G
Gandalf Grey
Guest
Food or Fuel?
By Siv O'Neall
Created Jun 12 2007 - 9:04am
- first posted at Axis of Logic [1]
The scientific community now finally seems to agree on the fact that global
warming is happening and that it's urgent to find remedies against the
imminent hazards that threaten the planet. The big question that confronts
the world community now is how do we go about countering this imminent
global disaster.
During a short tour to a few cooperative countries in Latin America in March
2007 by our opportunist president, an ethanol alliance was proclaimed in
Brazil (Sao Paolo March 8) between George W. Bush and Brazil's President
Luiz Inacio "Lula" da Silva. "[It was] hailed by apologists for both
governments as an advance in the development of alternative sources of
energy and a gain for both countries' economies." (WSWS [2] - 'Brazil:
Bush-Lula biofuel plans based on conditions worse than slavery')
The relative costs and benefits of ethanol biofuels, however, are very much
subject to doubt and even to open criticism by much of the community that is
fighting for alternative sources for fuel.
An article in Le Monde Diplomatique of June 2007 ('Les cinq mythes de la
transition vers les agrocarburants' - 'The five myths of the transition
towards biofuels'[1]) makes an impressive case against the cultivating of
corn, sugar cane, wheat and soy beans for the development of ethanol to
replace dwindling currently existing energy sources.
There is an insufficient supply of natural gas and oil-based energy which
simply has to be replaced until the masses of energy-consuming people are
forced to decrease their dependence on gas and oil and all the various forms
of petrochemicals that we are addicted to.
However, what is the case for or against the imagined ethanol panacea? How
thoroughly were the research and the arithmetic done before this huge
enterprise was launched?
The case against ethanol biofuel is written in huge and clear script, so
clear it is surprising that even the corporate industry that pushes for
ethanol, for obvious reasons, is unable to read the writing on the wall. The
cultivation of ethanol-producing crops is clearly just another way of making
more profit. Instant profit is the god of the day and the mega cultures of
corn, sugar cane, wheat and soy beans will add huge profits to transnational
corporations. If one day the supply of oil and gas is going to give
diminishing returns, which still seems to be a somewhat distant way off in
the future, the way the price of gasoline and natural gas are skyrocketing,
the big corporations will certainly make sure that they are protected
against any possible future economic downturn.
The United States, Brazil, India and China are already busy cultivating
these crops. The industry is already under way and has been for five years
as far as the U.S. is concerned.
There are two major arguments to be made in this context.
First: Is the production of ethanol really going to amount to a real gain
which can be added to already existing sources of energy? It turns out that,
in order to produce ethanol fuel it would take so much energy for
transportation and other production costs that using ethanol fuel would not
even amount to a net gain in the use of traditional energy sources or a
lowering of the output of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
Second: Besides this obvious drawback, there is the even more frightening
fact that the culture of these fuel producing crops would take away such
huge amounts of land from food-producing agro business that it would lead to
increasing mass starvation on the planet. Already over half a billion people
on the planet are starving.[2] Is it really the moment to convert huge
arable lands from food production to ethanol-producing corn, sugar cane, soy
beans and wheat?
What will follow if the world ignores the need for equitable distribution of
the food that is presently available (more than enough to feed the world
population) and sets out on a course of depriving the people of what is
their due?[3] There is already an urgent need for improved policies for
feeding the world's population, and it seems insane instead to take away the
food from the people who are already exposed to the risk of starving.
Food prices (corn, cane sugar, soy beans, wheat) are increasing already
because of the competition for the production of ethanol made from what
could have been food crops. When families pay 50 - 80 % of their income for
food, even a relatively modest increase in the price of corn, etc. will have
disastrous consequences. There is an obvious likelihood that food prices
will soar because of the vast inflation in these commodity prices. The price
of tortilla, the staple food of all Mexicans, went up so drastically during
the last few months of 2006 that President Felipe Calderon had to intervene
after powerful street protests and set a more reasonable limit for the
increased price of corn.[4] Even so, the rise in this basic staple was
severely felt by poor Mexicans.[5]
I am not even going into the deadly serious effects that would follow from
the increased cultivation of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO), but there
is already ample proof that biotech giants Monsanto, Cargill, Syngenta et
al. have not passed up an opportunity like this one to make enormous
profits. Monsanto, the huge and socially irresponsible biotech corporation,
is already the world's leading profiteer from the ethanol craze.[6]
Besides taking arable lands away from food crops, there is also very serious
deforestation going on, among other places in Amazonia and Indonesia, where
the situation is highly precarious.
From 'The five myths of the transition towards biofuels [3]' (Le Monde
Diplomatique, June, 2007):
"The introduction of cultures destined for biofuels will simply have the
effect of pushing back these communities (indigenous populations) towards
the "agricultural frontier" of Amazonia, where the devastating ways of land
clearing are all too well known. Soya already supplies 40 % of biofuels in
Brazil. According to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the
more the price of soya increases, the more the destruction of the humid rain
forest in Amazonia will accelerate - 325 hectares a year, at the present
rate.
In Indonesia, oil palms destined for the production of biodiesel - called
the "diesel of deforestation" are the principal cause of the retreat of the
forest. In 2020, those surfaces will have tripled and will reach 16,5
million hectares - England and Wales taken together, - with as a result a
loss of 98 % of the land covered by forest. Neighboring Malaysia, the prime
producer of palm oil in the world, has already lost 87 % of its tropical
forests and continues to clear land at the rate of 7 % a year."
On top of all these disastrous effects of ethanol production, there is
also the fact that poor farmers are losing their livelihood and their land
because they are squeezed out when giant plantations of sugar cane and soy
beans take over their land.
One of the foremost arguments against ethanol is however the fact that the
147 million tons of biofuel that the world can produce in the next
twenty-three years will in no way replace the need for oil. It will just
compensate for the annual increase of global demand for oil.
"Actually, the attraction of these biofuels resides in the fact that they
might prolong the oil-based economy. ... The higher the price of oil, the
more the price of ethanol can increase and still remain competitive. ... The
world energy crisis is potentially a gold mine of 80,000 to 100,000 billion
dollars for the food and oil corporations. It's not surprising that we are
not encouraged to scale back on our habits of "over-consumption".
('The five myths of the transition towards biofuels [4]' - Le Monde
Diplomatique, June, 2007)
The final word on this enormous life-threatening problem is the fact that
nobody even seems to touch on the basic problem which is of course
over-consumption. There is no way any politicians or any member of Big
Business is ever going to dare tell the world openly that we have to change
our life styles, give up on privileges that we have been taking for granted,
tighten our belts and live our lives in a low energy consumption way that is
so far from the buy-use-and-throw-away, globe-trotting , fast-moving,
energy-splurging life style we have gotten used to.
It is going to be a hard day for the politicians when one day they realize
that they have to speak out and be very serious about saving energy. A hard
day for the oil corporations when they realize that production and
consumption will have to diminish. A hard day for the biotech and cereal
corporations when it becomes obvious that ethanol is not the answer to our
current dilemma.
(c) Copyright 2007 by AxisofLogic.com
[1] Summary in English of article from Le Monde Diplomatique: 'Les cinq
mythes de la transition vers les agrocarburants [5]'
[2] (Circle of Rights [6]) Estimates indicate that more than 840 million
people throughout the world are chronically undernourished-in spite of a
record availability of food per capita in most countries and globally.
Nearly 40,000 children die due to malnutrition and its diseases every day.
It is the poor (both in the North and in the South) who are the victims.
[3] The World Food Summit [7] in November 1996 reaffirmed the right of
everyone to have access to safe and nutritious food, consistent with the
right to adequate food and the fundamental right of everyone to be free from
hunger, and gave a specific mandate [8] to the High Commissioner for Human
Rights to better define the rights related to food and propose ways to
implement and realize them.
[4] MEXICO CITY [9] (AP), Jan 31 - Tens of thousands of trade unionists,
farmers and leftists marched through downtown Mexico City on Wednesday to
protest price increases for basic foods like tortillas--the staple of
Mexico's poor--and to demand a change in economic policy.
[5] The international price of corn rose dramatically throughout 2006,
leading to the inflation of tortilla prices in the first month of Calderon's
term. Because tortilla is the main food product consumed by the country's
poorest, national concern over the rising prices immediately generated
political pressures for Calderon's administration. The President (Felipe
Calderon) opted for using price ceilings for tortillas that protect local
producers of corn. This price control came in the form of a Tortilla Price
Stabilization Pact [10] between the government and many of the main tortilla
producing companies, including Grupo Maseca and Bimbo, to put a price
ceiling at $8.50 pesos per kilogram of tortilla. The idea of the agreement
is that having these producers ceiling their prices would incentive the
market to lower the prices nationally.
[6] Corn seed sales surged 47 percent to $1.19 billion (euro890 million),
from $811 million, amid a boom in production of ethanol, which in this
country is made largely from corn. (Monsanto 2nd Quarter Profit [11] Fueled
by Robust Demand for Corn Seeds, Technology)
_______
About author Siv O'Neall was born and raised in Sweden where she graduated
from Lund University. She has lived in Paris, France and New Rochelle, N.Y
and traveled extensively throughout Europe. Siv retired after many years of
teaching French in Westchester, N.Y. and English in the Grandes Ecoles
(Institutes of Technology) in France. She has been living in France, first
Paris, then Lyon for 30 years. In addition to her political activism and
writing, her life is filled with family, music, animals, reading, traveling
and "anything that pleases the eye or the palate". Siv can be reached via
e-mail at siv@axisoflogic.com [12].
--
NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not
always been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material
available to advance understanding of
political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues. I
believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107
"A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their
spells dissolve, and the people recovering their true sight, restore their
government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are
suffering deeply in spirit,
and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public
debt. But if the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have
patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning
back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at
stake."
-Thomas Jefferson
By Siv O'Neall
Created Jun 12 2007 - 9:04am
- first posted at Axis of Logic [1]
The scientific community now finally seems to agree on the fact that global
warming is happening and that it's urgent to find remedies against the
imminent hazards that threaten the planet. The big question that confronts
the world community now is how do we go about countering this imminent
global disaster.
During a short tour to a few cooperative countries in Latin America in March
2007 by our opportunist president, an ethanol alliance was proclaimed in
Brazil (Sao Paolo March 8) between George W. Bush and Brazil's President
Luiz Inacio "Lula" da Silva. "[It was] hailed by apologists for both
governments as an advance in the development of alternative sources of
energy and a gain for both countries' economies." (WSWS [2] - 'Brazil:
Bush-Lula biofuel plans based on conditions worse than slavery')
The relative costs and benefits of ethanol biofuels, however, are very much
subject to doubt and even to open criticism by much of the community that is
fighting for alternative sources for fuel.
An article in Le Monde Diplomatique of June 2007 ('Les cinq mythes de la
transition vers les agrocarburants' - 'The five myths of the transition
towards biofuels'[1]) makes an impressive case against the cultivating of
corn, sugar cane, wheat and soy beans for the development of ethanol to
replace dwindling currently existing energy sources.
There is an insufficient supply of natural gas and oil-based energy which
simply has to be replaced until the masses of energy-consuming people are
forced to decrease their dependence on gas and oil and all the various forms
of petrochemicals that we are addicted to.
However, what is the case for or against the imagined ethanol panacea? How
thoroughly were the research and the arithmetic done before this huge
enterprise was launched?
The case against ethanol biofuel is written in huge and clear script, so
clear it is surprising that even the corporate industry that pushes for
ethanol, for obvious reasons, is unable to read the writing on the wall. The
cultivation of ethanol-producing crops is clearly just another way of making
more profit. Instant profit is the god of the day and the mega cultures of
corn, sugar cane, wheat and soy beans will add huge profits to transnational
corporations. If one day the supply of oil and gas is going to give
diminishing returns, which still seems to be a somewhat distant way off in
the future, the way the price of gasoline and natural gas are skyrocketing,
the big corporations will certainly make sure that they are protected
against any possible future economic downturn.
The United States, Brazil, India and China are already busy cultivating
these crops. The industry is already under way and has been for five years
as far as the U.S. is concerned.
There are two major arguments to be made in this context.
First: Is the production of ethanol really going to amount to a real gain
which can be added to already existing sources of energy? It turns out that,
in order to produce ethanol fuel it would take so much energy for
transportation and other production costs that using ethanol fuel would not
even amount to a net gain in the use of traditional energy sources or a
lowering of the output of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
Second: Besides this obvious drawback, there is the even more frightening
fact that the culture of these fuel producing crops would take away such
huge amounts of land from food-producing agro business that it would lead to
increasing mass starvation on the planet. Already over half a billion people
on the planet are starving.[2] Is it really the moment to convert huge
arable lands from food production to ethanol-producing corn, sugar cane, soy
beans and wheat?
What will follow if the world ignores the need for equitable distribution of
the food that is presently available (more than enough to feed the world
population) and sets out on a course of depriving the people of what is
their due?[3] There is already an urgent need for improved policies for
feeding the world's population, and it seems insane instead to take away the
food from the people who are already exposed to the risk of starving.
Food prices (corn, cane sugar, soy beans, wheat) are increasing already
because of the competition for the production of ethanol made from what
could have been food crops. When families pay 50 - 80 % of their income for
food, even a relatively modest increase in the price of corn, etc. will have
disastrous consequences. There is an obvious likelihood that food prices
will soar because of the vast inflation in these commodity prices. The price
of tortilla, the staple food of all Mexicans, went up so drastically during
the last few months of 2006 that President Felipe Calderon had to intervene
after powerful street protests and set a more reasonable limit for the
increased price of corn.[4] Even so, the rise in this basic staple was
severely felt by poor Mexicans.[5]
I am not even going into the deadly serious effects that would follow from
the increased cultivation of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO), but there
is already ample proof that biotech giants Monsanto, Cargill, Syngenta et
al. have not passed up an opportunity like this one to make enormous
profits. Monsanto, the huge and socially irresponsible biotech corporation,
is already the world's leading profiteer from the ethanol craze.[6]
Besides taking arable lands away from food crops, there is also very serious
deforestation going on, among other places in Amazonia and Indonesia, where
the situation is highly precarious.
From 'The five myths of the transition towards biofuels [3]' (Le Monde
Diplomatique, June, 2007):
"The introduction of cultures destined for biofuels will simply have the
effect of pushing back these communities (indigenous populations) towards
the "agricultural frontier" of Amazonia, where the devastating ways of land
clearing are all too well known. Soya already supplies 40 % of biofuels in
Brazil. According to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the
more the price of soya increases, the more the destruction of the humid rain
forest in Amazonia will accelerate - 325 hectares a year, at the present
rate.
In Indonesia, oil palms destined for the production of biodiesel - called
the "diesel of deforestation" are the principal cause of the retreat of the
forest. In 2020, those surfaces will have tripled and will reach 16,5
million hectares - England and Wales taken together, - with as a result a
loss of 98 % of the land covered by forest. Neighboring Malaysia, the prime
producer of palm oil in the world, has already lost 87 % of its tropical
forests and continues to clear land at the rate of 7 % a year."
On top of all these disastrous effects of ethanol production, there is
also the fact that poor farmers are losing their livelihood and their land
because they are squeezed out when giant plantations of sugar cane and soy
beans take over their land.
One of the foremost arguments against ethanol is however the fact that the
147 million tons of biofuel that the world can produce in the next
twenty-three years will in no way replace the need for oil. It will just
compensate for the annual increase of global demand for oil.
"Actually, the attraction of these biofuels resides in the fact that they
might prolong the oil-based economy. ... The higher the price of oil, the
more the price of ethanol can increase and still remain competitive. ... The
world energy crisis is potentially a gold mine of 80,000 to 100,000 billion
dollars for the food and oil corporations. It's not surprising that we are
not encouraged to scale back on our habits of "over-consumption".
('The five myths of the transition towards biofuels [4]' - Le Monde
Diplomatique, June, 2007)
The final word on this enormous life-threatening problem is the fact that
nobody even seems to touch on the basic problem which is of course
over-consumption. There is no way any politicians or any member of Big
Business is ever going to dare tell the world openly that we have to change
our life styles, give up on privileges that we have been taking for granted,
tighten our belts and live our lives in a low energy consumption way that is
so far from the buy-use-and-throw-away, globe-trotting , fast-moving,
energy-splurging life style we have gotten used to.
It is going to be a hard day for the politicians when one day they realize
that they have to speak out and be very serious about saving energy. A hard
day for the oil corporations when they realize that production and
consumption will have to diminish. A hard day for the biotech and cereal
corporations when it becomes obvious that ethanol is not the answer to our
current dilemma.
(c) Copyright 2007 by AxisofLogic.com
[1] Summary in English of article from Le Monde Diplomatique: 'Les cinq
mythes de la transition vers les agrocarburants [5]'
[2] (Circle of Rights [6]) Estimates indicate that more than 840 million
people throughout the world are chronically undernourished-in spite of a
record availability of food per capita in most countries and globally.
Nearly 40,000 children die due to malnutrition and its diseases every day.
It is the poor (both in the North and in the South) who are the victims.
[3] The World Food Summit [7] in November 1996 reaffirmed the right of
everyone to have access to safe and nutritious food, consistent with the
right to adequate food and the fundamental right of everyone to be free from
hunger, and gave a specific mandate [8] to the High Commissioner for Human
Rights to better define the rights related to food and propose ways to
implement and realize them.
[4] MEXICO CITY [9] (AP), Jan 31 - Tens of thousands of trade unionists,
farmers and leftists marched through downtown Mexico City on Wednesday to
protest price increases for basic foods like tortillas--the staple of
Mexico's poor--and to demand a change in economic policy.
[5] The international price of corn rose dramatically throughout 2006,
leading to the inflation of tortilla prices in the first month of Calderon's
term. Because tortilla is the main food product consumed by the country's
poorest, national concern over the rising prices immediately generated
political pressures for Calderon's administration. The President (Felipe
Calderon) opted for using price ceilings for tortillas that protect local
producers of corn. This price control came in the form of a Tortilla Price
Stabilization Pact [10] between the government and many of the main tortilla
producing companies, including Grupo Maseca and Bimbo, to put a price
ceiling at $8.50 pesos per kilogram of tortilla. The idea of the agreement
is that having these producers ceiling their prices would incentive the
market to lower the prices nationally.
[6] Corn seed sales surged 47 percent to $1.19 billion (euro890 million),
from $811 million, amid a boom in production of ethanol, which in this
country is made largely from corn. (Monsanto 2nd Quarter Profit [11] Fueled
by Robust Demand for Corn Seeds, Technology)
_______
About author Siv O'Neall was born and raised in Sweden where she graduated
from Lund University. She has lived in Paris, France and New Rochelle, N.Y
and traveled extensively throughout Europe. Siv retired after many years of
teaching French in Westchester, N.Y. and English in the Grandes Ecoles
(Institutes of Technology) in France. She has been living in France, first
Paris, then Lyon for 30 years. In addition to her political activism and
writing, her life is filled with family, music, animals, reading, traveling
and "anything that pleases the eye or the palate". Siv can be reached via
e-mail at siv@axisoflogic.com [12].
--
NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not
always been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material
available to advance understanding of
political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues. I
believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107
"A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their
spells dissolve, and the people recovering their true sight, restore their
government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are
suffering deeply in spirit,
and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public
debt. But if the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have
patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning
back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at
stake."
-Thomas Jefferson