Biofuels -- More Frankencrops and Global Hunger in the Guise of Solving the Energy Crisis
April 27, 2006
Dear Friends and Colleagues,
Tony Blair's "Africa Commission" declaration last year that Africa should encourage development by growing Biofuels, is evidently starting to take root with a recent announcement in Zimbabwe about the growing of GM to produce biodiesel (see Gaia Mailout "African Biosafety Laws May Fail to Protect Countries" 19 April 2006)
Although thought by many to be an environmentally and economically sustainable alternative to the coming oil and climate change crises, a closer look at the true implications of biofuels is needed before Africa submits to yet more potentially destructive policies.
"Biofuels", is the name given to the oil and ethanol produced from crops like soya, palm and maize, and which can provide an alternative to, or be mixed in with diesel or petrol to run cars or engines. Since they do not involve burning fossil fuels, they are considered to be more environmentally friendly. The CO2 they produce during burning is the same amount that they absorb during growth, and are therefore considered to be "carbon neutral" and therefore a possible strategy towards reducing CO2 production and climate change. Several countries are committing to various percentages of biofuels being mixed into petrol or diesel for vehicles.
However, there are many reasons why even environmentalists object to biofuels as a large-scale solution for climate change and development.
Firstly, there is not enough land to provide for the world's current level of oil need if it is to be met by biofuels. Developed countries are likely to encourage developing countries to use their land for biofuels for export. Oil prices are likely to rise in the next years, as are biofuels. Governments and agribusinesses will find that they can make more money by using land to grow fuel for western cars, than they can to grow food for their citizens.
We have already seen the best land in Africa devoted to huge plantations for export crops such as flowers, coffee, green beans, fruit, while there is less and less support and land for growing food for local consumption. George Monbiot in his article below predicts that Africa may find herself pandering to the needs of the global rich, and "feeding cars, not people".
Secondly, the expansion of land required to meet the rising need for biofuels is likely to eat into precious forest land - as has already been observed in Argentina and Brazil with the expansion of soya, and Indonesia with the palm oil plantations. Any environmental benefits gained from having a "green" fuel are lost many times over by cutting down trees which absorb a great deal more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, and are critical for the health of the planet.
And thirdly, they are an invitation to encourage more GM crop planting, which poses the threat of contaminating local food crops, environmental harm, and pushing farmers off the land. Hundreds of thousands of farmers in Argentina have been forced off the land with the expansion of GM soya plantations, and Africa might expect that the small scale farmers who make up 80% of her population to be similarly affected.
A genuinely "green" fuel source would be biodiesel made from waste oil already used for frying foods like chips. With some filtering and treatment, this can be used to run diesel engines. But this will only ever meet a small fraction of the world's fuel needs.
The unavoidable truth is that we must make serious efforts at reducing oil consumption in order to reduce our CO2 and climate change impact. And we must not let this so-called "green" intitiative for biofuels become an opportunity for GM crops to get a foothold into Africa and do more harm than good.
Best wishes,
Teresa
Dear Friends and Colleagues,
Tony Blair's "Africa Commission" declaration last year that Africa should encourage development by growing Biofuels, is evidently starting to take root with a recent announcement in Zimbabwe about the growing of GM to produce biodiesel (see Gaia Mailout "African Biosafety Laws May Fail to Protect Countries" 19 April 2006)
Although thought by many to be an environmentally and economically sustainable alternative to the coming oil and climate change crises, a closer look at the true implications of biofuels is needed before Africa submits to yet more potentially destructive policies.
"Biofuels", is the name given to the oil and ethanol produced from crops like soya, palm and maize, and which can provide an alternative to, or be mixed in with diesel or petrol to run cars or engines. Since they do not involve burning fossil fuels, they are considered to be more environmentally friendly. The CO2 they produce during burning is the same amount that they absorb during growth, and are therefore considered to be "carbon neutral" and therefore a possible strategy towards reducing CO2 production and climate change. Several countries are committing to various percentages of biofuels being mixed into petrol or diesel for vehicles.
However, there are many reasons why even environmentalists object to biofuels as a large-scale solution for climate change and development.
Firstly, there is not enough land to provide for the world's current level of oil need if it is to be met by biofuels. Developed countries are likely to encourage developing countries to use their land for biofuels for export. Oil prices are likely to rise in the next years, as are biofuels. Governments and agribusinesses will find that they can make more money by using land to grow fuel for western cars, than they can to grow food for their citizens.
We have already seen the best land in Africa devoted to huge plantations for export crops such as flowers, coffee, green beans, fruit, while there is less and less support and land for growing food for local consumption. George Monbiot in his article below predicts that Africa may find herself pandering to the needs of the global rich, and "feeding cars, not people".
Secondly, the expansion of land required to meet the rising need for biofuels is likely to eat into precious forest land - as has already been observed in Argentina and Brazil with the expansion of soya, and Indonesia with the palm oil plantations. Any environmental benefits gained from having a "green" fuel are lost many times over by cutting down trees which absorb a great deal more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, and are critical for the health of the planet.
And thirdly, they are an invitation to encourage more GM crop planting, which poses the threat of contaminating local food crops, environmental harm, and pushing farmers off the land. Hundreds of thousands of farmers in Argentina have been forced off the land with the expansion of GM soya plantations, and Africa might expect that the small scale farmers who make up 80% of her population to be similarly affected.
A genuinely "green" fuel source would be biodiesel made from waste oil already used for frying foods like chips. With some filtering and treatment, this can be used to run diesel engines. But this will only ever meet a small fraction of the world's fuel needs.
The unavoidable truth is that we must make serious efforts at reducing oil consumption in order to reduce our CO2 and climate change impact. And we must not let this so-called "green" intitiative for biofuels become an opportunity for GM crops to get a foothold into Africa and do more harm than good.
Best wishes,
Teresa
1. Argentina: The Environmental Costs of Biofuel Article from Inter Press Service. Date: 20 April 2006 Marcela Valente http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=32959
2. Do Biofuels Represent an Ecological Alternative to Oil? Excerpt from Article from Resistance Bulletin 56. Date: September 2005 http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5921
3. Feeding Cars, Not People Article from the Guardian. Date: 22 November 2004 George Monbiot http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2004/11/23/feeding-cars-not-people/
4. GM non-food crops will bring contamination threats to food and nature Press Release from GeneWatch UK. Date: 23 April 2004 http://www.genewatch.org/Press%20Releases/pr61.htm
5. Biotechnology: Still Fueling Controversy Article from AlterNet. Date: 21 April 2006 Charles Shaw http://www.alternet.org/envirohealth/35243/
6. Biofuels and GM Analysis from GM Watch. Date: 29 March 2004 http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=3080
0 Comentarios:
Publicar un comentario
Suscribirse a Comentarios de la entrada [Atom]
<< Página Principal