PHA-Exchange> Exploding the biofuel myths

[claudio at hcmc.netnam.vn]

from Maria <maria at mundonica.com> -----

   Le Monde diplomatique 
   -----------------------------------------------------
   July 2007
 DISPLACED PEASANTS, HIGHER FOOD PRICES - AND A CRUTCH FOR THE PETROL
                               ECONOMY
                     Exploding the biofuel myths
     ___________________________________________________________

   Biofuels are the subject of much heated debate. In the hands of
    big business, just how green are they? And what is their human
                                cost?
                                              by Eric Holtz-Giménez
     ___________________________________________________________
EXCERPTS
     The word biofuels suggests renewable abundance: clean, green,
     sustainable assurance about technology and progress. This
     pure image allows industry, politicians, the World Bank, the
     United Nations, and even the International Panel on Climate
     Change to present fuels made from corn, sugarcane, soy and
     other crops as the next step in a smooth transition from peak
     oil to a yet-to-be-defined renewable fuel economy.

     Biofuels obscure the political-economic relationships between land,
     people, resources and food, and fail to help us understand
     the profound consequences of the industrial transformation of
     our food and fuel systems.

     These fuels are
     scheduled to provide 5.75% of Europe's transport power by
     2010 and 10% by 2020. The United States wants 35bn gallons a
     year. These targets far exceed the agricultural capacities of
     the industrial North. Europe would need to plant 70% of its
     farmland with fuel crops. The entire corn and soy harvest of
     the US would need to be processed as ethanol and biodiesel.
     Converting most arable land to fuel crops would destroy the
     food systems of the North, so Organisation of Economic
     Cooperation and Development countries are looking to the
     South to meet demand. Its governments appear eager to oblige.

     Indonesia and Malaysia are expanding oil-palm plantations to
     supply up to 20% of the EU biodiesel market. In Brazil, where
     fuel crops already occupy an area the size of the
     Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg and Britain combined, the
     government is planning a 500% increase in sugar cane acreage.
     Its goal is to replace 10% of global petrol by 2025.

     Behind the scenes, under the noses of most
     national anti-trust laws, giant oil, grain, auto and genetic
     engineering corporations are forming partnerships: ADM and
     Monsanto; Chevron and Volkswagen; BP, DuPont, and Toyota.
     These are consolidating the research, production, processing,
     and distribution chains of food and fuel systems under one
     industrial roof.

     Biofuel champions assure us that because fuel crops are
     renewable, they are environment-friendly, can reduce global
     warming and will foster rural development. But the tremendous
     market power of biofuel corporations, coupled with the poor
     political will of governments to regulate their activities,
     make this unlikely. We need a public enquiry into the myths.

                  1. Biofuels `are clean and green'

     Because photosynthesis performed by fuel crops removes
     greenhouse gases from the atmosphere and can reduce fossil
     fuel consumption, we are told they are green. But when the
     full lifecycle of biofuels is considered, from land clearing
     to consumption, the moderate emission savings are outweighed
     by far greater emissions from deforestation, burning, peat
     drainage, cultivation and soil carbon losses. 

     There are other environmental problems. Industrial biofuels
     require large applications of petroleum-based fertilisers,
     whose global use, now at 45m tons/year.

     To produce a litre of ethanol absorbs three to five litres of
     irrigation water and gives off 13 litres of waste water. Intensive 
cultivation of fuel crops also leads to high rates of erosion, particularly in 
soy production.

            2. Biofuels `will not result in deforestation'

     Proponents of biofuels argue that fuel crops planted on
     ecologically degraded lands will improve rather than destroy
     the environment. 

     In Indonesia, palm oil (the diesel of deforestation)
     plantations are the primary cause of forest loss, with one of
     the highest deforestation rates in the world. 

              3. Biofuels `will bring rural development'

     In the tropics, 100 hectares dedicated to family farming
     generates 35 jobs. Oil-palm and sugarcane provide 10 jobs,
     eucalyptus two, and soybeans a scant half-job per 100
     hectares, all poorly paid.  With the boom,
     big industry is moving in, centralising operations and
     creating gargantuan economies of scale. Big Oil, Big Grain,
     and Big Genetic Engineering are consolidating control over
     the biofuel value chain.

                 4. Biofuels `will not cause hunger'

     Hunger, said Amartya Sen, results not from scarcity, but
     poverty. According to the Food and Agriculture Organisation
     (FAO), there is enough food in the world to supply everyone
     with a daily 2,200-calorie diet of fresh fruit, nuts,
     vegetables, grains, dairy produce and meat. But because they
     are poor, 824 million people go hungry. In 2000 world leaders
     promised to halve the number of hungry and poor by 2015.
     Little progress has been made. The world's poorest already
     spend 50-80% of household income on food. They suffer when
     high fuel prices push up food prices. Now, because food and
     fuel crops compete for land and resources, both increase the
     price of land and water.

     This perverse, inflationary spiral puts food and productive
     resources out of reach for the poor. 

     If current trends continue, 1.2 billion people could be
     hungry by 2025 - 600 million more than previously
     predicted.  World food aid will not come to the rescue
     because surpluses will go into petrol tanks. Food aid only
     increases when prices are low, not high. Instead of
     converting land to fuel production, massive transfers of
     food-producing resources to the rural poor are needed.


     Biofuels are subsidised, grow as oil shrinks, and facilitate the
     concentration of market power in the hands of the most
     powerful players. Like the original agrarian transition, the
     biofuels transition will enclose the commons by
     industrialising the remaining forests and prairies of the
     world. It will drive the last smallholders, family farmers
     and indigenous peoples to the cities. It will funnel rural
     resources to urban centres as fuel, and generate massive
     amounts of industrial wealth.

     Biofuel's appeal lies with its potential to prolong the oil
     economy. 
     The transition is not inevitable. There is no reason to
     sacrifice the possibility of sustainable, equitable food and
     fuel systems to an industrial strategy that compromises both.
     Many successful, locally focused, energy-efficient and
     people-centred alternatives are producing food and fuel in
     ways that do not threaten food systems, the environment or
     livelihoods. The question is not whether ethanol and
     biodiesel have a place in our future, but whether we allow a
     handful of global corporations to determine our future by
     dragging us down a dead end.

      We need to rebuild and strengthen our local food
     systems, and ensure conditions for the local re-investment of
     rural wealth. Putting people and environment - instead of
     corporate mega-profits - at the centre of rural development
     requires food sovereignty: the right of people to determine
     their own food systems.

     Limits must be placed on the biofuels industry. The North
     cannot shift the burden of over-consumption to the South
     because the tropics have more sunlight, rain and arable land.
     If biofuels are to be forest- and food-friendly, the grain,
     cane and palm oil industries need to be regulated, and not
     piecemeal. Strong, enforceable standards based on limiting
     land planted for biofuels are urgently needed, as are
     anti-trust laws powerful enough to prevent the corporate
     concentration of market power in the industry. Sustainable
     benefits to the countryside will only accrue if biofuels are
     a complement to plans for sustainable rural development, not
     the centrepiece.

     A global moratorium on the expansion of biofuels is needed to
     develop regulatory structures and foster conservation and
     development alternatives to the transition. We need the time
     to make a better transition to food and fuel sovereignty.
       ________________________________________________________

     Eric Holtz-Giménez is executive director of the Food
     First/Institute for Food and Development Policy

   

------------------------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through Netnam-HCMC ISP: http://www.hcmc.netnam.vn/