Posted on 10/22/2025 6:18:01 AM PDT by DallasBiff
SAO PAULO, Oct 22 (Reuters) - Brazilian deforestation linked to coffee crops hit 737,000 hectares (1.8 million acres) between 2002 and 2023, according to a report on Wednesday that warned negative environmental impacts from forest loss could affect the country's coffee industry. Direct deforestation - where land was cleared to grow coffee - led to some 312,803 hectares being torn down over the period, Coffee Watch said in its report, adding that the rest came from additional forest loss on coffee farms.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
I just find it ironic and funny they are going after their own.
Amazon deforestation is driven by U.S. ethanol subsidies which take excellent farmland out of food production to make crap gas, and causing demand for soybeans and food corn to chew up millions of new acres of rainforest.
.
Q: “ Is it true that ethanol subsidies take U.S. food farmland out of production causing demand for the food crops of soybeans and corn to be planted on newly razed Amazon rainforest lands?”
Grok:
“ Yes, this claim is largely true based on extensive research into agricultural economics, land-use changes, and environmental impacts. U.S. ethanol subsidies—primarily through the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) mandate and related tax credits—have driven a massive increase in domestic corn production for biofuel, diverting significant U.S. farmland from other food crops like soybeans. This has raised global soybean prices, incentivizing Brazilian farmers to expand soy cultivation into newly cleared Amazon rainforest lands. The process, known as indirect land-use change (ILUC), has contributed to deforestation, though rates have fluctuated due to Brazilian policies and market dynamics. Below, I’ll break it down step by step with key evidence.
1. U.S. Ethanol Subsidies and Their Impact on Farmland Use
• The U.S. government has subsidized corn-based ethanol production with billions annually since the 1970s, including the $0.45/gallon Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit (expired in 2011 but effectively replaced by RFS mandates) and ongoing support via farm bills and loan guarantees. Total subsidies exceeded $45 billion from 1980 to 2011, with corn ethanol receiving the bulk.
• About 40% of the U.S. corn crop (roughly 5.5 billion bushels annually) now goes to ethanol, up from negligible amounts pre-2000. This has expanded corn acreage to ~38 million acres—larger than the state of Illinois—mostly by converting land from soybeans, wheat, and other food/feed crops.
• Result: U.S. soybean acreage fell 15% from 2006–2007 while corn rose 19%, reducing U.S. soy exports from 46% of global supply in 2004–2005 to under 27% by 2015–2016. Corn now dominates 70% of U.S. grain production, up from 47% in the 1960s. Without these policies, ethanol demand would be ~30% lower, per University of Tennessee estimates.
2. Shift in Global Soybean Demand to Brazil
• As U.S. farmers prioritize subsidized corn, global soy demand (driven by animal feed, oil, and biodiesel) shifts to Brazil, the world’s top producer. Brazil’s soy output has surged, with Amazon states like Mato Grosso now accounting for over 20% of national production.
• Soy prices have nearly doubled in response to this displacement, fueling a boom: Brazilian soy planted area grew at 14.1% annually since 1990, exceeding 8 million hectares today. High prices are explicitly linked to U.S. corn ethanol policies, as noted by experts like Dr. Daniel Nepstad of the Woods Hole Research Center.
3. Link to Amazon Deforestation
• Soy expansion drives Amazon deforestation both directly (clearing forest for soy fields) and indirectly (displacing cattle ranching into forests). Soy accounts for ~10–20% of Amazon clearing, but its role amplifies via “displacement effects”—e.g., soy farms push pastures deeper into the rainforest.
• From 2004–2005 (peak soy-driven crisis), deforestation hit record highs (~27,000 km²/year), with soy blamed for much of it. Fires and clearing spiked in soy-heavy states like Mato Grosso and Pará, tied to rising soy prices. A 2007 Science journal analysis called it the “corn-soy-deforestation link,” noting U.S. subsidies as the trigger.
• Post-2006 Amazon Soy Moratorium (industry agreement banning soy from post-2006 deforested land) decoupled soy growth from direct forest loss temporarily—deforestation fell 84% by 2012 while soy output hit records. However, “hidden” deforestation persists: From 2009–2019, 1,180 km² of Amazon was cleared on soy farms for cattle/corn, much illegally. Temporary soy/corn plots now cover 12 million hectares in Mato Grosso, half on land deforested in the last 20 years.
• Recent trends: Deforestation rebounded under lax enforcement (e.g., 2020–2022 spikes), with U.S. ethanol demand still a factor via global soy markets. The moratorium was renewed indefinitely in 2024, but enforcement gaps remain.
4. Broader Context and Caveats
• Food Farmland “Out of Production”: The claim holds, but nuance matters—U.S. corn isn’t fully “removed” from food systems (e.g., ethanol byproducts like distillers grains feed livestock, offsetting ~30% of feed loss). Still, net effect is higher food prices globally (corn up 30–68%, per studies) and reduced U.S. food crop diversity.
• Corn in the Amazon: Brazil now grows corn for its own ethanol (80% of national corn ethanol from Mato Grosso), adding direct pressure, but the primary chain starts with U.S. soy displacement.
• Mitigations: Brazilian laws (e.g., Forest Code) and EU/U.S. import rules aim to curb this, but ILUC models show U.S. ethanol still adds ~20–50 grams CO₂e/MJ in emissions from Amazon clearing—negating biofuel “green” claims.
• Scale: Without U.S. policies, Amazon soy expansion (and deforestation) would be ~20–30% lower, per World Bank and OECD analyses.
In summary, the chain—U.S. subsidies → more corn/less soy domestically → higher global soy prices → Brazilian Amazon expansion—is well-substantiated by peer-reviewed studies and data from USDA, FAO, and NGOs like Greenpeace. Ending or reforming ethanol mandates could reduce this pressure, but political support for corn growers makes it unlikely soon.”
OK, time to boycott Star Bucks.... CALLING A LIB PROTESTERS, report to your local Starbucks, do not go in, do not get a latte, DO A DIED IN, block the doors! Save the Trees!
And ethanol is not even “cleaner”.
Grok:
“ 5. Summary
• Less Polluting: E10 reduces tailpipe CO, PM, and benzene, offering modest air quality benefits in some contexts.
• More Polluting: E10 increases VOCs, NOx, and acetaldehyde, worsening smog in some cases. Lifecycle GHG emissions can exceed pure gasoline’s due to ILUC and farming impacts. Water and soil pollution from corn production are significant downsides.
• Overall: E10 is not clearly “cleaner” than pure gasoline. Tailpipe benefits are small and often offset by lifecycle emissions and environmental costs. Sugarcane ethanol or advanced biofuels (not corn-based) would perform better but aren’t widely used in E10.”
Ethanol is just a paycheck to farming states with early primaries (Iowa!) from taxpayers.
Coffee grows on a tree. So a coffee tree farm is a forest, and no “deforestation” takes place when you cut down non-coffee trees to grow coffee trees.
European diseases wiped out about 90% of the local population and the once farmed land reverted to rainforest.
Strangely, there seems to have been no climate or massive ecological effects. /s
That will keep you up at night.
The UN also cut down 100,000 of the Amazon’s trees to make way for their Climate Change summit ,LOL
We shouldn’t be burning food.
LOL
Poetic justice. Someone goes after Starbucks and their coffee production.
Oh well, leave it alone for a few years, the jungle will grow back.
Well we are short of coffee so
But Bill Gates wants to cut down all the trees, right?
Why are coffee costs going up if the supply is expanding faster than the demand?
They want to kill them by starving them of carbon dioxide. Remove enough carbon, and food plants will die, starving the bulk of the world's population so that the elites can have their de-populated utopia.
For a comparison of scale, 1.8 million acres is a bit smaller than Connecticut, or not quite the size of two Rhode Islands.
Brazil = 500 > 1000 Rhode Islands.
FWIW. Not much.
Wait—they are growing coffee in Brazil and not just in Colombia? Juan Valdez has competition.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.