994, the 74th amendment to the Indian constitution was adopted, guaranteeing the city’s right to determine and implement environmental policies. While the political standoff continues, the river and its people continue to suffer.

Clean Ganga Day 2004 was held in New Delhi, the political capital of India, on the 27 th of August. The political and environmental issues were discussed by international diplomats and activists.

Veer Bhadra Mishra Scientist & Holy Man

Addressing participants on Clean Ganga Day, organized by Varanasi’s Sankat Mochan Foundation, the U.S. Embassy’s Deputy Chief of Mission Robert O. Blake said, “The American people are proud to support your ongoing work to protect this beautiful waterway.”

Although Dr. Mishra is an engineer, it is his faith and his heart that keeps him going in this lifelong plight. He says, “We have to clean all the rivers, and only then our hearts will be happy. This is what I feel. It cannot be clean just by technology, just by setting up the right kind of infrastructure, there has to be an intermixing of culture, faith, science and technology. We have that kind of living relationship with the river. You [Western societies] have the best technology. So both the societies need to interact with each other to take care of these rivers.”

Dr. Mishra was recognized on the United Nations Environmental Program’s Global 500 Roll of Honour in 1992 at Rio, Brazil, and was a TIME Magazine “Hero of the Planet” recipient in 1999.

Rather than claim visionary status, however, Mishra chooses to raise the standard for all of us: “This is not visionary,” he says. “It is simply essential. To aim for less would not be worthy of us as human beings.”

To help with the Swatcha Ganga Campaign, or for more information contact:

Telephone: 91-542-313884

Fax: 91-542-314278

Postal address

Tulsi Ghat, Varanasi - 221 005, INDIA

Electronic mail

General Information: vbmishra@altavista.net

In Australia: ozgreen@ozgreen.org.au

About the Authors: Brook and Gaurav Bhagat are writers and independent filmmakers based in Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India.

Teak planted around mother trees Finca Leola, Costa Rica

In spite of what we’ve done, no matter how much noise we make about it, we are not slowing down deforestation. It keeps escalating. To explain why, as I have come to understand things since moving to Costa Rica to do reforestation, let me start by telling a story. It could be set in almost any country in the tropics.

There was a farmer in a place where there was land for the taking. All that was necessary was to go out and clear the forest and plant a crop. He worked very hard, as cutting down the trees was backbreaking and the climate was hot and humid. Often he and his neighbors would just burn the trees. They weren’t all that valuable, since the jungle went on seemingly forever. Life was a struggle, with the poor farmer on one side and the animals and plants of the forest on the other.

The farmer had a big family with many sons and daughters, and of course, so did his neighbors. When his sons grew up, well, there was always the forest where they could go and carve out their own farms, adding to the land that their father would leave them. Eventually, as chainsaws and other power equipment came into use, the work became easier, but it still was very hard. It did make it possible for the farmer’s descendents to clear more land much quicker. Also, people started offering to buy the trees, producing added income. They were not paying what the trees were worth, but to the family, it represented a great deal of money.

Later, large logging companies formed that created roads and rapidly cleared the forest. The expanding family only had to go to a piece of cleared land and start a farm. Often they would use it to graze cattle year-round, raising cheap beef for richer countries of the world where the grass dies off every winter.

After several generations, the forests had noticeably shrunk, and there was no more free land. Now, whatever lands a family owned were divided among the offspring, but the families were still large. Even though the few remaining forests were protected by law, families living around them poached wood during the night to provide for their needs. Things were very hard, but the worst was to come.

Deforested Hillsides Cannot Hold the Rains

A major hurricane swept through the area, bringing strong winds and an incredible amount of water. In the past, the forest had buffered the wind and helped lessen the impact of the flooding so that even though crops might be lost, few people died. The roots of the trees held the soil in place and slowed down the rush of water - but now the forest was gone.

With the land bared of trees, thousands died in the floods and landslides. The farmer could not have known, but when he started clearing the land for his farm, he was setting events in place that would wipe out his lineage. Because he did not understand all that trees do, he removed their protection from his family.

The outcome of this story is based on what happened in badly deforested Haiti during September 2004. Although we don’t have to worry about hurricanes in our inland location in Costa Rica, the country has seen its share of homes and buildings wiped out by mudslides, and some people have been buried in them.

You may never have cut down a tree, so you may feel that you haven’t contributed to deforestation. How much harm could you personally have caused by your use of nonrenewable wood products and the amount of carbon you send out into the atmosphere? Not that much, really. But multiply yourself by billions, and the forests cannot keep up. The harsh reality is that they are not keeping up.

To illustrate the point, look at the photo below that I took in our neighborhood. It’s a line of leaf-cutter ants. They aren’t very big, but all tropical gardeners dread them. Leaf-cutters harvest leaves and take them back to their mound to cultivate into the fungi that they eat. You can tell where they’ve been, because they cut a swath through any grassy area along their trail and leave the plants bare where they do their harvesting. Many a gardener has left his place for a couple of days and come back to find his vegetable plantings wiped out. No single one of them does very much damage, but as a colony, they devastate a large area.

Leaf Cutter Ants - No single ant does much damage

The world population is much like the leaf-cutters. Each one of us singly does very little damage. The office where I am writing this is paneled in hardwood. To panel the entire house we live in, the builder used probably three good-size trees. Not really much of an issue, if it weren’t for our sheer numbers. Just in Costa Rica, since WW II, the population has gone from 800,000 to more than four million.

In the early 1970s, in the small town of San Miguel where our partner grew up, a mill was built. It used a stream to turn the wheel. Now, it looks silly and sad. There’s the mill, with a wheel that doesn’t even come close to touching the water. In fact, there isn’t enough flow of water in the stream to turn the wheel, even if it did touch. I assure you, they did not build a mill where there was not enough water, but today, because of the loss of the forest, the stream is less than half its former size.

Living in the northeastern United States, I was far removed from seeing such effects of deforestation. Go look down any street and visualize it as dense forest. It probably once was, but how often do you think about it? I know I didn’t. Years ago, we lived in a very cold part of the United States. We needed to heat our home, which had a wood stove. For us to heat the home with oil would have run about 200 dollars per month, or most of our income. So, a friend offered to let us cut wood on his property. For two summers, I cut about 8 cords of wood and split it so that we could heat our house. Besides the cost of hauling the wood and the fuel for the chainsaw, the wood was free for the taking, and I never worried about taking it.

Now, living in Costa Rica, I hear constantly about landslides and floods and see a lot of muddy rivers due to severe runoff. When I see waterways that come from headwaters still surrounded by forest, the rivers and streams are crystal clear. We have a river on Finca Leola, and whether it is clear or dirty does not depend solely on what we do on the plantation, but what our neighbors upstream are doing also. Costa Rica has enacted laws that no tree may be cut within 50 meters of a stream or river. But with 25% of wood harvested here being done so illegally, the waterways are being further compromised. Believe it or not, Costa Rica, where much of the climate is rainforest, is having problems supplying drinking water.

When trees are gone, the land washes away

The damage to the hillsides and waterways in places like Haiti and Costa Rica may be the most visible results of deforestation, but the worldwide impact of population growth is staggering. Even though the rate may be slowing down, it still is projected to reach 9 billion people. At least 7.2 million hectares (18 million acres) of ancient forest are already being cut each year to provide things like flooring, underlay, paneling, furniture, and cabinetry.

There are other, lower-profile yet global areas of impact. One online discussion group for shipbuilders was trying to come up with a suitable wood they could use that isn’t endangered. Their conclusion? It’s impossible to be a shipbuilder and be “green.” Then there are the miles and miles of coastal boardwalks, traditionally made from a tropical hardwood tree sometimes called ipe. Rainforest species grow scattered, not in stands, so to get to just one ipe and harvest it typically requires leveling as much as an acre of forest.

If you live an average lifestyle in the USA, the amount of carbon dioxide you produce per year is 40,000 pounds, according to the EPA. This is an accumulation of all the activities in your life, not just breathing. The bulk of it is from using fossil fuels to generate electricity and run your car. The US “ant colony” of 5% of the world’s population is responsible for 25% of the carbon dioxide released in the world. Carbon dioxide has to be tied back up (sequestered) somehow, and we’ve already reached the point where the shrinking forests can’t do the job. Yet in 1990, 100 acres per minute of forest were being cut down, and by 2004, that figure rose to 149 acres per minute.

To the farmer in my opening story, the forest seemed inexhaustible, encroaching. But nothing on this earth is inexhaustible. Only about half the world’s original forests are left.

#1 - PASTURE & REMNANT FOREST

Ready to reforest: Pastureland with forest to 50 meters from river; also some large (mother) trees in fields.

It doesn’t take very long to cut down a tree, but it takes decades to replace it. Reforestation is not happening fast enough. And other than in national parks and forest preserves, it is not normally a long-term proposition. The reason is that, eventually, the owner of reforested land will have to sell it or pass it on, and it may go to someone who doesn’t feel that conservation and reforestation are all that important. Trees often outlive people, and someone may eventually yield to the temptation to harvest them unless they are protected somehow.

In Costa Rica, until only about 15 years ago, you could secure free land by improving it. The easiest way to improve the land was to chop down the forest. The forest was considered wasted or unused land. In fact, Costa Rica had to pass laws to prevent squatters from having the right to take over land that was being allocated for reforestation, because it seemed to them to be neglected.

Our goal on the Finca Leola S.A. tree plantation is to move back in the other direction: to go from pasture to perpetual forest, with a plantation as the first cycle, or interim step. Returning farmland to forest takes creative thinking for those of us with limited resources. We have a two-phase plan: taking pasture to plantation, then plantation to perpetual forest. The first phase will pay for the second, and the second phase will pay to maintain itself.

#2 - TREE PLANTATION

Fields filled in with rows of plantation trees; space has been left around mother trees & forest.

In the plantation phase, we grow trees for ourselves and others as an investment. You can find out on our Web site how to have us raise tropical hardwoods for you and help you sell the wood. We are taking this approach because in this way we can afford to secure more farms around us for reforestation. After the plantation trees are harvested, the land will revert to forest. It’s as if the trees themselves are working to bring back their habitat.

Already, because of owning land for our current plantation, we are expanding the natural forest around the rivers, streams, and swamps. Also, we have done a very unusual thing: All of the big, lone trees in the middle of the pastures, ojoche, laurel, corteza, and other rare species, have been left standing and the plantation trees planted around them. This means that we are preserving the seed stock, or mother trees. There are about 200 mature trees in the areas that we are planting. Some will need to be harvested over the years due to their age, but most will still be there in 25 years, bigger than ever.

#3 - HARVEST SOME TREES

Half the plantation trees harvested; native trees replace plantation trees; mother trees bigger; forest spreads.

So, when you purchase trees with us, you are doing more than just providing some reforestation now; you are permanently preserving 350 square meters of land for every block of 100 trees. You are helping us create a perpetual forest. Perpetual means that, unlike most forests, this one will have people who will always protect it and care for it. It will be maintained for wildlife and for the environment, with trees only being removed as needed to improve the health of the forest. The wood from these trees will be sold to provide a living for those who work taking care of the forest. This is not a new idea. In Central Europe this is called Dauerwald. The Dauerwald is about 200 years old. There are people in the United States doing it as well. You can read about one example at http://www.menominee.edu/sdi/SchabelAndPecore.html.

To offset your personal 40,000 pounds of CO2 production, you would need to plant 1 hectare of trees (on Finca Leola, that’s about 800 trees). If you were to do this, a reasonable expected return for your investment would be about $800,000 in hardwood sold, reducing the demand for wood from the forests. Then the new piece of forest you made would always be there, providing carbon sequestering for you and for future generations. Of course, most of can’t start by investing in 800 trees at once. It is Finca Leola’s mission to make it possible for anyone to reduce their CO2 debt, so we have set up payment plans and quantity discounts that are retroactive. By enabling you to make a good investment and at the same time offset the carbon dioxide you are producing by living, we hope to boost reforestation efforts in a very practical way.

#4 - NEW FOREST BEGINS

Plantation trees 100% harvested; mother tree seedlings transplanted to open space; forest spreads.

The owners of Finca Leola S.A. are currently working on placing all of the land that we have purchased in a land trust, where the use of the land will be forever defined by a conservation easement. We will no longer own the land ourselves, but like everyone who owns trees that we are taking care of, we will own only the trees that were planted as an investment.

We, the people of the world, didn’t understand what would happen if we beat back the forests, clearing large sections of land for growing crops and grazing cattle without leaving enough trees in between. We thought of it as progress, an example of human ingenuity. Later, many of us looked at the loss of forest as an aesthetic loss and nothing more.

Now we can see the landslides; the dwindling, muddied streams; and the loss of animal species that play a role in the balance of ecosystems. We know about the effects of releasing excess carbon into the atmosphere. Now we can understand why we need to find the means to encourage the regrowth of forests that will continue far into the future. What was thoughtlessly destroyed must be thoughtfully restored.

As for us, when we became concerned about deforestation, we were still the same people with the same needs as before. We need to provide for our retirement, so we have to invest wisely. We decided to do it at the same time as investing in something that would make a difference. In addition to securing our retirement, by turning all of the land we own into a perpetual forest, we will secure it from ever again being used for anything besides sustainable forest. Because this reforestation land will be set aside in trust for the future, when people invest with us, they will know that they are doing something not just short-term, but they are making a permanent change to the amount of rainforest in the world.

We all have the same choice: to invest in things based solely on how profitable they are, or to include in the decision whether the investment is helping the future of all our lives.

In the time it took you to read this article, the world lost about 1,500 acres of trees.

Thanks to the Rainforest Action Network for many of the statistics used in this article. For more on rates of rainforest loss, select Rainforests from the menu on the www.ran.org home page and go to Fact Sheets. Also on the site is a list of ways to help.

Caribou on Alaska’s North Slope

Life without cars is impossible.

If you are one of the few without a personal vehicle it is likely you take trips on the subway, bus, train or ferry. Ask almost anyone in the United States about their day and it will involve a car trip along one of the millions of crisscrossing streets that lace America like a giant spider web. Cars rush along the pavement filled with drivers on their way to pick up groceries, take the kids to school, go to work or to go on long road trips.

According to the American Petroleum Institute, there are “70 million more drivers on the road driving about 113 million more vehicles today than there were 30 years ago. Over this same period of time, drivers have increased the miles they each drive by about 44 percent, which means that vehicles traveled per year had increased by about 145 percent since 1970.” The increased need for vehicles has come with an increased need for fuel.

Unfortunately, fuel isn’t the most environmentally friendly energy source. Anyone who has walked behind a car and choked on the exhaust fumes knows it can’t be good for the air. Soon after the first cars left behind the noxious black smoke it became obvious that fuels needed some refining. It didn’t take long for the gas industry to develop cleaner technology and fuels. Modern, unleaded fuels are less hazardous and less of a pollutant now. In fact, the U.S EPA [(Environmental Protection Agency)] found that vehicle emissions have declined 41% since 1970 despite the increased amount of vehicles on the road. However, that does not mean that all problems associated with fuel have been solved. Far from it.

The Alpine Oilfield in Northern Alaska Where it all begins

A major issue is the process of retrieving crude oil from the earth. Pipe leaks, accidents during transport and spills are still commonplace. The American Petroleum Institute claims that many steps are taken to “assure that oil and natural gas can be produced with minimal environmental impact.” API also provides some examples: “Directional drilling technology allows us to access oil and gas resources that underlie a sensitive area, such as a wetland, from an area nearby where a drilling rig can safely be located. In the Arctic, companies build ice roads and ice drilling pads that melt away in the spring. Companies have substantially reduced the amount of land disturbance required for drilling a well and by drilling several wells from a single location (with directional or multi-lateral technology) require a much smaller number of sites to achieve the same level of production.”

Yet even with impressive technological advancements in the drilling industry, oil rigs and human intrusions still alter the environment and often devastate habitats. Brian Moore, legislative director of the Alaska Wilderness League, knows just how harmful drilling can be. “Prudhoe bay has 400 toxic spills a year,” he says with concern, “that’s more than one spill a day. These spills don’t only affect the drilling site but lands adjacent as well. Devastating effects are real and clear. Environmentalists have not made them up.” It is hard to forget the oil covered seabirds, otters and seals that slowly died after 10 million gallons of crude oil spilled from the Exxon Valdez in 1989. Naturally, environmentalists cringe when plans arise to drill in an area full of wildlife. The possibility that drilling may take place in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), an area renowned for unique wildlife and pristine habitat, is a shock to any nature lover.

Drilling in the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge will definitely leave its mark. Moore explains that drilling in the refuge will have devastating effects: “Oil exploration is planned to take place in the most critical and sensitive area of the refuge. 130,000 caribou, the last large migrating mammal in the U.S, migrate hundreds of miles to calf here in late May and June, in this one area, and this is where they want to put oil rigs! Gravel roads and drained wetlands are not conducive to them giving birth. It is also devastating to denning polar bears. The polar bear population is already declining and is already threatened by extinction. Oil drilling and extraction may increase the odds of losing the species. Native Alaskans, Gwich’in Indians, whose life revolves around this piece of land will have the most important thing in their culture, the calving ground, taken away from them Gwich’in Indians, rely on the migratory Porcupine Caribou herd as a key source of food and clothing.] It is cultural genocide.” To make matters worse, the Refuge constitutes the last 5% of the Alaskan North Slope not open to oil drilling. Drilling operations already exist throughout the rest of the area. The Refuge is the last area wildlife can live peacefully.

North to South - The Alaska Pipeline

The oil industry argues that they will only leave a small footprint in the Arctic, covering a mere 2,000 acres-the size of the Dallas Airport. Yet these measurements do not realistically represent the areas affected by these drilling operations. Vinay Jain, a spokesperson for the National Wildlife Federation, is skeptical of with the oil industry’s skewed measurements. “They have said it will only cover 2000 acres,” he says, “but the problem lies in the fact that they are condensing. If you realistically measure the areas influenced by oil rigs, it is really spread out. Think of it as a spider web: When the web is spread out, it covers a very large area but when you ball it up it is only a fraction of its original size. They [the oil industry] are giving you the number made up of all the rigs without counting the area in between-the industry is giving you the balled up number. Roads and platforms, these things are all spread out and cause fragmentation of habitat. It isn’t just one solid area of 2000 acres, it’s much more.”

The Republican Party has had an obvious interest in the Arctic refuge’s oil wells. As the former owner of Arbusto Energy Inc. and Bush Exploration, American President Bush has always had an interest in oil. Vice President Cheney, also a former oil man, had experience being the CEO of the world’s largest oil service company-the Halliburton Company. It is not surprising then, that oil companies have connections with the government. Defenders of Wildlife note that oil and gas firms have donated $1,761,567 to Bush’s presidential campaign making them one of the highest contributors and therefore also the most influential. Exxon Mobil Corp., ConocoPhillips and BP PLC are some of the companies enthusiastic about drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

From well to pipeline to tankers bound for world oil markets A part of the massive Prudhoe Bay oilfield

Recent republican gains in the Senate could give President Bush a real chance of opening the Alaska wildlife refuge to drilling. For one thing, four Republican senators who favor drilling in the refuge were elected early November and replaced Democrats who opposed the proposal in 2003. These new members could make all the difference when voting to drill in the Arctic. There is also a sneaky strategy involved to guarantee success for pro-drilling groups: By attaching drilling to the federal budget resolution it becomes a filibuster-proof strategy. The budget resolution would instruct the House Resources Committee to generate savings over the next few years. This goal would be accomplished by identifying new revenue sources, one of which would be the revenue created by selling oil leases in the Arctic refuge.

Jain is disappointed with the strategy: “It [attaching drilling revenues to the budget] is a fairly undemocratic way of doing things. This is a way of avoiding an honest and open debate. It is not the right way to decide an issue as important as this. A fair and open debate is the proper way to handle this situation and the drilling proposals should be distinct from the budget bill which was never intended for this purpose.”

So why is drilling in the Arctic so important? Moore is surprised with the oil industry’s interest there as well: “Why are they so interested in drilling in the Arctic refuge? It’s hard to understand. It’s not about the oil. The House Majority Leader, Tom Delay (R-Texas), gave a speech last year admitting that it’s all about the precedent. He essentially said that if we can drill in the Arctic Refuge we can drill anywhere. Opening the Arctic to oil exploration will open other lands for future use by the oil industry.” According to Moore, “It starts with the Arctic Wildlife Refuge, and then it’ll be Yellowstone, the Grand Canyon or the coast of California. It’s not about the oil. The Coastal Plain is the last bit of Arctic coast left. The oil industry would want nothing more than to put a fence of oil rigs around Alaska. Its crazy to me, but it seems that that’s what they want. Like a bunch of drunken sailors; they are on a binge and the only thing they want is more oil and more land to suck it out of.”

Jain explains that “the amount of oil in the refuge is marginal at best. It is not going to make a difference. Drilling in the Arctic Refuge is symbolic of a larger effort. It’s about getting into one protected area and using the momentum to get into another.”

Only 5% of Alaska’s Wilderness Remains Off-Limits to Drilling The ANWR portion just happens to be sitting on vast oil reserves.

The Bush administration officials claim that drilling in the Arctic will enhance U.S security by reducing dependence on imported oil. They also promote this controversial venture by stating that drilling will reduce the country’s energy shortages. However, very little electrical power comes from oil. Another argument states that drilling will reduce the oil prices. The American Petroleum Institute explains how this would work: “Crude oil prices are established in world markets responding to supply and demand. New discoveries are crucially important to supply. Every barrel of oil produced domestically is one less barrel that must be purchased from foreign sources. In the long term, additional U.S. supplies help to hold down crude oil prices because demand for crude oil from non-U.S. sources is lower than it would be without added domestic production…”

Moore explains that “the argument they put forth is that drilling will reduce our dependency on foreign oil. The Department of Energy, however, stated that if we started drilling today, oil would not reach peak production till after 2020 and if oil is in fact present, it would only reduce oil dependency by about 2%.” It is assumed that the oil present in Alaska is not enough to meet even a fraction of America’s needs. Projections in 1998 showed a 95% chance of finding 3 billion barrels of oil and a 5% chance of finding 10.5 barrels of oil. 3 billion barrels of oil would barely supply enough oil to last half a year in the U.S. It is hard to believe that drilling in Alaska will benefit U.S citizens since any oil that exists will take about a decade to reach the market and estimates on the amount of oil in the area are speculative. Further more, prices will not fluctuate from drilling in Alaska since the amount of oil found in the refuge is minimal.

Eventually though, there will be no where else to drill when we have exhausted all other resources. Jain believes the best solution is to look for additional energy resources and reduce demand for oil before it gets to that point. “Reducing demand for oil is a better strategy then drilling a pristine corner of Alaska to increase supply, especially when there’s relatively little oil there. When we think about ways to meet America’s energy needs we tend to turn towards oil, however we can still maintain an American lifestyle with alternative energy. The technology is out there. Hydrogen is something that may be promising years down the road, but in the short term, we can save a lot of oil by making cars more fuel efficient. By simply increasing the average fuel economy by a few gallons we would save much more oil than we would get from drilling in the refuge. The new Honda Accord Hybrid is more powerful than the regular Accord. The idea that you have to give up one thing [power] to be environmentally sound is a false one. You can have a fuel efficient car that is also more powerful. We can’t just drill our way to energy independence.”

Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge was founded over 40 years ago by President Eisenhower. He wanted to preserve this pristine area. It is a sad fact that congress wants to abandon 44 years of legacy. This wildlife refuge is one of the last pristine areas on earth. Caribou, grizzlies, polar bears, wolves, thousands of birds and countless other animals make this unique area their home. This pristine habitat should not be turned into an industrial zone.

The battle for this area is symbolic and it is important for conservationists and the American public in general to realize this. “This is one of the last pristine areas in America,” Jain says, “we know we are not going to reduce gas prices and reduce independence on foreign oil by drilling here. If we can’t conserve this tiny sliver of habitat for future generations what does that say about our priorities?”

A row of Jatropha trees - plants with potential to alleviate fuel shortages

The potential to run engines on biofuel goes all the way back to Rudolph Diesel’s successful trials using peanut oil a century ago.

Yet it is only now, with the transport sector likely to be the fastest growing contributor to greenhouse gas emissions this century, and diesel prices climbing steadily as oil appears scarcer and less secure, that the advantages of biodiesel are being appreciated by governments around the world. However, there is as yet no source of biodiesel that is cheap and plentiful enough to meet the potential demand. Running trucks on used cooking fat from fast food outlets is not going to be a large scale option.

Tamil Nadu Agricultural University is researching Jatropha on a large scale.

However, across the developing world there’s growing excitement about the possibility that an up-to-now obscure tree, Jatropha Curcus, might offer a sustainable, large scale source of biodiesel. This non-edible shrub is planted as a hedge in both Africa and India, and its beans are used as a laxative in traditional medicine. When crushed the beans produce oil that can be refined into biodiesel.

According to the International Energy Association, the use of oil, including diesel, for road transport will double in the next 25 years and greenhouses gases will increase commensurably. In the EU, legislation is already in place to mitigate this by increasing the proportion of biodiesel in Europe’s transport energy mix. The EU biofuels directive requires a minimum level of biofuels as a proportion of fuels sold in the EU of 2% by 2005, 5.75% by 2010 and 20% by 2020. The main green fuels will be ethanol and biodiesel, and demand for biodiesel is expected to be up to 10.5 billion litres by 2010.

If that demand can be met, it will be good news for the environment and for our general health. While combustion of any fuel releases CO2 into the atmosphere, biodiesel produces lower emissions than mineral diesel. Furthermore, because it comes from crops that absorb CO2 as they grow, biodiesel’s overall contribution to greenhouse gas emissions is extremely low. A 1998 biodiesel lifecycle study, jointly sponsored by the US Department of Energy (USDE) and the US Department of Agriculture, concluded that pure B100 biodiesel reduces net CO2 emissions by 100 percent compared to petroleum diesel. With a B20 mix (a 20% bio-diesel solution), the net CO2 emissions are reduced by 20%. Compared with mineral diesel, biodiesel reduces particle emissions (PM) by 30%, carbon monoxide (CO), which affects air quality and human health, by 50%, and sodium monoxide (SOx) by 50%. Unlike mineral diesel, bio-diesel is non-toxic and is biodegradable.

The EU biofuels policy currently relies on an assumption that the heavily-subsidised cultivation of rapeseed will meet its biodiesel targets. However, this is a very large assumption. Already some 3 million hectares of agricultural land across the EU, an area roughly the size of Belgium, grows 10 millon tonnes of rapeseed. But since just 20% of this is ultimately used for biodiesel as opposed to food oil, another whole Belgium would have to be covered in the yellow rapeseed blanket to meet the targets. Rapeseed tires the land, and requires expensive crop rotation and fossil-based fertilisers. Growing rapeseed also has an opportunity cost of preventing farmers from growing more environmentally-friendly, less intensive, and often more profitable produce such as cereals or organic root vegetables. Under these circumstances, the supply of rapeseed oil is unlikely to be able meet the demand.

Jatropha not only produces biodiesel, it grows in vast areas where deserts encroach, where no other plant can grow.

One UK-based company, D1 Oils plc (www.d1plc.com), has put itself at the forefront of efforts to fill this gap with Jatropha oil. Jatropha grows quickly, is hardy, establishes itself easily even in arid land, and is drought-tolerant, requiring only 300mm of annual rainfail. It grows especially well in South and West Africa, and South East Asia. Jatropha can even be grown on semi-arid land using waste water, making it a useful tool in the prevention of desertification. Each Jatropha tree can produce an average of 3.5 kilos of beans each year depending on irrigation levels. According to D1’s estimates, if 2,200 Jatropha trees are planted per hectare, each hectare could yield up to 7 tonnes of beans per annum. Jatropha beans can produce oil yields of up to 40% and D1 expects each hectare to deliver about 3,000 litres of biodiesel.

In the established process for refining biodiesel, the vegetable oil is esterified, reacted with methanol and sodium hydroxide, to produce diesel and glycerine. D1 has adapted this method to create its own proprietary process producing biodiesel from Jatropha and various other feedstocks. The Jatropha biodiesel meets the European EN14214 standard for use as a pure or blended automotive fuel for diesel engines.

D1 has already secured plantation agreements in Burkina Faso, Ghana and the Philippines totalling 37,000 hectares, and has the option to extend planting to approximately 990,000 further hectares of land in Burkina Faso and 5 million hectares of land in India. The company recently raised L13 million in a London Stock Exchange flotation to fund these initiatives.

According to Philip Wood, Chief of Executive of D1 Oils, the company is on the way to delivering enough Jatropha biodiesel to meet EC demand. “We have created a unique business model and put in place the right mix of technology, IPR and contracts, as well as a strong team, to deliver results and grow the business. With a total of 6 million hectares under option, roughly the same size as two Belgiums, we could be producing 18 billion litres of biodiesel, which at current estimates would meet demand expectations in Europe.”

However, the demand for biodiesel is not coming solely from developed markets. One of the main reasons for the excitement around Jatropha is that developing countries also want their own biodiesel blends for domestic transport and power generation, both as a substitute for expensive oil imports and to prevent pollution. The President of Burkina Faso, Blaise Compaore, recently welcomed the biodiesel initiative undertaken by D1 in West Africa, saying, “By producing our own biodiesel, we will gain greater energy security, save valuable foreign currency, and potentially become an exporter of biodiesel.”

The potential for local demand for biodiesel as well as for export has been anticipated by D1 Oils. According to Philip Wood, the company has structured its production technology to offer developing countries small refineries that can produce biodiesel close to the plantations. “Our small, economic, modular refinery is easily transportable, produces minimal emissions, uses virtually no water and can be powered in remote locations by its own biodiesel,” says Wood. “In addition to our refinery in Newcastle, the first of its kind in the EU, we have plans to provide modular refineries in India, the Philippines and South Africa.”

D1 Oils PLC has designed a portable refinery that can produce 22,000 liters of biodiesel per day.

The D1-20 refinery can produce up to 8 million liters of biodiesel per annum, equivalent to approximately 22,000 liters per day. It is housed in a container that is 3.3 meters wide, 10 meters long and 4 meters high, and the overall refinery systems can store 24 tons of vegetable oil, 25 tons of catalyst and 20 tons of biodiesel.

The benefits for the developing world go further than producing fuel for local use. Since the planting, growing and refining of Jatropha seeds requires manpower, its cultivation will generate large numbers of jobs in areas of low employment. Errol Elsdon from PetroSAF, an African fuel distribution company, estimates that Jatropha plantations are likely to create at least one job for every four hectares of planted trees; the total impact on agricultural employment alone could be huge. There are also other benefits in terms of both byproducts from the esterification process and from the potential for intercropping. The biodiesel refining process also produces profitable by-products such as glycerine for cosmetics and seed cake for fertiliser and animal feed, and Jatropha can potentially be intercropped with other valuable plants such vanilla or patchouli.

However, it is Jatropha’s ability to grow on marginal, waste or arid land and produce energy crops without displacing food crops that is perhaps of most potential importance to the developing world, particularly as they face the affects of climate change. This aspect of Jatropha has made it particularly attractive to the Indian government. Given India’s booming economy, its transport sector will consume ever higher amounts of fuel over the coming years. Indeed, demand for diesel fuel is expected to grow from current levels of 44 million tonnes to 67 million by 2010. Aware of these predictions, the government of India has a $300m biofuels programme in place which foresees India replacing 5% of current diesel with biodiesel by 2005/6, eventually rising to 20%. However, the Indian government is also aware of the environmental benefits of growing the tree on marginal and arid land. In a recent speech, the Indian President, A. P. J. Abdul Kalam, declared that “India needs to grow Jatropha to tackle dry land and generate biodiesel.” India has large areas of poor quality land ideal for the cultivation of energy crops, so growing Jatropha won’t divert land away from growing vital food crops.

Hops, Barley, & Jatropha India’s Mohan Breweries is working to develop Jatropha

D1 Oils is currently in discussions with the Indian government to see how it can help India meet its biodiesel targets. According to D1 estimates, for India to reach its target of 20% bio-diesel mix, some 2m hectares of Jatropha will be needed. With this target in mind, D1 has been working with the Tamil Nadu agricultural university on research into Jatropha and large-scale planting and has put forward proposals to plant Jatropha in the states of Tamil Nadu, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Chhattisgarh. D1 has also entered into a joint venture agreement with India’s Mohan Breweries to operate and control future projects in the region. A pilot scheme of approximately 5,000 hectares has been established with Mohan and planting is anticipated to be completed during early 2005.

Developing countries are also aware that as the mechanisms of the Kyoto Treaty come into force to reduce industrial and commercial greenhouse gas emissions, the planting of biofuel crops may well create carbon sinks that can earn them cash through their sale of emissions credits to polluting industries in developed countries. The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) created by Kyoto is still in its infancy. However, if CDM credits do become available for planting trees, it could add a further inducement to plant Jatropha to act as an energy-producing carbon sink.

The history of the commercial contacts between the developed and the developing world has not been smooth, particularly in the sphere of agriculture and energy. However, the fact that Jatropha requires a warmer climate than we have in Europe could enable it to make a very positive impact on the environments and economies of developing countries. Money, as the old adage goes, may not grow on trees, but a possible energy solution clearly does. In today’s world of mounting fossil fuel prices and concern about global warming that could amount to the same thing.

About the Author: Candida Jones is an environmental writer and consultant. She is former editor of the UK magazine, Environmental Business News Briefing, and a former reporter for Financial Times Energy. Candida lives and works in London. She can be reached via editor@ecoworld.com

Turbines off Germany’s north coast benefit from consistent offshore winds

The German wind industry in 2003

installed 1700 propellers rated at 2,645 MW. Although this figure is 18.5% down from the 3,247 MW newly connected in 2002, it is a good in light of the mainly negative economic trends of the last months of the year. Peter Ahmels, President of the German Wind Energy Association, stated that no other country can point to such growth in absolute numbers. Last year more than 22% was added to installed capacity making Germany the world’s second most important wind market. As of the end of June 2004, the total wind energy capacity installed in Germany amounted to almost 15,327 MW. This makes Germany the world leader in the use of wind power.

Nationwide the power stations produce 14,645 MW. In a normal wind year they could produce 5.9% of the national power supply - another indicator that the use of wind power is growing.

Noteworthy Capacity Installed in the German States

It is clear that Germany’s top state for wind energy is Lower Saxony with 3,922 MW of installed capacity. Thuringia added the most by far of all the federal states in comparison to its total installed capacity. Double-coasted Schleswig-Holstein added insignificantly more plants to the grid than Thuringia in absolute terms. Wind-blessed Baltic Mecklenburg-West Pomerania did not exploit its potential, adding only 19 machines in the first three quarters, 3 machines less than added by the state of Hesse in the same period.

Manufacturers’ share of the German market in 2003

Two manufacturers did especially well last year: Vestas Deutschland GmbH and REpower Systems AG. While new installation numbers declined generally, they increased their output and grew their market shares. Vestas climbed by 5.6% to 23.5% and REpower added 3.9% to reach 10.7%.

Vestas sold 264 of their 2-MW machines in Germany and 55 to Austria, but there are large deficits in the service area. Vestas received a poor rating in the latest BWE survey of satisfaction among operating companies. Another important point to mention in connection with Vestas is its merger with NEG Micon.

REpower wants to concentrate on foreign business this year; they aim to put up 50 turbines outside Germany. Fritz Vahrenholt, head of REpower, was also glad that the gap with GE Wind Energy shrank to 14 MW. It is expected that REpower will outperform GE in Germany, since they are widely considered to have a better range of machines and more orders for the MM82, the new 2-MW converter. GE counters that their first calculations show that they doubled the capacity delivered over 2002, which was 637 MW. If that indicator should be confirmed, the Americans will push Enercon from second place in the international ranking. Together with some 889 MW on the German market, Enercon installed more than 1,100 MW in 2003.

Enercon spokesman Andreas Doser says that orders are well booked for the first months of 2005. By the end of the year he expects Enercon to have a greater number of machines and a bigger market share.

The merger with Vestas should help NEG Micon Deutschland, although they again failed to meet their objectives. Again, against the set by CEO Erik Laursen to reach a market share in the double digits. This results from unforeseen delays in a number of large projects.

AN Windenergie GmbH is unsatisfied with the 5% market share it reached. They are aiming to get back to between eight and ten per cent. They want to lead with their 2.3-MW machines with 82-metre rotor diameters. The new 3.5-MW machine will be launched in the latter half of this year. This machine is optimal for offshore projects in Great Britain and in Germany, where there are no height restrictions.

Nordex AG crashed from 8.7% to 4.8% market share, causing them to implement a consolidation program. However, it is expected that it will take time for the measures to have an effect. For this year, their prognosis of their market share is lean: They want to reach at least the 5 % level.

Another decline was to be seen in DeWind GmbH’s market share - 1.3%. They are stronger in Austria (and internationally) than in Germany, but important for them is not where they’re growing, but that they are growing. For the future they are working to get a bigger slice of the German pie for themselves.

Like DeWind, Fuhrlaender AG also sold more plants abroad than in Germany in 2003. It gained around 1% of the home market again, which is not expected to change this year. There are more foreign orders on the books, for example, in China.

About the Author: Gordon Feller is the Director of ReNewUSA and editor of Urban Age Magazine. In addition to extensive journalistic coverage of the worldwide energy sector and emerging environmental businesses, Feller has served as a senior-level advisor to companies investing in new technologies, processes and solutions. The list of clients ranges from small and little known firms to large well known firms: HP, Columbia Chemical, Phelps Dodge, Chevron, Apple, AT&T, IBM. Feller’s first work assessing environmentally sound economic policies was published during his freshman year at Columbia University. He continued there for four more years, finishing with a graduate degree in international affairs. He can be reached via editor@ecoworld.com.

Wind turbines generating 3.0 megawatts, such as this one from Vestas, are becoming common

Pfleiderer, after its most successful year, left the wind business. The newcomers had erected 27 machines totaling some 19 MW. Pfleiderer sold its offshore segment (with the 5-MW Multibrid plant) to Prokon Nord Energiesysteme GmbH. The pilot plant is to start operating in Bremerhaven.

In addition to the Multibrid machine, the first pilot plants from GE and W2E (Wind to Energy GmbH), REpower will start operating its new 5-MW giant propeller – so there is no shortage of new technical developments on the German market.

But that has not lulled BWE president Ahmels into a sense of complacency. “The wind industry is having to contend with headwinds that are getting stronger.” He refers to the recently enacted placement regulations in Schleswig-Holstein and Lower Saxony. New building laws will also make planning more difficult. “The worsening of the Renewable Energy Sources Act is not going to make wind power expansion any easier.”

With steady growth in Europe, a bull market under way in the U.S., and a string of projects under development in several other countries, the global outlook for wind energy equipment in Germany is very bright.

German Wind Energy Association

Herrenteichstr. 1

49074 Osnabrueck, Germany

Tel.: 49-541-35060-15

Fax: 49-541-35060-20

www.wind-energie.de

Publications of the German Wind Energy Association available in English:

Wind Energy 2004 - Market Survey

Wind Energy Knowledge – Multimedia Insights and Outlook

Handbook of Renewable Energies in the European Union I and II

Wind Power Plants – Fundamentals, Design, Construction, and Operation

“New Energy” is regularly published by the German Wind Energy Association

About the Author:
Gordon Feller is the CEO of Urban Age Institute (www.UrbanAge.org). During the past twenty years he has authored more than 500 magazine articles, journal articles or newspaper articles on the profound changes underway in politics, economics, and ecology - with a special emphasis on sustainable development. Gordon is the editor of Urban Age Magazine, a unique quarterly which serves as a global resource and which was founded in 1990. He can be reached at GordonFeller@UrbanAge.org and he is available for speaking to your organization about the issues raised in this and his other numerous articles published in EcoWorld.

Learn More: Buy Books! (Amazon Affiliate)

GMOs! Beware of the Coming Food Apocalypse

Media iconoclast H.L. Mencken, around 1925, wrote that “the whole aim of politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”. Well, the hubbub about GMO is less about the science than it is about politics. A GMO is an organism whose genome has been altered by the techniques of genetic engineering so that its DNA contains one or more genes not normally found there.

Humans have been genetically engineering their food crops for, oh, maybe 10,000 years. Suppose you’re a subsistence farmer in 3000 B.C. and it’s a year of drought. You try to gather enough of your crop to feed your family, and you save the seed from the most robust (drought resistant) plants for next years planting. After some years, you have engineered a drought resistant strain of wheat or millet or whatever. Later we learned to cross-pollinate our food crops with wild cousins or some mutant weed having properties we wanted, such as resistance to insects or to fungus. We’ve done the same with all of our domestic animals. We’ve been messing around with genes FOREVER, even when we had no idea that there was such a thing as a gene! The bottom line is: NOTHING we eat is “natural”!

Knowledge is Power: Buy Books! (Amazon Affiliate)

Against the Grain: Biotechnology and the Corporate Takeover of our Food

So what is the difference between traditional selective breeding of crop plants and most modern biotech manipulation? Easy answer: the traditional way is much less exact and lots slower. And because it is less exact, there is a greater chance for some unknown rogue gene to express itself. So why are so many people afraid of biotech crops? The reasons the fear mongers like Greenpeace put forth are that genetic modifications of plants may produce crops containing unknown toxins and allergens (aren’t many of us allergic to lots and lots of “natural pollens,” so what’s a few more— take your antihistamines!). Or perhaps a gene such as the one that makes corn resistant to the corn borer bug will jump into wild cousins and kill bugs (hopefully, mosquitoes). We could even have super frankenweeds appear (as if we don’t have lots of those already, like crabgrass). The fact is that after more than 20 years of research and development; 86% of soy, 46% of corn, and 76% of cotton crops grown in the U.S. are bio-engineered crops. And to quote a recent article in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch: “The bugs are fine, super weeds are science fiction, and no one is breaking out in hives”.

The answer to my arguments that the anti-GMO people put forth is something they invented that they call the “precautionary principle”. Anti-every new technology “activists such as Jemery Rifkin state it thusly: “because the stakes are so high, we have to weigh even the most dramatic benefits against the prospects of even more destructive consequences. The old Enlightenment science is too primitive to address a world where the bar for risk has been raised to the threshold of possible extinction itself.” So to these folks, scientific evidence doesn’t matter, science itself is irrelevant. If you really don’t believe in science, I suggest you go out on the roof of a tall building and jump off while flapping your arms. Maybe Newton was wrong and you will float around instead of falling to your unanticipated death. Only one’s religious belief that new technologies could kill us all should be considered. By this “principle”, stone-age activists and “tribal interest” groups would have seen to it that the wheel, fire, stone axes, and riding horses would be banned. Later, we would have banned electricity, railroad trains, automobiles, antibiotics (penicillin can kill those allergic to it), indoor plumbing (you could drown), television (in the 50s, it was thought by pre-greenpeace groups that rays from TV tubes could cause cancer), cell phones (more cancer) and chocolate lattes.

Learn More: Buy Books! (Amazon Affiliate)

Engineering the Farm: Social & Ethical Aspects of Agricultural Biotechnology

In the real world today, people are starving in Africa because government won’t allow them to eat genetically modified corn meal. I guess it’s better to be dead now than to have to worry about turning into a mutant later! It is true that at least in Mexico, some GM corn genes have spread to some wild corn cousins. So now you have some wild corn that is resistant to the corn borer bug; so what? Where is the danger to anything? What if scientists inserted an anti-freeze gene from an Artic flounder into an orange tree that could make the orange tree frost resistant, no polluting smudge pots needed. The orange tree could maybe even grow in Montana where there are no wild cousins to spread any “mutant” genes to? You may be worried about mercury levels in fish, but you know that fish oils are really good for your cardiovascular system. Why not insert a salmon gene into soy so that soybean oil could be rich in fish oils? A great potential health benefit without any danger; unless you think you might grow fins or gills by eating such a GMO. Hey, you could become a much better swimmer!

A recent study (conducted by folks with an anti-GMO agenda, perhaps?) showed that fields of organically grown crops had far, far more bees and butterflies buzzing and fluttering around than herbicide resistant GMO crop fields did. Of course, the American media jumped all over that study with the message that GMO crops kill bees and butterflies and probably every other bug there is (again, hopefully mosquitoes). DUH! If you were a smart bee or butterfly, would you want to hang out in a GMO field of herbicide resistant corn or soy? “Gosh darn, say the bugs, there are no flowering weeds around here thanks to all that Roundup stuff, maybe I should try out that organic farm over there across the road that has lots and lots of flowering weeds for my dining pleasure”! In other words, upon reflection, such a “study” means nothing except that it is trying to advance an anti-GMO political agenda.

Knowledge is Power: Buy Books! (Amazon Affiliate)

The Gmo Handbook: Genetically Modified Animals, Microbes, and Plants in Biotechnology

In the late 1960″ and early 70’s, after world famous fear monger Paul Ehrlich had predicted that virtually everybody on earth would starve to death by 1980, Norman Borlaugh won a Nobel Peace Prize for developing (by traditional breeding techniques) monocultures of VERY high yielding wheat and rice (compared to what was being grown at the time) that now are grown everywhere in the world. This “green revolution” is the reason India and China now can feed themselves; and which is why there are about 2.5 billion people alive now than there would have been, whether you like it or not. However, these now ubiquitous crops absolutely need a gazillion tons of chemical fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, and lots and lots of water every crop year. This is the stuff you are all eating now. Because they are essentially monocultures, some mutant strain of wheat rust could come along some year and wipe out most of the world’s wheat crop. This is a legitimate doomsday concern, as opposed to the not at all legitimate concerns about modern GMO. Wouldn’t you rather have some alternative crop options available? Ones that have been engineered to not need a gazillion tons of pesticides and chemical fertilizers??

OK, you still insist that “organic” crops are so very safe and superior, and you don’t care that they are also far more expensive than “regular” crops. Here is only one example of many I could give that show the opposite about “safety”. In England, 6 tested brands of organically grown corn meal were recently recalled after they were found to contain dangerous levels (more than 20 times the safety limit) of fumonisin, a very potent natural carcinogen produced by a fungus. It is interesting (check this out, greenies) that there has been no testing of organically grown corn meal in the U.S. The reason for the high level of fumoniusin is that chewing insects break the outer coating of the corn kernel (even in corn sprayed with conventional pesticides), allowing free entry to mold spores. GMO corn, however, kills the chewing bugs immediately, so that no mold spores get in. The U.S. Agricultural Research Service (for whom I used to work) found that fumonisin levels were about 40 times lower in GMO corn than non-GMO corn sprayed with the usual pesticides.

Finally, are those of you who are against biotech crops also against biotech drugs? If you had cancer, would you refuse treatment? If you are a diabetic out marching against GMO, do you realize that for the past 20 years your daily dose of insulin is produced from a bacteria or yeast genetically modified to produce human insulin? I have not heard any protests about this fact.

Edward Wheeler, Ph.D in chemistry from U.C. Berkeley (long ago during hippie times), is a noted biochemist who has had extensive experience in food chemistry, cancer research, and toxicology. He has authored numerous articles in refereed scientific journals on those subjects, and holds 12 U.S. patents in the areas of reduced calorie foods and lower calorie “natural fats”.

A Small Scale Biodiesel Refinery

Editor’s Note: Critics of biofuel point out the energy and water necessary to produce the feedstock often can exceed the energy value of the fuel produced. But these studies usually ignore the value of the plant mass as animal feed or fertilizer, once the fuel has been extracted. Another valid concern is the tradeoff between using land to grow food and using land to grow fuel. But what if a plant used to extract biofuel grew on marginal land, that was unable to support crops? What if this plant required minimal water and fertilizer inputs?

Jatropha, also known as the Physic Nut, is a plant which may hold such promise. Able to tolerate arid climates, rapidly growing, useful for a variety of products, Jatropha can yield up to two tons of biodiesel fuel per year per hectare. Put another way, Jatropha can yield about 1,000 barrels of oil per year per square mile. In such quantities, Jatropha, like biofuels in general, cannot become a replacement for oil. But Jatropha requires minimal inputs, stablizes or even reverses desertification, and has use for a variety of products after the biofuel is extracted. Moreover, diesel fuel with biodiesel additives causes far less pollution.

Biofuel is not the ultimate solution to the energy challenges facing India or the world. But it is part of the solution, especially when it not only stretches finite supplies of conventional fuel, but restores the land it grows on, does not displace more viable agricultural land, and requires minimal water inputs.

As energy demand increases,

the global supply of fossil fuels decreases, causing inflation, instability and war; the emissions from fossil fuels cause immediate harm to human health and contribute to the greenhouse effect, and, deforestation and the destruction of agricultural lands threaten to turn this Earth into a desert, bit by bit. There is no doubt that the end of the fossil fuel age is not far off.

Then what? How can we combat desertification, reduce the need for oil, and help heal the present wounds in the environment, all in one stroke?

Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam President of India

A visionary scientist among politicians, A. P. J. Abdul Kalam, the president of India, sees an answer in biofuel. In a recent Presidential address he recognized biofuel, and specifically the plant jatropha, as worthy of mention. Discussing the national problems of water scarcity and drought, he stated that “India needs to grow jatropha to tackle dry land and generate bio-diesel.”

India is particularly well-suited for the honor of heralding in a green alternative fuel because of its:

(1) Estimated 50 to 130 million hectares of wastelands– saline lands (from mining), degraded forests, and other land unavailable for agricultural use due to overfarming;

(2) Resulting shifting sand dunes and continuing process of desertification;

(3) Fastest growing population rate in the world — increasing the need for food, energy, and employment;

(4) Rural/agricultural population of over 70%: biofuel screw presses are simple to make, and can be produced and maintained by a village blacksmith

(5) Huge national crude oil bill– second only to defense spending;

(6) Constant battle with drought and shortages of water and electricity;

(7) Warm climate, agreeable both to growing biofuels and running engines that use them.

Indian Council of Forestry Research & Education

R. P. S. Katwal, Director General of the Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education, said that the Union government had drawn up a blueprint to plant Jatropha trees on 50,000 hectares at a cost of Rs 1,430,000. “Biofuels are gaining importance in the light of increasing energy demand, especially fossil fuels which are non-renewable. Biofuels are renewable, biodegradable, non-hazardous and safer for air, water and soil and its use reduces the emission of greenhouse gases.”

Other projects are funded from abroad, like the proposed $2.5 million pilot project in Hyderabad, Rajasthan, which will produce 10 tons of biodiesel per day. Raw oils from Pongamia, Jatropha, and other trees will be sourced from local farmers who are expected to be the major beneficiaries. The German Development Corporation (GTZ) is currently working with the promoters, Southern Biofuels Pvt. Ltd., to prepare a detailed project proposal for possible funding by German companies and the German government.

German Development Corporation

Daimler Chrysler and Hohenheim University (also German) are conducting a research project in two different climatic zones of India. Each plantation will consist of 20 hectares of jatropha trees planted on wastelands– one caused by industrialization and the other by natural soil erosion. Other aspects include test vehicles and research laboratories. After the five-year research period, it is hoped that the plantations will become self-sustaining, profitable enterprises.

The current rate of Indian development of biofuels, particularly biodiesel, is just a drop in the bucket when compared to its potential. If 10 million hectares (100,000 square kilometers or 38,000 square miles) of India’s vast and sometimes destructive wastelands were used for biodiesel production, with a modest estimate of 1.5 tons of seeds per hectare, 4 million tons of biodiesel would be produced– one tenth of the country’s annual oil requirement. If one person was employed per hectare, that would mean 10 million new jobs. And, for use or sale, 11 million tons of organic seedcake fertilizer or livestock feed and 0.4 million tons of technical grade glycerol would be produced.

Ethanol is the most widely used biofuel in the world; technological advances have lowered the cost of its production and processing. Brazil boasts one of the largest green fuel programs in existence: petrol-only engines have been banned and replaced by engines that use pure ethanol or a 78-22 petrol-ethanol blend. The shift has greatly benefit Brazil environmentally and economically, creating employment and reducing the need for foreign oil. Its hot, wet climate is well-suited to the production of sugarcane (from which ethanol is made), and farmers especially have profited.

India is also one of the biggest worldwide producers of sugarcane, but its constant struggle with water shortages in many areas makes growing this crop problematic. However, due to overproduction, sugar prices crashed, and there are actually stockpiles of sugar and spoilt food grain which have no use. These can be used to make ethanol.

Since January 2003, a minimum 5% ethanol blend in petrol has been mandatory in India in nine states and four Union territories. By 2005, the ethanol content should reach 10%. Undoubtedly, ethanol is an important biofuel for petrol engines, but its potential is limited
in India due to the high amounts of water required for its production.

Jatropha trees grow on land too poor and arid to support food crops

Jatropha curcas, also known as physic nut, is unique among biofuels. Although oil can be extracted from over 80 known plant species, jatropha is currently the first choice for biodiesel. Per hectare, yields vary from 0.5 to 12 tons/year depending on soil and rainfall conditions (Makkar and Becker, 1999). An average of about 5 tons of seeds per hectare can be produced under optimum conditions. The oil content of the seed is 55-60%, which can be converted into biodiesel by transesterification. An annual yield of 0.75 to 2 tons of biodiesel could be expected per hectare from the fifth year onwards (Fiodl and Eder,
1997).

What makes Jatropha especially attractive to India is that it is a drought-resistant and can grow in saline, marginal and even otherwise infertile soil, requiring little water and maintenance. It is hearty and easy to propagate– a cutting taken from a plant and simply pushed into the ground will take root. It grows 5 to 10 feet high, and is capable of stabilizing sand dunes, acting as a windbreak and combating desertification. It has been most successful in the drier regions of the tropics with annual rainfall of 300-1000 mm. It grows naturally at lower altitudes (0-500 m) in areas with average annual temperatures well above 200C, but can grow at higher altitudes and tolerate slight frost.

Jatropha naturally repels both animals and insects– it can be planted along the circumference of farms to protect other crops. Jatropha seedcakes, produced as a by-product of pressing the oil, make an excellent organic fertilizer or protein-rich livestock feed, and another by-product is glycerine. The plant lives, producing seeds, for over 50 years.

Jatropha cuttings quickly take root

Other parts of the plant are also useful: dark blue dye and wax can be produced from the bark, the stem can be used as a poor quality wood, and the roots help in making yellow dye. The flowers of Jatropha curcas and the Jatropha stem have well-known medicinal properties, and the leaves can be used for dressing wounds. All these things can be used, or sold.

Alternate uses of the oil include varnishes, illuminants, soap, organic insecticide, and medicine for skin diseases, cancer, piles, snakebite, paralysis, dropsy and more.

The Indian Supreme Court has recently banned the use of undiluted petrodiesel for commercial vehicles in Delhi due to its adverse effects on health, and other cities are reported to have followed suit.

As compared to petrodiesel, biodiesel almost completely eliminates lifecycle carbon dioxide emissions. It reduces emission of particulate matter by 40-65%, unburned hydrocarbons by 68%, carbon monoxide by 44-50%, sulphates by 100%, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) by 80%, and the carcinogenic nitrated PAHs by 90% on an average. The biodiesel molecules are simple hydrocarbon chains free of the aromatic substances and sulfur associated with fossil fuels.

Although biodiesel does produce more NOx emissions than petrodiesel, these emissions can be reduced through the use of catalytic converters. In petrodiesel vehicles, catalytic converters have generally not been included because the sulfur in the fuel destroys them, but biodiesel does not contain sulfur.

According to most sources, biodiesel can be used in any diesel engine or burner without adaptation. It has a higher cetane number of biodiesel compared to petrodiesel, indicating potential for higher engine performance and causing less knocking. Tests have shown that biodiesel has similar or better fuel consumption, horsepower, and torque and haulage rates than conventional diesel; the use of biodiesel complements the working of the catalysator and can help a current EURO-1 motor attain the EURO-111 standards.

Jatropha planted around farms can repel animals, incects & wind

It is true that, because of the solvent power of biodiesel, especially older engines or machines can get clogged, but this is because the biodiesel is actually cleaning it, dissolving the residues left by petrodiesel. Rubber gaskets and hoses in vehicles made prior to 1992 may also be degraded, and need to be replaced. Engine efficiency is also increased by its superior lubricating properties, and the more complete combustion of hydrocarbons due to its higher oxygen content (up to 10%). Finally, biofuel is safer to store because of its higher flash point.

One noteworthy drawback of especially undiluted biodiesel (BD100) is its cold-clogging point of 0 degrees Celsius. This is one of the reasons it is usually mixed with conventional diesel, especially in cold countries. This is not a problem, however, in most of India, except in winter in the higher altitudes of the Himalayas.

The argument that biofuels are not energy efficient, due to the oil used to irrigate, fertilize and plow the land is irrelevant in the case of jatropha– both irrigation and fertilization are generally unnecessary, or its own seedcakes can be used as fertilizer. The energy efficiency of the current agricultural and industrial production process is reported (in Nicaragua) to be between 1:3.75 and 1:5.

Another common objection to biomass energy production is that it could divert agricultural production away from food crops in a hungry world. Using wastelands, however, instead of farmlands, solves the “food or fuel” dilemma– these lands are unsuitable for growing other crops. Also, if a biofuel like jatropha is grown, drought and water shortages which would ruin food crops can be survived; if grown in addition to food crops, as mentioned above, it can literally protect them from animals, insects and desertification, and its seedcakes can be used as fertilizer.

Once fuel is extracted from Jatropha, the remaining plant mass is useful as fertilizer and animal feed

The most difficult problem is, as always, cost. In remote areas, where fossil fuels are not readily available, biodiesel is already a feasible alternative, especially considering wasteland reclamation, rural employment and income generation from jatropha biodiesel and its by-products. This is important to consider in India, where electricity is always in short supply– biodiesel can power generators, lights and farm equipment as well as cars. On the current global market, however, biodiesel generally cannot directly compete with petrodiesel, at least not yet.

The main reason for this is that biodiesel is not being produced on a large scale. The industry is a fragmented network of small companies whose costs and prices are high. Two British biodiesel companies, however, found a solution by listing their company names on the stock market in order to fund large, efficient production facilities, and passing the savings on to consumers. In other parts of the world as well, as production increases, the cost differential of biofuels is decreasing steadily.

Ironically, the first diesel engine ever made, in 1893, was powered by peanut oil– a biofuel. By the 1920’s the petroleum industry had all but eliminated the biofuel infrastructure and usurped the market with petrodiesel because it was cheaper to produce. Even then, the engine’s inventor, Rudolf Diesel, maintained that “the use of vegetable oils for engine fuels may seem insignificant today, but such oils may become, in the course of time, as important as petroleum and the coal-tar products of the present time.”

Now, almost a century later, the world has no choice but to listen or perish in pollution and war. As time goes by and global reserves of fossil fuels shrink, the biofuel industries have to grow up fast, and India is in a good position to step up to the opportunity. The government should give tax concessions or other financial incentives to biofuels companies and consumers to speed up the progress, and urge other nations to do the same. With biofuels, we can help heal and preserve the air, the land, our own physical health and peace.

Brook and Gaurav Bhagat are writers and independent filmmakers based in Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India.

Shanghai’s Ultra-Modern Skyline Rising to Meet the 21st Century

The demand for alternative fuels in China

is driven by the Chinese government’s desire to reduce air pollution, particularly in urban centres, and reduce the country’s dependence on imported oil. Preparing to host the 2008 Olympics is also putting pressure on the Government of China to make the necessary investments. The annual alternative fuels market in China is projected to grow from $75 million in 2002 to $1.8 billion by 2008.

The main opportunities for fuel cell technologies are in the development of prototypes of fuel cell engines and for fuel cell fuelling stations. The main opportunities for compressed natural gas (CNG) and liquified petroleum gas (LPG) technologies are for retrofitting old diesel engines, building new engines, providing engine and related parts that improve the efficiency of CNG/LPG engines and building refuelling stations.

The Chinese fuel cell market has strong local players including the Fuyuan Century Fuel Cell Power Co. Ltd., the Dalian Institute of Chemical Physics, and Shanghai Shen-Li High Tech Co Ltd. U.S. firms have been successful at penetrating the CNG/LPG bus market in China. Some examples firms include Cummins-Westport, Impco Technologies and Witco Systems.

Transport authorities are looking for well-designed buses that suit their individual local environments, maintenance staff training and a high level of service.

CNG engine testing must be done in China and there are adequate test facilities. Once a vehicle is on the road there is no formal testing nor any requirement for regular in-service emissions testing. However, strict maintenance and training is essential to maintain strong customer satisfaction.

China 2008 Olympics

The Chinese government’s goals to improve the quality of air in major Chinese cities and to reduce its dependence on imported oil are the main long-term drivers of market growth in the alternative fuel bus market in China. With the world’s eyes on China for the 2008 summer Olympics, the Chinese government is actively investing in alternative fuel buses to demonstrate the progressiveness of their country to the world.

China has six of the world’s 10 most-polluted cities. The Chinese government has set a time line to improve emission standards for vehicles in China. Vehicles were to meet Euro II standards by January 1, 2003 in Beijing and by January 1, 2005 in the rest of China. Chinese emission standards are to increase to meet Euro III by January 1, 2005 in Beijing and by January 1, 2010 in the rest of the country.

China’s National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) has issued a new Automotive Industry Development Policy. The new policy, that became effective on June 1, 2004, stipulates that average fuel consumption of new cars should be reduced by 15% by the year 2010. Although the policy does not provide details as to how this objective will be met, it is expected that the development and application of new technologies to reduce reliance on fuel will be strongly encouraged by NDRC.

Approximately 1 million buses were produced in China in 2002. This was an increase of 25% over production in 2001.

The annual alternative fuels market in China is projected to grow from $75 million in 2002 to $1.8 billion by 2008.

Alternative fuel technologies that represent the greatest opportunities for Canadian firms in China are compressed natural gas, liquified petroleum gas and fuel cells. In terms of market development, CNG/LPG engines are fully commercialized and are in a growth market, while fuel cell engines are still in the pre-commercialization stage.

China represents one of the largest potential markets for fuel cells in the world. Transportation is considered to be the most important initial market for fuel cells in China. The market for replacing batteries in electric bicycles is expected to be the earliest market to be commercialized, followed by buses.

Seventy-four percent of the application of fuel cells in China focuses on transportation. Fifty-four percent of fuel cell technology in China is based on proton exchange membrane fuel cell (PEMFC), the most prominent fuel cell technology for transportation applications worldwide.

About 350 employees at more than 60 institutions and companies work on the development of fuel cell technology. Sixty percent of these organizations are located in the provinces of Beijing and Shanghai.

China’s First Fuel Cell Bus (75KW) Photo: Chinese Academy of Sciences

Under China’s fuel cell roadmap, more than 100 buses will have been tested under demonstration projects between 2005 and 2010. More than 1000 fuel cellpowered buses will be utilized in regular bus operations between 2008 and 2020.

The Chinese government began encouraging the use of alternative fuels in 1999 with a clean vehicle demonstration project in China’s 12 largest cities.

China is ranked seventh in the world in the number of vehicles using CNG/LPG fuel, behind major developing countries like Argentina, Brazil and India. In 2003, there were approximately 110,000 CNG/LPG vehicles on China’s roads, 19 000 of those vehicles being buses. That year, China had 368 refuelling stations, with over half located in Shanghai and Beijing.

The choice between LPG or CNG as alternative fuel mainly depends on the availability of that particular fuel in a city or province. The limited number of refuelling stations is one of the main inhibitors of changing from diesel to CNG or LPG.

The main opportunities for fuel cell technologies are in the development of prototypes of fuel cell engines and fuel cell fuelling stations. These research and development (R&D) opportunities require a partnership with relevant Chinese organizations.

In 2002, the Chinese government announced that it would invest approximately $18 million in a three-year PEMFC development program. Most of these funds will go toward the development of 75 kW and 150 kW PEMFC systems at the Dalian Institute of Chemical Physics.

China’s two main cities, Beijing and Shanghai, have been selected by the Global Environment Facility (GEF) of the World Bank for the Fuel Cell Bus Demonstration Project. Under this project, the GEF will sponsor the deployment of six fuel cell buses and one hydrogen filling station each to both Beijing and Shanghai. The three-year demonstration trials will see these buses log over 1.6 million kilometres. The project is funded with $18 million from the GEF, $15 million from Chinese government, $7.5 million each from the cities of Beijing and Shanghai and $6 million from private companies. Opportunities stemming from the project are to supply completed fuel cell buses, build hydrogen refuelling stations and provide consulting services to train Chinese bus operations personnel with the new technology.

Ministry of Science & Technology

During China’s 10th five-year plan (2001-2005), the Chinese Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST) approved a $165-million R&D program to develop advanced hybrid-electric drive and fuel cell-vehicles. Private companies are likely to invest another $300-450 million over the same time period. One major aim of the project is to develop two prototypes for 150 kW fuel cell buses by 2005. Under the funding, Shen-Li High Tech and Dalian Sunrise will develop hydrogen-based engine prototypes for vehicles to be assembled by Tsinghua University and the Shanghai Fuel Cell Vehicle Powertrain Company.

Under the MOST’s 973 program, the Government is spending approximately $5.6 million on the research of hydrogen storage materials, fuel cell membranes and catalysts. One of the main grantees under this program is Hong Kong University (HKUST), which is working on carbon nano materials as a hydrogen storage solution.

In addition to the GEF hydrogen station, Shanghai is working on its own hydrogen infrastructure project. The city will host the World Expo in 2010 and is trying to deploy its own clean energy and fuel cell buses for the event. The supply of hydrogen as a fuel in Shanghai will not be as difficult as in many other cities, mainly due to the region’s vast and flexible fuel sources. In Shanghai alone, four chemical companies have been producing enough hydrogen as an industrial by-product to at least meet the short-term consumer needs of Shanghai.

The main opportunities for CNG/LPG technologies are for retrofitting old diesel engines, building new engines that meet current emission standards, providing engine and related parts that improve the efficiency of CNG/LPG engines and in building refuelling stations.the development of 75 kW and 150 kW PEMFC systems at the Dalian Institute of Chemical Physics.

The Beijing transport authority currently has 2000 buses that run on CNG engines. The authority plans to have its 118 000 bus fleet running on clean energy by the 2008 Olympics. Ninety percent of the fleet will be retrofitted to use CNG and the remaining buses will be replaced with new CNG new engine buses.

The Shanghai Government plans to purchase 3000 CNG buses in the next 2-3 years and put 20 hydrogen buses, 300 hydrogen taxi & 1,000 electric vehicles in operation by 2010.

Guangzhou Transportation Commission and its subordinated bus companies has a fleet of 6802 buses. It currently has 603 buses running on LPG engines. In the end of 2004, Guangzhou will complete switching old diesel engines to LPG engines in 2,390 buses. Guangzhou plans to make all the buses in the city into LPG buses by 2005. In the first half of 2004, Guangzhou had built 3 new LPG fueling stations. Guangzhou plans to set up 20 new LPG fuelling stations by the end of 2004.

The transport authorities of Tianjin (LPG), Xian (CNG), Chongqing (CNG), Guangzhou (LPG), Harbin (LPG), Shenzhen (LPG), Urumchi (CNG/LPG), Changchun (LPG/CNG), Hainan province (LPG) and the middle area of Sichuan (CNG) are following Beijing’s lead in moving to alternative fuel-powered buses.

The Hong Kong SAR government has initiated a scheme to replace 18,000 diesel taxis to LPG models by 2005. It is expected that the project will be extended to the 8,000 mini-buses and 6000 city buses for replacement to LPG/CNG or fuel cell models.
For more information go to: www.emsd.gov.hk/emsd/eng/sgi/lpg.shtml

KEY PLAYERS

The five largest bus manufacturers in China account for 58% of local bus production. They are (by percentage of local production) Changan Auto (15.7%), Harbin Harfei (14.4%), Chancghe Aircraft (11.9%), Shanghai-GM-Wuling (8.2%) and FAW (7.9%).

Fuyuan Century Fuel Cell Power

The Fuyuan Century Fuel Cell Power company is developing PEMFC technology. It has developed stacks ranging in size from 3 kW to 30 kW. In 1998, the company developed the first fuel cell-powered passenger vehicle in China in conjunction with the Automotive Engineering Department of Tsinghua University, installing a 5 kW stack into a prototype golf cart. More recently, Fuyuan has built and tested 40 kW PEMFCs for buses, and commenced work on a 100 kW PEMFC program for electric buses. Its sister company, Fuyuan Pioneer New Energy Material, specializes in the R&D and production of PEMFC components, including carbon, composite and metal bipolar plates, and PEMFC membrane.

Dalian Institute of Chemical Physics (DICP) has been carrying out fuel cell R&D for more than 30 years. A dedicated fuel cell R&D centre was established in 1998. The centre employs more than 50 researchers and engineers. Most of these employees are working on PEMFC development. DICP has filed around 25 patents concerning PEMFC technology. Research areas have included the development of thin metal bipolar plates that are easy to manufacture, and the development of MEA manufacturing processes. In spring 2003, the DICP supplied its new 75 kW PEM stack to Tsinghua University, which integrated the unit in a bus.

Founded in 1998, Shanghai Shen-Li High Tech Co. Ltd. is developing PEM fuel cells for a whole array of applications, including mini-buses. Currently employing about 30 people in a 1500-square-metre facility, it has developed a series of prototypes, ranging in output from 10 kW to 50 kW.

Beijing Jinfeng Aerospace Development Company is the country’s largest producer of hydrogen storing metals. The company is working on possible uses of hydrogen for transport applications.

Smog Hangs Over Beijing: China has six of the world’s ten most polluted cities Photo: United States EPA

The China Association for Hydrogen Energy (CAHE) aims to promote hydrogen as a clean fuel for fuel cells and various other applications. The association is organizing the HYFORUM event, one of the largest hydrogen- and fuel cellrelated conferences in China. A Mercedes-Benz Citaro bus powered by a hydrogen fuel cell built by Ballard was showcased at the HYForum conference in Beijing in May 2004.

Tsinghua University is in charge of two national key fundamental projects: Fundamental Research for Hydrogen Production, Storage and Transportation in Large Scale and Relative Fuel Cells, and Fuel Cell Engines Used for Buses. The university is working on developing PEM fuel cells, fuel cell engines and making hydrogen from ethanol. Together with Beijing LN Power Sources, Tsinghua University demonstrated various vehicles in 2001, one of which was a small, 12 seater bus (top speed 90 km/h, range 160 km). Tsinghua University is expected to use a 80 kW engine to develop another prototype bus.

Cummins Westport Inc. (CWI) and Dongfeng Cummins Engine Company Ltd. (DCEC) signed a Memorandum of Understanding for a comprehensive supply agreement enabling DCEC to manufacture CWI natural gas B-series engines in China. CWI will supply natural gas-specific components for the B Gas International (BGI) engine to be manufactured by DCEC at its manufacturing facilities located in Xiangfan. Manufacturing is expected to begin in early 2005. This agreement to manufacture in China will enable CWI to access a broader customer base and to continue lowering its product cost. To date CWI has sold more than 2,000 CNG engines in Beijing, 40 in Chongqing and 10 in Chengdu.

In 2004, Witco Systems Inc. (U.S.) and Pressed Steel Tank Co. formed a joint venture company, Jian Cui Vehicles Co. Ltd. The joint venture will install 60 fast-fill CNG stations in southwestern China’s Sichuan province and then begin converting more than 50,000 diesel-fueled buses to allow them to run on a combination of diesel fuel and compressed natural gas. Work on the CNG stations was finished in July 2004. Other suppliers to the joint venture include CleanFuel USA Inc. U.S.), an alternative fuel technology company; FuelMaker Corp. (Toronto, Ontario), a manufacturer of refuelling systems; Angi International (Milton, Ontario), a manufacturer of fast-fill stations for compressed natural gas; and Fueling Technologies Inc (Concord, Ontario), a manufacturer of large fast-fill stations and dispensers.

Canadian firms active in China’s CNG/LPG market include Kraus Global and IMW Industries who have sold and installed CNG dispensers/refueling stations in China.

In 2003, IMPCO Technologies (U.S.), a manufacturer of alternative fuel systems technology for internal combustion, formed a joint venture with China Natural Gas Corporation (CNGC), a subsidiary of the China National Petroleum Corporation, to market and sell their gaseous fuel products in Western China.

Guangzhou Denway Motors Ltd., the first LPG single-fuel bus maker in South China, has produced over 100 LPG single-fuel buses, which were launched in Guangzhou and Shenzhen.

WHO IS BUYING?

Beijing’s transport authority has the largest, low-emissions CNG bus fleet in the world, with over 2,000 CNG engines. The Authority plans to have its entire 118,000 bus fleet operating on clean energy by the 2008 Olympics (90% retrofitted and 10% replaced with new engines). It has 400 trained service personnel for CNG-powered buses. Key contacts in Beijing include the Beijing Municipal Committee of Transportation which sets objectives/plans and implement them, and the Beijing Public Transportation Corporation and Beijing Bashi Corporation which operate the buses.

The following government bureaus in the province of Shanghai are involved in developing and implementing the plans for alternative fuel vehicles:

o Shanghai Environment Bureau is responsible for setting up the environment protection standards to the products

o Shanghai Development & Reform Commission (SDRC) is responsible for the detailed plan to reach the government’s goal of developing vehicles with alternative energy

o Shanghai Urban Transit Administration Bureau is responsible for implementing SDRC’s plan (including procurement) and provide feedback to SDRC

o Shanghai Science & Technology Commission is responsible for promoting the new technology

Transport authorities are looking for well-designed buses that are suited to their individual local environments, proper training of their maintenance staff and, when needed, a high-level of service from the original manufacturer.

About the Author:
Gordon Feller is the Director of
ReNewUSA and editor of
Urban Age Magazine.
In addition to extensive journalistic coverage of the worldwide energy sector and emerging environmental businesses, Feller has served as a senior-level advisor to companies investing in new technologies, processes and solutions. The list of clients ranges from small and little known firms to large well known firms: HP, Columbia Chemical, Phelps Dodge, Chevron, Apple, AT&T, IBM. Feller’s first work assessing environmentally sound economic policies was published during his freshman year at Columbia University. He continued there for four more years, finishing with a graduate degree in international affairs. He can be reached via editor@ecoworld.com.

Kyrgyzstan, the Switzerland of Central Asia Headwaters of the Syr Darya River

The Aral Sea used to be an endless expanse of bountiful waters. Now only burning sands remain, and graveyards of ghost ships. On the salt-saturated seabed where the sea once ran deep, lie dessicated hulks of what only 50 years ago were great fishing fleets.

This vast sea was an oasis of continental proportions, moderating the temperature, humidifying the air and the land, providing livelihoods for nearly a hundred thousand fishermen. To the east lay the vastness of asia, to the south the great ramparts of the Himalaya.

Since the dawn of civilization the Aral sea, 66,000 square kilometers in size, defied the dry deserts of Central Asia, and benefit the climates of the world.

Drying up the Aral Sea is considered by many environmentalists to be the biggest environmental disaster of all time, a disaster that might only be eclipsed by the total meltdown of Earth’s Ice Caps. Canals killed the Aral Sea, canals built by Soviet engineers with the eager assistance of local farmers, to increase agricultural production in their Central Asian republics. Between 1960 and 1980 the cotton industry in Central Asia has burgeoned, irrigated by northward flowing rivers that used to fill the Aral Sea, the Amu Darya and the Syr Darya.

View from Earth Orbit The Aral Sea in 1985

The headwaters of the Syr Darya are Himalayan glaciers in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. From this breathtaking region, the veritable Switzerland of Asia, the Syr Darya cascades north, eventually delivering a flow of 70-80 cubic kilometers per year into the Aral Basin. Kyrgyzstan has constructed dams and reservoirs with huge water diversion potential, as most of the flow of the Syr Darya is directly from watersheds within Kyrgyzstan. The Amu Darya has a northward flow per year of 30-40 cubic kilometers, with its headwaters in Afgahnistan. These headwater countries might release more water to their rivers, if they knew more water would go to the Aral Sea.

The countries that border the Aral Sea, Uzbekistan on the south and Kazakhstan on the north have the greatest amount of irrigated land; in all the Aral Basin now has an astonishing 87,600 square kilometers of irrigated crops, mostly cotton, up from a small fraction of that amount fifty years ago. These crops now use up virtually all the water that used to make it to the Aral Sea. The farming economies of virtually all countries in the Aral Basin are dependent on water from these rivers.

In 1950 water reaching the Aral Sea totaled 50 cubic kilometers each year, now the sea only gets 3, about one-twentieth of what it needs. Within 50 years, this water evaporated and wasn’t replaced, nearly 1,000 cubic kilometers of water volume. The sea shrank from 66,000 square kilometers to less than 10,000. The climate of the Aral Basin, with an area of 1.3 million square kilometers, was ruined by the sea’s demise. Coastline and hinterland are decimated by storms of salt and sand, dried away and desolate. Occupying a pivotal position in the arid center of the vast Asian continent, the death of the Aral Sea has altered weather patterns permanently, creating more continental extremes as weather fronts no longer encounter the moderating humidity from the evaporating Aral Sea. Soviet engineers didn’t just take 50 cubic kilometers out of the rivers feeding the Aral Sea each year, in equal measure they disrupted an evaporative water inflow into the air. Fewer continental clouds.

United Nations Environment Program

For only (USA)$30 million, the rice and cotton farmers in the most salinated fields of the irrigated Aral basin could have their crop bought out. They could sit out the summer with their harvest money already in hand, no need to sow the seeds, no need to watch over the fields, or to harvest, or to water. This relatively paltry sum of $30 million would release enough water to double the flow into the Aral Sea, from 3 cubic kilometers per year to 6, a very, very good bargain. Any takers? Major environmental organizations use many times that much money each year for marketing and legal fees, and as for the corporate world, a lot of them spend $30 million the way the rest of us might go buy a cup of coffee.

“Water is a Turkmen’s life, a horse is his wings…” An Ancient Turkmen Proverb

One joyful event was the independence of five Soviet Republics in 1991, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan and Kazahkstan. Proud and ancient lands, these nations have flowered since they gained autonomy. But now the Aral Basin, with Russia included, numbers six countries where there once was one. Cooperation is more complicated. Some have suggested the Aral Sea itself become its own 7th country, at the center of the basin, a remediation zone that could more easily coordinate agreements with all involved and quickly attract investment. In any case, upstream countries might be induced to contribute more water to the downstream flow if they knew more water would end up in the Aral Sea.

Another way to save the Aral Sea is through more efficient irrigation systems. The Kara Kum canal, for example, the centerpiece of the Soviet built system of huge diversion canals, lacks concrete lining for much of its 1,300 kilometer length. In all there are over 60 diversion canals that tap into the Amu Darya and Syr Darya rivers. Most of them lack lining. Improving the canal system and overall irrigation efficiency can probably give as much as 20 kilometers per year of water back to the Aral, not nearly enough, but far more than at present.

Aral Sea 2005 -empty-

Present efforts to save the Aral are noble but yield meager results. The northern Aral Sea which has split off from the Aral Sea has stablized and has a tiny fishery reestablished. Unfortunately the Northern Aral Sea, or Little Aral, is insignificant compared to the entire Aral Sea. Moreover, it lies on higher ground north of the larger Aral sea bottom, and the fishermen in the region are building a dam on the former seabed to keep the sea from overflowing. Unless more water arrives, well they should, conservation will refill the lower Aral sometime between thousands of years and never. Conservation is only part of the solution.

Aral Sea 2010 -canals flowing-

The best way to save the Aral Sea had been planned all along. When the Soviets built the Kara Kum canal system, to make up for the loss of water to the Aral Sea they intended to build two more canals to divert water from other major rivers into the Aral Basin. One canal would move water south-west from the southern flowing Volga, and another longer one would move water south by southeast from the northern flowing Ob-Irtysh. Both of these rivers are far larger than the Amu Darya and Syr Darya that water the Aral basin.

VOLGA & OB REFILL ARAL SEA

Canals (orange) divert up to 100 cubic km water per year to the Aral Sea from the Volga & Ob Rivers. Yellow areas = elevation over 200 meters Map Scale: 100 pixels = 1,000 kilometers

The Volga, which has its headwaters on the western slopes of the Urals, has a flow of around 240 cubic kilometers per year and flows into the Caspian Sea. The Ob-Irtysh, drawing its moisture from the vast Central Siberian Plain, has a flow of around 385 cubic kilometers per year and flows north into the Arctic Ocean. These rivers, both of which serve regions with an overabundance of water, could each have under ten percent of their flow tapped and the Aral Sea would get an extra 60 cubic kilometers per year, more than making up for the diversions that have robbed the Aral for all these years. Indeed that was the plan, fifty years ago. But the priorities of the cold war slowed Soviet investment in new canals, and when in 1989 the USSR broke up, the plan was forgotten. Until now.

Aral Sea 2015 -starting to refill-

Russian President Vladmir Putin, Moscow Mayor Yuri Luzhkov, and many other prominent Russian political leaders and eminent scientists are stepping forward to revive the plan to save the Aral Sea by constructing canals to tap Russian rivers. The President of Uzbekistan, Islam Karimov, has also endorsed reviving the project. The smaller of the canals was intended to transfer water from the Volga river to the Aral Sea. Today, building this canal, 800 kilometers long, 200 meters wide and 16 meters deep, would cost about (USA)$8 billion. Such a canal would tap into the Volga river in the Ural uplands, running along the contours of the earth to drain into the Aral basin and into the shrunken sea. Depending on the route, because of a lack of high altitude barriers between the Volga watershed and the Aral basin, this canal might require little or even no pumping stations.

Aral Sea 2020 -major fishing!-

The larger canal was designed to run from the confluence of the Ob and Irtysh rivers, 2,500 kilometers south through the lowlands along a major tributary called Tobol River, over the low hills separating the Western Siberian plain from the Aral basin. This canal, equally wide and deep while longer and requiring more pumping stations than the one built from the Volga would cost about $22 billion if it were built today. A canal from the Ob-Irtysh to the Aral Sea would be pretty big, but it is comparable in scope to canals already built all over the world. This canal system is certainly not any more extensive than the sea-killing one already in place to drain the water for crop irrigation, nor than the systems in Western Europe, California, China and elsewhere.

Aral Sea 2025 -Caspian saved-

It is natural for many environmentalists to ridicule and demonize a plan like this. It is very expensive and constructing the canals will disrupt many local ecosystems. But the long-term benefit far outweighs costs. The biggest environmental disaster in history would be totally reversed. What’s that worth?

Even more compelling to environmentalists are new factors that didn’t exist 50 years ago when the canal system was originally conceived. The Caspian Sea is rising alarmingly, over 2.5 meters in the last 30 years. Nobody knows where it will end. Coastal cities are at risk of inundation. Farmland is being swallowed up. Having a canal to drain 10% or more of the Volga river into the Aral Basin would help manage this crisis.

Aral Sea 2030 -Gulf Stream ok-

An even bigger environmental reason for building these canals applies to the Ob-Irtysh, which flows into the Arctic Ocean. Many climatologists and hydrologists are concerned about the impact of fresh water flowing into the Arctic. Their models suggest that too much fresh water might have an effect on the Gulf Stream, causing it to no longer wind its way northwards hugging Europe’s western shores, from Spain to Murmansk. Weather in Europe, if no longer warmed by the Gulf Stream’s tropical ocean current, would revert to an ice age. Not a pleasant thought, if you’re sitting outdoors to tea in London. Melting glacial ice and icepack in recent years have allowed unprecedented levels of fresh water to accumulate in the Arctic. Diverting as many as 40 cubic kilometers of fresh water away from the Arctic delta of the Ob-Irtysh would significantly reduce the levels of fresh water in the Arctic, helping preserve the northward flowing Gulf Stream, preventing an imminent ice age.

Aral Sea 2035 -completely filled-

Building two canals to save the Aral Sea, avert Caspian floods, and prevent a European ice age sound like pretty good reasons, but economic reasons also show viability. Bringing back the largest fishery in Central Asia, and having more, smarter irrigation systems would turn this desolate region, victim of man’s hubris, into a garden of the world. At a cost of $30 billion, once these canals were constructed, the Aral could be refilled in twenty years. This money can be put together by the World Bank, or any collection of good-sized Nation States. This construction project could even be funded by private interests. Environmentalists should quit hiring lawyers and start buying bulldozers.

Support from the world environmental movement for refilling the Aral Sea by the only practical means, building more canals, could tip the balance, raising awareness, spreading information, and having a decisive impact on gaining sufficient global political and financial support. If Russian President Putin and others can make this their legacy, the Caspian shore will be saved, the icecaps won’t melt, and ships will sail again upon the vastness and the abundance of a totally refilled Aral Sea.

Ed Ring is the Editor of EcoWorld, based in Sacramento, California, USA.

LAND AREA & WATER VOLUME FOR VOLGA, OB, & ARAL BASIN

REFERENCES:

Turning Siberian Rivers - Pravda

http://english.pravda.ru/main/2001/10/23/18864.html

Will the Siberian Rivers flow to Uzbekistan? - Pravda

http://english.pravda.ru/main/2002/04/09/27464.html

Asia’s Desert Set to Bloom Again - The Scotsman

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=139942004

The Aral Sea Crisis - BBC

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/special_report/1998/water_week/70460.stm

Caspian Environment Programme

http://www.caspianenvironment.org/scripts/print.pl?word=caspian.htm

Moscow Mayor Plans to Sell Water to the World - Pravda

http://english.pravda.ru/main/2002/12/05/40386.html

The Aral Sea: Bank From the Brink? - UNESCO

http://www.unesco.org/courier/2000_01/uk/planete/txt1.htm

Portrait of a Doomed Sea - European Space Agency

http://www.esa.int/esaEO/SEMUVZXO4HD_index_0.html

Optimization of Syr Darya Water & Energy Uses - Water International

http://www.ce.utexas.edu/prof/mckinney/papers/aral/28-Antipova-WI-02.pdf

Time to Save the Aral Sea? - U.N. Food & Agricultural Organization

http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/FAOINFO/AGRICULT/magazine/9809/spot2.htm

Welcome to Siberia (Khanty-Mansiisk) - International Federation of Film Critics

http://www.fipresci.org/festivals/archive/2003/various_2003/khanty_mansiisk_2003_keder.htm

Probability Forecast for Aral Sea Levels - Environment.net

http://www.ee-environment.net/docs/ADP6FE.htm

River & Water Facts - U.S. National Park Service

http://www.nps.gov/rivers/waterfacts.html

Population & the Future of Renewable Water Supplies - Population Action International

http://www.cnie.org/pop/pai/water-5.html

For more information including electricity requirements see:
- Arctic to Aral - How Much Electricity Would the Pumps Require?

The verdant countryside of Costa Rica

It was never my intention to be an environmentalist.

Not that I felt that there was anything wrong with being one; I just wasn’t expecting it. Sure, I had contributed some to the Nature Conservancy because I was hiking regularly on their lands, but with raising kids and trying to pay bills, it seemed that my efforts would have to be limited to just giving some money here and there to environmental causes.

I’ve always been interested in nature. Few things are more enjoyable to me than long distance hiking, especially in new and novel areas. At one time in my life, I wanted to be a marine biologist or a forest ranger, and I think that was because I wanted to be outside rather than have a desk job. Besides, I was born on a 300-acre farm and never really got very far away from that experience. A woodcarver since age eight, I have also been interested in wood for a long time. When I was a teenager, I had a part-time job in a lumberyard and found all the different properties of wood fascinating.

Fred Morgan in front of a massive Ojoche tree

Caring about the environment, occasionally contributing to environmental causes, this description could probably apply to thousands of people, if not millions. How in the world did we get involved in reforestation? And how did we manage to pay for it?

The Dream:

For years - in fact most of our married life - my wife, Amy, and I had a plan of living in a Latin American country someday to start a business that would help the people there as Amy perfected her Spanish, a language she loves. Once we decided that Costa Rica was it, I started to research into what it takes to live there. I knew that Costa Rica grants residency to people if they have a retirement pension (or Social Security), but that does not apply to Amy and me, since we are nowhere near that age (though it keeps creeping closer when we are not looking!).

We learned that one of the ways to obtain residency is to be involved in reforestation. Costa Rica has suffered very rapid deforestation over the last 50 years; in fact more than 70% of the country is currently deforested. This is causing serious problems with mudslides, floods, and believe it or not, lack of water during the dry season. Because of that, the Costa Rican government is trying to encourage reforestation with tax benefits, information, and residency.

Costa Rica encourages reforestation with tax benefits, information & residency

Of all the different ways of qualifying for residency in Costa Rica, reforestation appealed to me most, and as I researched it, it appealed even more. Since I work in a technological field, I prefer to invest in something besides technology. If I were to lose my job because of a downturn in technology, I don’t want to lose my retirement fund as well. So, growing trees seemed like a good approach to retirement planning for me. I also liked the idea that it would help the environment. We decided on a combination of replacing pastureland with a tree plantation along with protecting and expanding existing rainforest.

If we had not met Hector Ramirez and his wife, Christina, I rather doubt that we would have gone through with it as a do-it-yourself project. The difficulty is that reforestation is not just sticking trees into the ground. For the first 3 years, there is a lot of work. Also, doing business in another country is challenging. As the saying goes, you aren’t in Kansas anymore. Hector was born and raised in Costa Rica in the very area where we wanted to establish our plantation. We had been trying to work through agents to find land in that area, and they could find nothing for months. Hector found us more than we could even see in a matter of a few weeks.

Amy Morgan inspects property on horseback

Finding the Land:

Hector, Amy, and I flew down to Costa Rica together to look at fincas. What a week! We stayed with friends of Hector and ate at their soda (roadside cafe) every day. During the day, we would visit farms (fincas), and every evening Hector would go out and line up the farms to go see the next day. We rode horses around most of the fincas, which was quite an experience, since neither Amy nor I would be considered horse people by any stretch of the imagination. We eventually picked a very nice finca that was a working dairy farm and well-maintained.

Hector & Christina Ramirez Partners in Reforestation

After spending a week in Costa Rica, it became clear that we needed Hector long-term, so we made him an offer he couldn’t refuse - or we hoped that he wouldn’t. He accepted our offer to be a partner in the business. We all figure that Hector is the one really important person. The rest of us are support staff for him. The other very important person is Antonio, our forestry engineer, who has 20-plus years in Costa Rica growing trees. Hector and Antonio make all of the important decisions - all I get to decide is how many trees we are going to plant each year and what species. We started out with four: teak, mahogany (caoba), Spanish cedar, and sura.

A 20 year old Spanish Cedar Tree

Of course, these species were chosen with Antonio’s agreement. This is working very well; in fact, the plantation is growing excellently, probably because they are doing it and not me. Of course, Hector loves it when I show up. He figures using me for a mule saves wear and tear on the animals.

Well, buying the land and a truck pretty much wiped out our reserves. We did not have enough to pay Hector what he was worth, although that’s not a lot of money in Costa Rica. So Hector explained to us that since we owned land, we could make money. We had bought 67 hectares (about 164 acres), and since we were only planning on planting 5 hectares the first year, most of it was going to be fallow, which means it would soon be jungle if we didn’t prevent it. I like letting the land go back to jungle, but I cannot afford to let all of it do that, unfortunately. Our land, like me, has to earn a living.

The Agro-Forestry Formula:

Hector suggested that we continue to graze cattle in the places where we were not planting yet. This would provide income for Hector and his family and reduce the amount we needed to pay him. After Hector brought this up, I did what I always do, delved into researching it, both on the Internet and with Antonio, our forestry engineer. Agroforestry, the management of land by growing trees in combination with pasture and food crops, would work very well for us.

The problem in growing just trees is that it requires tying up a considerable amount of capital. The reason farmers do not normally plant trees is that it is impossible for them to not have their land constantly produce revenue. Agroforestry is an attempt to compromise between the need to produce a cash crop each year and the need to grow trees for the future.

In addition to grazing cattle, when we plant trees, we plant a crop of tiquisque between them. This provides several benefits. One, the tiquisque protects the soil so that bare ground doesn’t wash away in the rains. Two, the trees are weeded and fertilized for free, since Hector works with another person to plant the tubers, and the other person maintains and weeds them. After the tiquisque was harvested, the trees are big enough not to need weeding any more. Three, the harvest provides additional money for Hector and his family. I figure with all the money Hector is making doing agroforestry, he will soon be lending me money!

The Tiquisque plant protects soil from erosion, crowds out weeds, and provides an edible tuber

Another interesting development has occurred. Because we are a bit obsessed about this adventure of ours, it kept coming up in our conversations. (I swear everyone who knows us knows about our tree plantation - they are very tolerant.) Well, some of our friends asked to be part of it. We got very excited about being able to save a whole lot more rainforest than we could on our own. We had purchased four times as much land as we needed for our own retirement. I did a lot of study and research and found out that a common practice is to sell trees instead of shares. Instead of owning part of a plantation, you own only the trees. The advantage for the tree owners, of course, is that they invest in trees without having to go through the pain of owning land in a foreign country and becoming knowledgeable in growing trees. They can also piggyback on our experiences: We try growing each species for ourselves before we sell it to anyone else.

Financing Agro-Forestry:

We had several friends who didn’t realize they had money on hand to invest it trees—in their IRAs! We had made contact with a company that specializes in administering self-directed IRAs and other self-directed retirement accounts. They helped us streamline the process for people to own trees in their IRAs, so even more people got involved in our reforestation effort.

In July 2003, we decided to switch from only offering to grow trees for family and friends to offering our services to the general public. We hesitated (for about a second) because of all the work involved, but our desire to preserve more of the environment in the area as well as provide more jobs for the locals won out. This has been much more successful than we imagined. We sold out of the available trees from the July 2003 planting in about 5 months, and we weren’t even trying. Because of that, we are planning to plant triple in 2004 what we did last year, and already things are looking like we may have to bump that up considerably and maybe even buy more land for next year’s planting. We are happy about this, not because we will get rich off it (we will not) but because it helps preserve so much of Costa Rica. Generally speaking, 40 to 60 percent of the land we own is allowed to remain virgin rainforest or revert to jungle. So, the more trees we plant, the more biological corridors we are creating. This allows the wild animals to pass through from one feeding area to another and to proliferate.

Allowing corridors of land to revert to jungle helps wildlife safely pass between feeding areas

We structured the tree purchases so that we would have enough money to take care of the trees, but our profit comes when the trees are harvested. We will receive 6% of the proceeds from the sale of the wood. We did this so that tree owners would know that we are highly motivated to take care of the trees for the full 25 years until the last ones are harvested. Also, they can come visit any time they want and check out their investment as well. We love to show people around the place.

The average tree owner is a person who is concerned about the environment, often has traveled outside of the United States (and sometimes has immigrated to the USA from a Latin American country), and is either saving for their children’s education or for their retirement. A sizeable percentage also are people like us who want their residency in Costa Rica and feel that this is a great way to get it, help the environment, and invest for their future all at the same time.

Conventional methods of timber harvesting can needlessly damage the surrounding land

Since Hector and Antonio have the current plantation so well in hand, what are Amy and I doing? Currently we are exploring a value-added direction. Instead of just growing trees, we want to make sure that the trees we grow are efficiently used. Usually during the harvest of a tree, a large percentage of the wood is thrown away, because the big sawmills only want a certain kind of wood. Have you ever wondered why it is so hard to find wood with an interesting grain pattern? It is because the sawmills don’t like to handle it, since it is hard to saw. To make matters worse, the normal method of harvesting trees tears up the land, because the logs are dragged to a tractor-trailer and then the tractor-trailer is dragged out of the forest. This leaves big scars on the land that cause erosion if not fixed. We are already researching how to harvest trees with the least amount of damage to the land.

Promoting Sustainable Forestry:

It is interesting that, although cutting down rainforest is a bad thing, cutting down plantation trees for furniture is a very good thing, because it ties up the carbon for years and years. This is very important in reducing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It is also a very good thing because it returns a profit to those who have invested in reforestation, encouraging others to do it as well.

Finca Leola is building a network of furniture makers who use sustainably harvested wood

Recently we went on a furniture research trip to see the design and quality of the furniture being made in Costa Rica. Some was rustic or not well-made, but some was excellent, beautifully designed and made as well as any furniture we had ever seen and very reasonably priced. For example, a large, oblong dining room table and six chairs was priced at about $1,000.00 US. This was about 25% to 30% of what I would expect it to go for in the USA. The problem is, of course, that you have no idea where the wood comes from and may be contributing to the destruction of the rainforest by buying it. We are currently making plans to develop a network of furniture builders who will create furniture from our wood that we will help them sell, so that people can help by buying tropical hardwood furniture instead of hurting.

Finca Leola has evolved into much more than just a couple of families trying to help do something for the environment with their limited time and resources. Our Web site, www.fincaleola.com, has become a source of information on reforestation, and our lives are being enriched by all of the tree owners and others who contact us and stay connected with us throughout the year. We also spend considerable time giving free advice to people who own land in Costa Rica and want to grow their own trees, as well as to some other owners of reforestation projects. It has so far been the most fulfilling and enriching experience of our lives.

What I think is developing is Cooperative Reforestation. Instead of the idea of just planting trees and eventually harvesting them (our first plan) we have morphed into a collaboration of individuals and companies, all with a common thread of reforestation and improving the environment, but at the same time, having the plantations pay for themselves. We have created a website that dispenses information on reforestation and related topics, since our primary purpose is to encourage reforestation.

One of the most famous reforestation projects in Costa Rica is Hacienda Baru. Jack Ewing started 30 years ago to reclaim a portion of Dominical, Costa Rica. Not only has he successfully grown lumber for his own use, but he has created an ecotourism paradise. In this case, tourism is supporting the reforestation project, showing that often, the trees are worth considerably more alive than dead.

Another family has started CloudBridge, a private nature reserve. They have volunteers who come help replant the deforested areas and sell merchandise, and they accept donations to help fund the project.

We at Finca Leola encourage anyone who is interested in reforestation to drop us a line. We feel that much of the deforestation that has occurred is not because of greed but lack of knowledge. If we can, through our Web site and through offering to plant trees for others, help in reforesting a part of Costa Rica, we feel all of the hard work and money will have been well-spent.

Fred Morgan

President

Finca Leola S.A.