martes, marzo 31, 2009

lunes, marzo 30, 2009

México: Geopiratería militar

Silvia Ribeiro, Investigadora del Grupo ETC

Gracias a las denuncias públicas de la Unión de Organizaciones de la Sierra Juárez de Oaxaca (Unosjo), se ha puesto sobre la mesa el debate sobre las consecuencias del mapeo digital participativo que realizan equipos de geógrafos, antropólogos y otros, con comunidades locales, urbanas, rurales e indígenas en muchas partes del mundo.

Se trata de hacer mapas altamente detallados, con tecnología digital de punta, que usan el conocimiento de los habitantes sobre su ambiente, relaciones, historia, recursos –logrando resultados mucho más ricos, dinámicos y complejos de lo que podían obtener con agentes externos. La importancia de los saberes locales ya la tenían clara los conquistadores. Con las nuevas tecnologías, los mapas adquieren otras dimensiones, pero las intenciones son iguales. Por ejemplo, estos mapas son útiles para control de grupos disidentes, para afinar estrategias militares y de contrainsurgencia, y son una valiosa información para las multinacionales en la explotación de territorios y recursos de las comunidades.

Quienes hacen los mapas argumentan que favorecen a las comunidades, permitiéndoles una visión más detallada de su entorno. Argumento paralelo al de otros mapeadores, como los de variaciones genéticas –que para contento de las multinacionales farmacéuticas se reproducen por todo el mundo–, o los mapas de la biodiversidad que tan útiles han sido para las multinacionales de la biopiratería.

El caso ahora denunciado por la Unosjo –titulado México Indígena– es un proyecto de la Universidad de Kansas, la Sociedad Americana de Geógrafos, la Universidad de Carleton y la Universidad Autónoma de San Luis Potosí, con la empresa de tecnología militar Radiance Technologies, financiado por la Oficina de Estudios Militares Foráneos de Estados Unidos (FMSO, por sus siglas en inglés). Colaboraron oficinas de gobierno como la Comisión Nacional para el Desarrollo de los Pueblos Indígenas (CNDPI) y la Secretaría de Medio Ambiente (Semarnat).

Han mapeado nueve comunidades de la Huasteca Potosina (Chuchupe, La Pila, La Lima, Las Armas, Cuatlamayan, Chimalaco, Tazaquil, Santa Cruz y Tancuime), siguieron en la Sierra Juárez de Oaxaca, con San Miguel Tiltepec y San Juan Yagila (se aproximaron también a Guelatao, Zoogochí y Yagavila), ya comenzaron en la Sierra Tarahumara. En Oaxaca, agregan en sus informes qué comunidades están vinculadas a la APPO y a los zapatistas.

La Unosjo denunció que los responsables del proyecto (dirigido por Peter Herlihy y J. Dobson), le entregaron informaciones parciales a las comunidades para conseguir su participación, como medir los impactos del proyecto de privatización de tierras Procede. Pero ocultaron que estaban financiados por una oficina de inteligencia militar de Estados Unidos (FMSO), parte de Fort Leavenworth. Este centro está dirigido por el general David Petraus, que comandó las tropas invasoras en la guerra de Iraq y pertenece al comando central militar de Estados Unidos (Centcom). Fort Leavenworth ha sido desde 1800 el centro de inteligencia militar para la conquista y control de las poblaciones indígenas en Estados Unidos.

El proyecto México Indígena no es único: es un prototipo de las Expediciones Bowman de la Sociedad Americana de Geógrafos. Según ésta, con la experiencia altamente exitosa de México Indígena, las expediciones siguen en las Antillas (desde Haití y República Dominicana, hasta las islas de las costas venezolanas), Colombia, Jordán y Kazajstán, todas con participación de la Oficina de Estudios Militares Foráneos, que por otra parte, ha realizado proyectos similares en Afganistán e Iraq. El encargado de la FMSO para el proyecto es Geoffrey Demarest, teniente coronel egresado de la Escuela de las Américas, que cuenta con numerosos documentos de estrategias para la contrainsurgencia y la arquitectura del control, defiende la propiedad privada de la tierra y demuestra la peligrosidad de los movimientos indígenas y de los pobres urbanos, entre otros.

Pese a esta conexión y la elección de regiones tan geopolíticamente sensibles para Estados Unidos, los geógrafos de México Indígena alegan que la FMSO es apenas un patrocinador como podrían haber sido tantos otros. Afirman que las comunidades dieron su consentimiento y que se han mostrado beneficios para las comunidades, por ejemplo, la definición de áreas para la venta de servicios ambientales (es decir, para la enajenación del manejo comunitario de su biodiversidad). San Miguel Tiltepec de Oaxaca respondió en conferencia de prensa que habían sido engañados al no recibir información de la intromisión militar-empresarial en su territorio, solicitando el retiro de los mapas de su comunidad del sitio electrónico del proyecto.

Esos mapas fueron retirados, pero no toda la información sobre esta comunidad y otras. Es imposible para la comunidad comprobar que esos mapas no han sido incorporados al acervo de la FMSO y de quienes lo hayan descargado anteriormente.

Es evidente que México Indígena y las Expediciones Bowman son parte de las actividades de inteligencia militar de las fuerzas armadas estadunidenses. Otros proyectos similares, aunque no reciban esta financiación o tengan conexión directa, pueden ser usados para los mismos fines. Es hora de terminar con la inocencia (si es que la tenían) de los que participan en estos mapeos.

Fuente: La Jornada

Etiquetas: , ,

How Obama Took Over the Peace Movement

John Podesta's liberal think tank the Center for American Progress strongly supports Barack Obama's escalation of the US wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is best evidenced by Sustainable Security in Afghanistan, a CAP report by Lawrence J. Korb. Podesta served as the head of Obama's transition team, and CAP's support for Obama's wars is the latest step in a successful co-option of the US peace movement by Obama's political aids and the Democratic Party.

CAP and the five million member liberal lobby group MoveOn were behind Americans Against Escalation in Iraq (AAEI), a coalition that spent tens of millions of dollars using Iraq as a political bludgeon against Republican politicians, while refusing to pressure the Democratic Congress to actually cut off funding for the war. AAEI was operated by two of Barack Obama's top political aids, Steve Hildebrand and Paul Tewes, and by Brad Woodhouse of Americans United for Change and USAction. Today Woodhouse is Obama's Director of Communications and Research for the Democratic National Committee. He controls the massive email list called Obama for America composed of the many millions of people who gave money and love to the Democratic peace candidate and might be wondering what the heck he is up to in Afghanistan and Pakistan. MoveOn built its list by organizing vigils and ads for peace and by then supporting Obama for president; today it operates as a full-time cheerleader supporting Obama's policy agenda. Some of us saw this unfolding years ago. Others are probably shocked watching their peace candidate escalating a war and sounding so much like the previous administration in his rationale for doing so.


SOURCE: http://www.prwatch.org/node/8297

Etiquetas: , ,

domingo, marzo 29, 2009

Progressive Media - A PR War Room for Obama

Liberal think tanks and advocacy organizations formed during the Bush/Cheney regime are working in close and well-funded coordination as a PR messaging machine for the Obama Administration's foreign and domestic policies. A Washington Post blog noted that the Center for American Progress is now running Progressive Media which was begun by Tom Matzzie and David Brock in 2008 and now "represents a serious ratcheting up of efforts to present a united liberal front in the coming policy wars." Progressive Media is a joint project with CAP and Brock's Media Matters Action Network and "headed by well-known liberal operative Tara McGuinness." Matzzie recently reminisced about his work with MoveOn's "Tara McGuinness, Eli Pariser and others" organizing Americans Against Escalation in Iraq. Today MoveOn, USAction and others in that coalition are working hard to push Obama's policies, including rationalizlng or defending his escalation of the wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan as "sustainable security"



SOURCE: http://www.prwatch.org/node/8300

Etiquetas: , ,

sábado, marzo 28, 2009

Pyrolising the Planet

By George Monbiot

Well that got ‘em going. So far James Lovelock, Jim Hansen and Pushker Kharecha, Chris Goodall and Peter Read have all responded in the Guardian to my column on biochar.

Reading their responses, I realise that it was unfair of me to include James Lovelock and Jim Hansen on the list of those who have been suckered by the charleaders. Their position is more nuanced than I made out. Chris Goodall, to his credit, has accepted that he was too bullish about the technology. The points he makes in its defence seem fair and well-reasoned.

On the other hand, I wasn’t harsh enough about Peter Read. In his response column today he uses the kind of development rhetoric that I thought had died out with the Indonesian transmigration programme.

To him, people and land appear to be as fungible as counters in a board game. He makes the extraordinary assertion that “degraded land” - which he wants to cover with plantations - is uninhabited by subsistence farmers, pastoralists or hunters and gatherers. That must be news to all the subsistence farmers, pastoralists and hunters and gatherers I’ve met in such places. Then he repeats the ancient canard that, by denying such people the opportunity to have their land turned into a eucalyptus plantation/hydroelectric dam/opencast mine/nuclear test site/re-education camp or whatever
project the latest swivel-eyed ideologue is trying to promote, we are keeping them in poverty.

Has he learnt nothing from the past 40 years of development studies? Does he not understand that development is something that people must choose, not something that can be imposed on them from on high by megalomaniacs?

As for the “unused potential arable land” he wants to use, that could apply to most of the surface of the planet that possesses a soil layer: rainforest, wetland, savannah - you name it. From my office window I can see a perfect candidate for his attentions: the brakes and thickets of the Cambrian Mountains. I can also see the kind of crop with which Read would cover them: the sitka spruce plantations that blight the lives of everyone who loves the countryside here. Yes this land is degraded, overgrazed and poorly managed. But is there anyone who would prefer that it was all converted to plantations?

But at least a debate is taking place. For far too long this technology has gone largely unchallenged by environmentalists, fooled perhaps by Read’s cunning rebranding of charcoal as biochar, on the grounds - wait for it - that this stuff is “finely divided”. By all means, as Hansen and Kharecha recommend, let’s use genuine waste - whether from crops, forestry, sewage or food - to make charcoal. But let’s stop the charleaders from pyrolising the planet in the name of saving it.

www.monbiot.com

Etiquetas: , ,

Obama también debe detener la locura de los agrocombustibles

Agrocombustibles a partir de alimentos Agrocombustibles a partir de alimentos

Por favor, apoye a las organizaciones ambientales y de justicia social norteamericanas, que hacen un llamamiento a la nueva administración de Obama, para que detenga el apoyo financiero y político a la producción de agrocombustibles a gran escala. En particular, el apoyo del gobierno a la expansión de los agrocombustibles, es decir, la elaboración de combustibles para el transporte a partir de alimentos, que se dirige en contra de su objetivo de detener urgentemente el cambio climático, y amenaza con causar más deforestación, hambre, violaciones de derechos humanos y degradación de suelos y aguas.

La administración de Obama prometió reducir las emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero e impulsar la energía renovable. Desafortunadamente, gran parte de la solución propuesta implica continuar impulsando la producción de agrocombustibles, tanto en los Estados Unidos como en el exterior. La nueva administración debe tomar en cuenta la evidencia de que los agrocombustibles empeoran el cambio climático con más deforestación y destrucción de otros ecosistemas. Además, provocan el aumento de los precios, empujando a más y más personas a pasar hambre y malnutrición. También destruyen la biodiversidad y los ecosistemas.

Salva la Selva se preocupa por la industria creciente del etanol en Norteamérica, y las implicaciones que tiene, estableciendo un precedente para la industrialización masiva de la agricultura en los pocos bosques que quedan en el mundo, así como en otros ecosistemas. Formamos parte del consenso ecológico de que la producción industrial a gran escala de combustibles para el transporte y otras formas de energía a partir de plantas como el maíz, la caña de azúcar, la palma aceitera, la soja, árboles, pastos, o los denominados residuos agrícolas y forestales pone en peligro a los bosques, la biodiversidad y la soberanía alimentaria, los derechos territoriales comunitarios y agravará el cambio climático.

Más información:
Carta Abierta de organizaciones norteamericanas (en inglés):

http://www.globaljusticeecology.org/connections.php?ID=244

Lea aqui la traducción de la carta al presidente Obama al español

Etiquetas: , ,

viernes, marzo 27, 2009

Pentagon Exploring Robot Killers That Can Fire on Their Own

by Robert S. Boyd

WASHINGTON - The unmanned bombers that frequently cause unintended civilian casualties in Pakistan are a step toward an even more lethal generation of robotic hunters-killers that operate with limited, if any, human control.

The Defense Department is financing studies of autonomous, or self-governing, armed robots that could find and destroy targets on their own. On-board computer programs, not flesh-and-blood people, would decide whether to fire their weapons.

[The Army's 350-pound MAARS (Modular Advanced Armed Robotic System) mobile robots, each carrying an M240B medium machine gun.]The Army's 350-pound MAARS (Modular Advanced Armed Robotic System) mobile robots, each carrying an M240B medium machine gun.
"The trend is clear: Warfare will continue and autonomous robots will ultimately be deployed in its conduct," Ronald Arkin, a robotics expert at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, wrote in a study (.pdf) commissioned by the Army.

"The pressure of an increasing battlefield tempo is forcing autonomy further and further toward the point of robots making that final, lethal decision," he predicted. "The time available to make the decision to shoot or not to shoot is becoming too short for remote humans to make intelligent informed decisions."

Autonomous armed robotic systems probably will be operating by 2020, according to John Pike, an expert on defense and intelligence matters and the director of the security Web site GlobalSecurity.org in Washington.

This prospect alarms experts, who fear that machines will be unable to distinguish between legitimate targets and civilians in a war zone.

"We are sleepwalking into a brave new world where robots decide who, where and when to kill," said Noel Sharkey, an expert on robotics and artificial intelligence at the University of Sheffield, England.

Human operators thousands of miles away in Nevada, using satellite communications, control the current generation of missile-firing robotic aircraft, known as Predators and Reapers. Armed ground robots, such as the Army's Modular Advanced Armed Robotic System, also require a human decision-maker before they shoot.

As of now, about 5,000 lethal and nonlethal robots are deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Besides targeting Taliban and al Qaida leaders, they perform surveillance, disarm roadside bombs, ferry supplies and carry out other military tasks. So far, none of these machines is autonomous; all are under human control.


SOURCE: http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/03/25-11

Etiquetas: ,

Biochar: Another False Solution to Climate Change

  • By Teresa Anderson
    March 20, 2009

Dear Friends and Colleagues,

There is a new threat to African land rights, people and ecosystems, parading as a corporate solution to Climate Change. It is known as "Biochar".

Biochar essentially operates on the same principle as Biofuels, but claims that by developing massive tree plantations, converting the biomass to charcoal and then burying part of it, this will sequester carbon in the soil and increase soil fertility. This is based on the principle of Terra Preta ("Black Earth") from the Amazon, where traditional practices enhanced soil fertility by burying charcoal.

The proponents claim that 1/10 of total global emissions could be returned to the soil through biochar from organic residues, and further 1/10 from plantation biochar. The argument has lots of high-profile supporters. But if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. This model is likely to bring with it some critical problems.

For example:

- Over 500 million hectares of land would be required for biomass plantations. Africa will be targeted for these developments.

- The large scale burying of charcoal is completely different from the small-scale indigenous Terra Preta process.

- There is very little peer reviewed evidence to show that Biochar actually DOES sequester carbon. What peer reviewed work there is suggests it may actually RELEASE more carbon into the atmosphere.

- On its own, biochar is useless. It needs combination with ammonium bicarbonate to make it into useable fertilizer. This process is being patented. Claims that this going to help small farmers in Africa are therefore nonsense.

But lobbying for biochar has moved fast, and has been very effective at going under the radar. There are already proposals at UNCCD (Conference on Desertification) and UNFCCC (Climate Convention) for these to be solutions. 11 African governments have called for Biochar to be included in carbon trading systems.

A sign-on statement from Civil Society Organisations is being circulated (please see below.) If your organization wishes to support this declaration, or for questions or comments please send an e-mail containing the name of your organization and country to biochar_concerns@yahoo.co.uk

Best wishes,

Teresa


READ THE REST:
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_17330.cfm

Etiquetas:

miércoles, marzo 25, 2009

THE NEW YORK TIMES COVERS THE FOOD REVOLUTION

Suzan Walsh/Associated Press

Alice Waters, the celebrity chef and an early advocate of local ingredients, at a farmers’ market in January. She and other food activists see the White House as an ally in Washington.

EXCERPT:

After being largely ignored for years by Washington, advocates of organic and locally grown food have found a receptive ear in the White House, which has vowed to encourage a more nutritious and sustainable food supply.

The most vocal booster so far has been the first lady, Michelle Obama, who has emphasized the need for fresh, unprocessed, locally grown food and, last week, started work on a White House vegetable garden. More surprising, perhaps, are the pronouncements out of the Department of Agriculture, an agency with long and close ties to agribusiness.

In mid-February, Tom Vilsack, the new secretary of agriculture, took a jackhammer to a patch of pavement outside his headquarters to create his own organic “people’s garden.” Two weeks later, the Obama administration named Kathleen Merrigan, an assistant professor at Tufts University and a longtime champion of sustainable agriculture and healthy food, as Mr. Vilsack’s top deputy.

Mr. Hirshberg and other sustainable-food activists are hoping that such actions are precursors to major changes in the way the federal government oversees the nation’s food supply and farms, changes that could significantly bolster demand for fresh, local and organic products. Already, they have offered plenty of ambitious ideas.

For instance, the celebrity chef Alice Waters recommends that the federal government triple its budget for school lunches to provide youngsters with healthier food. And the author Michael Pollan has called on President Obama to pursue a “reform of the entire food system” by focusing on a Pollan priority: diversified, regional food networks.

Etiquetas:



A LETTER FROM THE CZECH REPUBLIC

Dear friends,

I am very happy to announce that the Czech government has fallen. The Parliament voted the no-confidence. For us it is a great victory: we knew that the only way to stop the installation of the US radar base was the fall of the government and we worked for more than 2 years in this direction with permanence and coherence.
A government that represented the interests of the US military industry has fallen.

Our work has been fundamental in encouraging the members of the Parliament who already were against the radar and to spread doubts in the ones who were in favor. And it was just the change of mind of some deputies that made the fall of the government possible.

On the other hand, pressed by the hunger strike, the Social-Democratic Party had to take a clear position supporting us and this will make it more difficult for them in the future to change their opinion about the radar. The collaboration with the Communist Party, that has always supported our initiatives, has been decisive as well.

Thanks to all of you for the support you gave us in many activities, support that was critical.

Thanks to all the pacifist organizations, thanks to the members of the European Parliament who believed in our fight, thanks to the mayors of different countries, thanks to the Humanist Movement, that allowed this protest to expand to many European countries and to reach other continents.

A great space should be given to this news. Now the US must rearrange their plans because of the protest of a people who don't want foreign troops on this territory.

And the invading armies should withdraw from all the occupied territories of the world.

Now it is necessary to develop a strong opposition to the "Star Wars" and in favor of the nuclear disarmament also in other countries.

Now in the Czech Republic a new chapter of our struggle begins.

A strong hug

Jan Tamas
Prague, Czech Republic

Etiquetas: ,

martes, marzo 24, 2009

Woodchips With Everything

Here comes the latest utopian catastrophe: the plan to solve climate change with biochar

By George Monbiot. Published in the Guardian, 24th March 2009

Whenever you hear the word miracle, you know there’s trouble just around the corner. But however many times they lead to disappointment or disaster, the newspapers never tire of promoting miracle cures, miracle crops, miracle fuels and miracle financial instruments. We have a bottomless ability to disregard the laws of economics, biology and thermodynamics when we encounter a simple solution to complex problems. So welcome, ladies and gentlemen, to the new miracle. It’s a low-carbon regime for the planet which makes the Atkins Diet look healthy: woodchips with everything.

Biomass is suddenly the universal answer to our climate and energy problems. Its advocates claim that it will become the primary source of the world’s heating fuel, electricity, road transport fuel (cellulosic ethanol) and aviation fuel (bio-kerosene). Few people stop to wonder how the planet can accommodate these demands and still produce food and preserve wild places. Now an even crazier use of woodchips is being promoted everywhere (including in the Guardian(1)). The great green miracle works like this: we turn the planet’s surface into charcoal.

Sorry, not charcoal. We don’t call it that any more. Now we say biochar. The idea is that wood and crop wastes are cooked to release the volatile components (which can be used as fuel), then the residue - the charcoal - is buried in the soil. According to the magical thinkers who promote it, the new miracle stops climate breakdown, replaces gas and petroleum, improves the fertility of the soil, reduces deforestation, cuts labour, creates employment, prevents respiratory disease and ensures that when you drop your toast it always lands butter side up. (I invented the last one, but give them time).

They point out that the indigenous people of the Amazon created terras pretas (black soils) by burying charcoal over hundreds of years. These are more fertile than the surrounding soils, and the carbon has stayed where they put it. All we need to do is to roll this out worldwide and the world’s problems - except, for the time being, the toast conundrum - are solved. It takes carbon out of circulation, reducing atmospheric concentrations. It raises crop yields. If some of the carbon is produced in efficient cooking stoves, it reduces the smoke in people’s homes and means they have to gather less fuel, curtailing deforestation(2).

Etiquetas: , ,

lunes, marzo 23, 2009

10 Ideas Changing the World Right Now: 7. The Rent-A-Country

TIME Magazine | 13 March 2009

By KRISTA MAHR

Take a moment to consider breakfast, the most important meal of the day. Maybe you grabbed a banana or ate a bowl of granola. Whatever it was, chances are that some — if not all — of your morning meal came from a country you don't live in.

Food isolationism is dead. It collapsed in a messy, public heap last year when oil hit $100-plus per bbl. and the world's crush on biofuels pushed food prices to unprecedented highs. Thirty-six nations needed food aid. Twenty-five imposed export bans or restrictions to keep staple crops like rice and wheat at home. As prices shot up 50%, food riots erupted in Haiti, killing at least five, and eventually brought down the government.

And then something else happened. A few diplomats and business leaders quietly boarded their jets and got to work. Countries like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar and South Korea — well-off states without enough good land or water to feed their people — started to look outside their borders. "It's economically not viable to grow food in the desert," says David Hallam, deputy director of trade and markets for the U.N.'s Food and Agriculture Organization. "They said, 'If we can't grow our own food, we'll grow it somewhere else.'"

Their words did not fall on deaf ears. In April, diplomatic relations between Cambodia and Qatar were officially established. In May, the Presidents of South Korea and Sudan discussed food cooperation at the launch of the Korea-Arab Society in Seoul. The Saudi Binladin Group penned nonbinding agreements with Indonesia to plant rice on some 1.5 million acres (607,000 hectares) of island paradise, and millions more have reportedly been earmarked, from Pakistan and Kazakhstan to Burma and the Philippines. Alwi Shihab, a special economic adviser on the Middle East to the President of Indonesia, sees this new investment as a boon to the nation's agricultural sector. "We have large, sizable, fertile -land and good water," says Shihab.

Growing crops for strangers, of course, is nothing new. The long, grim march of colonialism was driven by Europe's penchant for sugar, tea, tobacco and other crops that don't flourish in northern climes. But as climate change and growing populations put ever more pressure on the earth, state-backed searches for land and food contracts as part of a national food-security strategy strike many as fundamentally new. "We're talking about a whole different logic," says Renée Vellvé, a researcher for Grain, an organization that has been compiling media reports of these deals. Vellvé's group sees a downside. When farmers in food-insecure countries like Laos and Cambodia are scrambling to feed their children, does it make sense to lease out vast tracts to grow rice for foreign governments? "These are not fallow fields," says Paul Risley, a World Food Program spokesman based in Thailand. "These are villages where families have farmed for centuries."

And for investors, moving into regions where so many depend so fiercely on the land can translate into risk. "You see a backlash," says Rajesh Behal, a principal investment officer for International Finance Corp., which has just put $75 million into an emerging-market agribusiness fund. "People say, 'Who are these people, and how long will they be there?'" In July, South Korea's Daewoo Logistics signed contracts to lease more than 2.2 million acres (900,000 hectares) in Madagascar — more than a third of the island nation's arable land — to grow corn and oil palms. A violent political dispute erupted in the capital soon after, complicating the deal. "Farming is a pretty dirty business," says Behal. "You have to know the nuances and withstand the volatility."

But in countries where governments can't afford — or don't prioritize — significant domestic agricultural investment, foreign money has the power to deliver better roads, irrigation, technology and training. "One thousand times we say yes on private and public agricultural investment, but done in a certain way," says Jean-Philippe Audinet, acting director of the policy division at the U.N.'s International Fund for Agricultural Development. "It's very important not to look negatively at this trend. We have to try to look at the win-win."

After all, is there a choice? Some of these deals are probably doomed to fall under the ax of the global credit crunch, if they haven't already. But for land-poor countries, the underlying problem of relying heavily on imports will remain. Encouraging a new generation of deals to come out of the diplomatic closet may be the best chance we have to make sure that people on both ends of the bargain end up with food on their plate.

—With reporting by Jennifer Veale in Seoul

Etiquetas: , ,

domingo, marzo 22, 2009

Dos entrevistas al amigo argentino Jorge E. Rulli, una de 1986 y más abajo otra de 2004.

http://www.elortiba.org/rulli.html#De_guerrillero_a_ecologista_(2004)


Rulli, usted comenzó a militar en política hace más de 40 años. Empezó en la resistencia armada, ahora es ecologista, ¿qué es lo que cambió y lo que no cambió en su historia política personal?

La situación del mundo es la que cambió de manera tremenda. Me suelo rebelar ante los discursos que siguen levantando banderas antiimperialistas de una manera que intenta negar las nuevas realidades e impactos de la Globalización. Yo en los años 54 y 55 comencé una militancia en el Peronismo, que era uno de los tantos movimientos de liberación Nacional de la Posguerra. Nos inspirábamos en modelos de la época y vivíamos con intensidad los desafíos ideológicos de la guerra fría. Hoy quizá sea fácil olvidar que el rostro dominante del Socialismo era entonces Stalin, sus inmensos campos de concentración, Yalta y la división del mundo en áreas de influencia por parte de las grandes potencias, pero nosotros no podíamos ignorarlo porque el partido comunista local jugaba abiertamente con los norteamericanos…. Nosotros teníamos como guías a Nasser y en especial a los argelinos que fueron quienes nos inspiraron los modelos de la lucha armada y de la construcción de los escalones políticos y militares de la lucha revolucionaria. Hoy el Zapatismo, Bové y los campesinos franceses, las nuevas lecturas de Marx y la reivindicación de los procesos de rebeldías populares, el revival de sentimientos libertarios, el ascenso de los pueblos indígenas, las nuevas religiosidades y en especial el Ecologismo han cambiado el rostro de la Revolución, lo han humanizado, lo desprendieron de las cuestiones de la toma del Poder, lo desconectaron de los modelos de guerra o de lucha militar, lo arraigaron a la tierra y a lo local, le dieron otra escala… No es poco… Yo seguí ese proceso más por intuición que por desarrollo intelectual. Y el grueso de mi generación no me acompañó en esta aventura de pasar de la lucha armada durante los años sesenta y de los campos de capacitación en Cuba y en China, y luego en los setenta los planteos insurreccionales y las luchas del Che, a la No violencia, a las producciones de autoconsumo y a la revalorización de la vida campesina, al parto natural y la educación de los niños en la casa, el tomar la salud en las propias manos y el hacerse crítico feroz de los modelos rurales extensivos y de la sociedad de consumo. Hoy sin embargo con el GRR (Grupo de Reflexión Rural) hemos constituido un movimiento extenso y nos estamos planteando ser reconocidos como protagonistas por el Poder, nos acompañan en especial los jóvenes y muchos de ellos son los hijos de los viejos camaradas de las luchas revolucionarias de los 60 y de los 70. Las luchas son las mismas porque los sueños no han cambiado, quizá la diferencia sustancial es que ahora no pretendemos sacrificar el presente en nombre de un horizonte de utopía. Somos conscientes que el paraíso se conquista cada día y que se trata de vivirlo con intensidad, con alegría y con responsabilidad personal.

PARA MAS INFORMACION: http://carmeloruiz.blogspot.com/search/label/Rulli

Etiquetas: , ,

sábado, marzo 21, 2009

Mil voces – Edición número 50

  • Duración: 56:00 minutes (25.64 MB)

Mil Voces llegó a sus cincuenta programas, y en esta fecha tan significativa mantuvimos un diálogo con dos referentes de la lucha mundial en defensa del agua. El boliviano Oscar Olivera y la mexicana Claudia Campero estuvieron con nuestro corresponsal Danilo Urrrea desde Estambul, en el marco de las Jornadas Alternativas en Defensa del Agua. Luego fuimos a El Salvador para conocer cuál es la perspectiva ambientalista del histórico triunfo del Frente Farabundo Martí para la Liberación Nacional (FMLN). Y desde Argentina, nuestros compañeros Raquel Schrott y Ezequiel Miodownik nos presentan dos noticias: los cuatro años de lucha contra la instalación de la subestación Rigolleau y los reclamos de políticas sociales del Frente Popular Darío Santillán (FPDS).

Etiquetas:

viernes, marzo 20, 2009

The Golden Rice Scandal Unfolds

Dr. Mae-Wan Ho and Prof. Joe Cummins

Phase II clinical trials on children have been conducted with unapproved experimental GM rice enhanced in pro-Vitamin A that has the potential to cause birth defects and developmental abnormalities




EXCERPT:

Golden Rice, an exercise in how not to do science

Golden Rice, genetically modified to make pro-vitamin A in the endosperm (the grain remaining after polishing), was announced with great fanfare in 2000 as a cure for widespread vitamin A deficiency in developing countries.

The project had already cost US$100 million, funded by the Rockefeller Foundation, the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, the European Community Biotech Programme and the Swiss Federal Office for Education and Science, and could cost as much again to develop. It was tied up in at least 70 patent claims on genes, DNA sequences and constructs, a problem only partly solved in the “ground-breaking deal” worked out by Dubock (see above)..

Condemnation was swift and widespread, not least because it was absurd to offer Golden Rice as the cure for vitamin A deficiency when there are plenty of alternative, infinitely cheaper sources of vitamin A or pro-Vitamin A, such as green vegetables and unpolished coloured rice (especially black and purple varieties [11], which would be rich in other essential vitamins and minerals, and hence much more nutritious. The UN Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) started a project in 1985 to deal with vitamin A deficiency using a combination of food fortification, food supplements and general improvements in diets by encouraging people to grow and eat a variety of green leafy vegetables. One main discovery from the project was that the absorption of pro-vitamin A depends on the overall nutritional status, which in turn depends on the diversity of the food consumed [12].

The main cause of hunger and malnutrition in the Third World is the industrial monocultures of the Green Revolution, which obliterated agricultural biodiversity and soil fertility, resulting in ever-worsening mineral and micronutrient deficiencies in our food. Golden Rice, like other GM crops, is industrial monoculture only worse, and will exacerbate this trend, as well as the destruction of agricultural land, and the impoverishment of family farmers that also accompanied the Green Revolution [13] (see Beware the New "Doubly Green Revolution", SiS 37).

GR1 was made with the standard ‘first generation’ genetic modification techniques, using GM constructs that cause uncontrollable mutations and other collateral damage to the host plant genome, with many unintended, uncharacterized effects [14]. In addition, the viral and bacterial sequences, including antibiotic resistance marker genes, in the construct and in the vectors created for gene transfer enhance horizontal gene transfer and recombination, the main route to creating new pathogens and spreading antibiotic resistance.

GR2 represents an improvement in so far as antibiotic resistance markers were no longer used, but still includes a medley combination of sequences from plant pathogens Agrobacterium (used in a binary vector system) and Erwinia uredovor, and from E. coli, inhabitant of the human gut, which also contains pathogenic strains. We have highlighted the special hazards of the Agrobacterium vector system since 2003 [15] (Agrobacterium & Morgellons Disease, A GM Connection?, SiS 38) (see below).

The main reason for Golden Rice was revealed in the unusually long news feature article [16] accompanying the scientific publication [8] which stated: “One can only hope that this application of plant genetic engineering to ameliorate human misery without regard to short-term profit will restore this technology to political acceptability.”

A detailed audit on the project [14] (The 'Golden Rice', An Exercise in How Not to Do Science, ISIS Report) uncovered “fundamental deficiencies” from the scientific and social rationale to the science and technology involved. It was being promoted “to salvage a morally as well as financially bankrupt agricultural biotech industry.” The situation has changed little since.

The phase II clinical trials of uncharacterized, unapproved, experimental GR2 events on children, some of whom may indeed be suffering from vitamin A deficiency, is morally inexcusable. GR2 has not been assessed for safety, and there are reasons to suspect it is unsafe.

GMO safety in question

The biotech industry has consistently found genetically modified food and feed ‘as safe as their conventional counterparts’, and regulators in the United States and European Union have accepted this assertion overwhelmingly based on studies carried out and interpreted by the industry [17] (GM Food Nightmare Unfolding in the Regulatory Sham, ISIS scientific publication).

There is now a string of evidence that exposure of many species of animals to a variety of genetically modified crops, and food and feed derived from them, can cause illnesses and death, raising the distinct possibility that genetic modification is inherently dangerous [18] (GM is Dangerous and Futile, SiS 40). This is reinforced in results obtained in the most recent studies.

The Austrian government commissioned long term studies showing that mice fed GM maize hybrid (NK603xMON810) with combined glyphosate tolerance and biopesticide Cry1Ab produced fewer and smaller litters with many genes affected compared to controls [19] (GM Maize Reduces Fertility & Deregulates Genes in Mice, SiS 41). At the same time, the Italian National Institute of Research published a study showing that GM maize MON810 fed to mice produced disturbances in the immune system of the young and the old [20] (GM Maize Disturbs Immune System of Young and Old Mice, SiS 41). In India, the first independent assessment of the feeding study submitted by Monsanto and its subsidiary Mahyco to the Indian regulatory authorities showed that Bt Brinjal (aubergine) caused many changes in several species of animals including diarrhoea, increased water consumption and decrease in liver weight in rats [21] (Bt Brinjal Unfit for Human Consumption, SiS 41).

There are several reasons why genetic modification is inherently hazardous, as spelt out more than ten years ago [22] (Genetic Engineering: Dream or Nightmare?) and unfortunately, still not taken on board by the regulatory authorities, let alone systematically investigated. The dangers may come from the transgenic protein itself that may be toxic or immunogenic [23] (Transgenic Pea that Made Mice Ill, SiS 29), the toxicity of herbicides such as glyphosate to which more than 70 percent of GM crops now grown globally are made tolerant [24] (Death by Multiple Poisoning, Glyphosate and Roundup, SiS 42) or it could be totally unexpected, unintended effects resulting from the mutagenic insertion of foreign DNA into the genome, and worse, the instability of transgenic lines, which makes proper safety assessment well nigh impossible [25] (Transgenic Lines Unstable hence Illegal and Ineligible for Protection, SiS 38).

One major hazard inherent to GM organisms (GMOs) is enhanced horizontal gene transfer and recombination [26] (Horizontal Gene Transfer from GMOs Does Happen, SiS 39). This is considerably worse with transgenic plants like Golden Rice (both GR1 and GR2) that have been created using the Agrobacterium binary vector system, basically because the Agrobacterium bacteria as well as the binary vector tend to persist in the transgenic plants, providing a ready vehicle for further horizontal gene transfer to all species that interact with the transgenic plant material, including human cells. Agrobacterium is known to invade human cells. Horizontal transfer of transgenic DNA into human cells has the potential to cause harmful mutations including cancer. In general, horizontal transfer of transgenic DNA facilitates the creation of new pathogens. The identification of Agrobacterium sequences in patients with Morgellons’ Disease raises questions as to whether the widespread use of Agrobacterium vectors in genetic modification has indeed resulted in creating a new pathogen for humans [15].

Golden Rice particularly dangerous

In addition, the unbalanced enhancement of single nutrients in GM crops may do more harm than good [27] (GM Crops and Microbes for Health or Public Health Hazards? SiS 32). As David Schubert at the Salk Institute for Biological Sciences La Jolla, California, in the United States points out [28], plants possess the ability to synthesize between 90 000 and 200 000 nonessential small molecules, with up to 500 in one species. The enormous repertoire is due in part to enzymes with very low substrate specificity, which are unpredictably altered by mutations and pleiotropic effects associated with GM technology. Furthermore, overdose of many single nutrients are known to be toxic, vitamin A being a case in point. Schubert highlights the toxic effects of retinoic acid and other metabolites of b-carotene, only a few of them can be identified and measured in the current state of technology.

Golden Rice is enhanced in b-carotene, which on ingestion, is cleaved in half to generate retinal for use in the visual cycle. Retinal is also reduced to retinol, or oxidized to retinoic acid (RA), which interacts with highly specific nuclear receptors. Essentially all of the biological activity of retinoids, apart from vision, involves RA. While high concentrations of retinol are toxic, RA is biologically active at concentrations several orders of magnitude lower than retinol. Hence, Schubert states [28]: “excess RA or RA derivatives are exceedingly dangerous, particularly to infants and during pregnancy.” RA is required for the development of the nervous system, both by directly controlling nerve differentiation and by generating concentration gradients that direct cell migration, embryonic segmentation, and development. Therefore, RA and synthetic derivative of RA are teratogenic (able to cause birth defects). They can accumulate in fat and plasma, becoming a risk factor for pregnancy for up to 2 years following ingestion, and multiple low doses of retinoids have greater toxicity than a single high dose.

Because of the type of biological functions controlled by low levels of RA, any perturbation of its signalling pathways by plant-derived RA receptor agonists or antagonists will have clinical consequences. “Could the GM modifications used to enhance b-carotene synthesis create such compounds?” (This question remains unanswered to this day.) Six hundred naturally occurring compounds exist in the carotene family, and at least 60 can be precursors to retinoids. “Therefore, plants have the potential to make many potentially harmful retinoid-like compounds when there are increased levels of synthetic intermediates to b-carotene as in golden rice.”

While all retinoids and derivatives are likely to be teratogenic, good assays and information regarding the behaviour and teralogic activity are available for only three: retinol, RA, and retinal. Therefore, at the very least, “extensive safety testing should be required before the introduction of golden rice as a food.”


READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE:
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/goldenRiceScandal.php

Etiquetas: , ,

jueves, marzo 19, 2009

Mil voces – Edición número 49

  • Duración: 55:05 minutes (25.25 MB)

La clausura de la organización ecuatoriana Acción Ecológica generó polémica y en este programa conversamos con su presidenta, Ivonne Ramos. Desde la Argentina más profunda, compartimos testimonios de las familias afectadas por los fenómenos climáticos en Tartagal, y de una comunidad mapuche en Neuquén, amenazada de desalojo por un estanciero ligado a la última dictadura militar. En la previa al Día de Acción Global de lucha contra las represas y en defensa de los ríos escuchamos producciones radiales sobre la presa mexicana El Zapotillo, y terminamos en Uruguay, donde un informe refuta la conveniencia de la “coexistencia controlada” entre cultivos transgénicos y orgánicos o convencionales.

Etiquetas:

Biochar, una nueva amenaza para los pueblos, la tierra y los ecosistemas

El ‘biochar’ y los suelos no deben ser incluidos en el comercio de carbono

Precaución ante la propuesta de utilizar grandes cantidades de carbón en los suelos para mitigar el cambio climático y para recomponer los suelos

Agregar carbón (‘biochar’) al suelos, se ha propuesto como una estrategia de ‘mitigación del cambio climático’ y como una forma de regenerar tierras degradadas. Se dice incluso que con ello se podría secuestrar carbono, revirtiendo todo el calentamiento global causado por la combustión de combustibles fósiles y por la destrucción de ecosistemas. La producción de carbón a tal escala, requeriría cientos de millones de hectáreas de tierra para producir biomasa, en su mayor parte a partir de plantaciones de árboles. La propuesta es un intento de manipulación de la biosfera y de utilización de superficies de tierra a una gran escala, en una dimensión como para alterar el clima global, por lo que es una forma de geo-ingeniería.

Tal y como ha quedado demostrado por la sucesión de desastres provocados por los agrocombustibles, semejante conversión de usos de la tierra supone una gran amenaza para la biodiversidad y para los ecosistemas naturales, que juegan un papel esencial en la estabilidad y regulación del clima y son también necesarios para la producción de alimentos y la protección del agua. Significa también una amenaza para el modo de vida de muchas comunidades, entre ellas indígenas.

El biochar está estrechamente relacionado con los agrocombustibles: el carbón es un subproducto de uno de los métodos de producción de bioenergía que también se utiliza para la producción de agrocombustibles de segunda generación, es decir, agrocombustibles a partir de madera, paja, bagazo, residuos de palmiste y otros tipos de biomasa sólida.

Once gobiernos africanos han hecho un llamamiento para que los suelos agrícolas en general, y en particular el biochar, sean incluidos en el comercio de carbono. Su solicitud indica que buscan incrementar la “financiación a través del sector privado” (lo que implica el control por parte de corporaciones) en áreas rurales del Sur, y establecer un paralelismo con propuestas de incluir los bosques en el comercio de carbono (como el mecanismo de Reducción de Emisiones por Deforestación y Degradación REDD). Ha habido oposición a esas propuestas REDD porque se considera que comercializan los ecosistemas de bosque con consecuencias negativas para los pueblos indígenas y la biodiversidad. La inclusión de los suelos en esos mecanismos amplificará estos serios impactos.


La propuesta de ‘mitigar el cambio climático’ a trevés de la utilización de ‘biochar’ a gran escala es una forma peligrosa de geo-ingeniería que se basa en afirmaciones sin fundamento.
Un grupo de presión o lobby, el International Biochar Initiative, conformado en su mayor parte por empresas y académicos muchos de los cuales son cercanos a intereses comerciales, está impulsando el biochar. Sus afirmaciones son muy audaces y no se basan en el conocimiento científico.

+ Todavía no se sabe si el carbón aplicado al suelo representa de alguna manera un ‘sumidero de carbono’. El carbón industrial es muy diferente de la Terra Preta, un tipo de tierra altamente fértil y rica en carbono que existe en la Amazonía central, que fue creada por comunidades indígenas a lo largo de cientos o miles de años. Las empresas de ‘biochar’ e investigadores no han podido imitar Terra Preta.

+ Los defensores del biochar están promocionando ‘targets’ u objetivos, que requerirían el uso de 500 millones de hectáreas o más de tierras para producir carbón, además de la energía correspondiente. Los monocultivos industriales de árboles de crecimiento rápido y otras materias primas para la industria de pulpa y papel y para agrocombustibles ya han causado impactos sociales y ambientales serios, que empeoran el cambio climático. Esta nueva demanda de biochar en grandes cantidades aumentará enormemente estos problemas.

+ Existe el riesgo de que el biochar se utilice en el futuro para promover el desarrollo de variedades de árboles genéticamente modificados (GM) de modo específico para la producción de biochar, o que se extienda el número de especies de árboles de crecimiento rápido, lo cual tendría impactos ecológicos serios.

+ No existen evidencias consistentes de que el carbón tenga la propiedad de hacer el suelo más fértil. La producción industrial de carbón a expensas de materia orgánica con la que normalmente se produciría humus tendrá más bien los efectos opuestos.

+ Se promociona como "biochar" la combinación de carbón vegetal con fertilizantes a base de combustibles fósiles fabricados con carbón producido a partir de la combustión de gases en las chimeneas de las centrales energéticas de carbón. Con esto sólo se perpetuará la quema de combustibles fósiles, así como las emisiones de óxido nítrico, un poderoso gas de efecto invernadero.

+ El proceso de elaboración de carbón y energía (pirólisis) puede tener como resultado contaminación peligrosa de aire y suelos.

Convirtiendo los suelos en cosechas rentables para la industria pero desastrosas para las comunidades de bajos recursos
Se han presentado varias solicitudes de patentes para la utilización de carbón en los suelos y para la pirólisis destinada a la producción de carbón. Si estas patentes son concedidas, cualquier beneficio futuro generado por esta tecnología estará destinada a las empresas y no a las comunidades. Dadas las exitosas estrategias de combinar carbón con biomasa de origen diverso en los suelos enriquecidos por los indígenas, es preocupante que patentar el ‘biochar’ suponga un acto de biopiratería. La inclusión de los suelos en los mercados de carbono, como la inclusión de bosques en el comercio de carbono, incrementará el control corporativo sobre recursos vitales y la exclusión de pequeños campesinos, comunidades rurales e indígenas.

El Mecanismo de Desarrollo Limpio (CDM) ha perpetuado, más que reducido, la quema de combustibles fósiles permitiendo a las industrias comprar “derechos para contaminar” y retrasando los cambios sociales y económicos que son necesarios para combatir el cambio climático. Los impactos de la quema de combustibles fósiles son irreversibles, y los llamados ‘sumideros de carbono en el suelo’ son inciertos y temporales.


Nos oponemos decididamente a la inclusión de los suelos en el comercio de carbono y a mecanismos de compensación, incluyendo el Mecanismo de Desarrollo Limpio.

La propuesta del biochar no toma en cuenta las causas en las que radica el cambio climático: la combustión de los combustibles fósiles y la destrucción de los ecosistemas, incluyendo la deforestación y la destrucción de suelos sanos a través de la agricultura industrial.

La agricultura agro-ecológica en pequeña escala y la protección de los ecosistemas naturales son modos efectivos de mitigar los impactos del cambio climático. Estas alternativas deben ser totalmente respaldadas, y no arriesgadas tecnologías sin fundamento promovidas por intereses comerciales. Las comunidades indígenas y campesinas han desarrollado muchas maneras de cuidar de los suelos y la biodiversidad, y de vivir de forma sustentable. Estos métodos adaptados local y culturalmente dependen del clima regional, los suelos, las cosechas y la biodiversidad. Los intentos de comercializar los suelos e imponer la idea de “un mismo molde para todo” a los suelos y a la agricultura presentan el riesgo de apropiarse, socavar y destruir el conocimiento y diversidad, justo cuando se necesita con mayor urgencia.

Si su organización desea firmar esta declaración, o para cualquier pregunta o comentario, por favor envíe un email con el nombre de su organización y el país a: biochar_concerns@yahoo.co.uk

Firmas:

Biofuelwatch (Reino Unido)
CENSAT Agua Viva (Amigos de la Tierra Colombia)
Down to Earth (Reino Unido)
EcoNexus (Reino Unido)
Energy Justice Network (EEUU)
ETC Group
Food First (EEUU)
Friends of the Siberian Forest (Rusia)
Global Justice Ecology Project (EEUU)
Grupo de Reflexion Rural (Argentina)
Movimiento Mundial por los Bosques
NOAH (Amigos de la Tierra Dinamarca)
PIPEC
Rettet den Regenwald e.V. (Alemania)
Salva la Selva (Alemania)
Watch Indonesia! Working Group for Democracy, Human Rights and Environment in Indonesia and East Timor (Alemania)


Contexto, Notas:

Biochar es un término que se utiliza para denominar al carbón (generalmente de grano fino), cuando va a aplicarse al suelo, a la tierra. Se produce a través de un proceso llamado pirólisis, que consiste en exponer la biomasa a altas temperaturas en ausencia de oxígeno. Esto tiene como resultado dos tipos de combustible: syngas y bio-aceite, y también carbón como subproducto.

Los defensores del biochar afirman que la biomasa que utilizan es neutral en cuanto al carbono. Sin embargo, esta afirmación no toma en cuenta el hecho de que el biochar procede básicamente de agricultura idustrial y plantaciones de árboles, las cuales se asocian a emisiones muy elevadas de gases de efecto invernadero, debido a las pérdidas de carbono del suelo, a la destrucción de vegetación natural, al consumo energético y al uso de fertilizantes sintéticos. Afirman además que el carbono retenido en el carbón (normalmente entre el 20% y el 50% del carbono que se encontraba originalmente en la biomasa) permanecerá en el suelo en el que se deposite, lo que haría este proceso “negativo desde el punto de vista del ciclo de carbono”, reduciéndose así las concentraciones de dióxido de carbono en la atmósfera. También afirman que agregar carbón a los suelos los hará más fértiles de forma permanente. Cada una de estas afirmaciones es altamente cuestionable
y ninguna de ellas ha sido probada de manera científica.

1) ¿Es el carbón un “sumidero de carbono”?

Los promotores del ‘Biochar’ sugieren que el carbón industrial puede compararse con Terra Preta, que es un tipo de suelo altamente fértil y rico en carbono, descubierto en la Amazonía central, y que ha sido creado por indígenas a lo largo de cientos o incluso miles de años, mediante la combinación de carbón con otros tipos de biomasa altamente diversos. El secreto de Terra Preta no ha podido ser reproducido. El biochar moderno es altamente variable, y sus resultados varían enormemente, dependiendo del tipo de suelo, materias utilizadas para fabricar el carbón, y otros factores. En algunos casos, el hecho de agregar carbón al suelo, ha incrementado incluso su liberación de carbono, al haber estimulado procesos microbianos de la materia orgánica no-carbónica. Algunos microorganismos pueden también descomponer el carbón. Mientras que algunos tipos de carbón permanecen en el suelo por largos períodos de tiempo, este no siempre es el caso. No existen ni remota
mente estudios científicos elaborados a largo plazo acerca del ‘biochar’ moderno. Los impactos de la incorporación de biochar en grandes áreas de suelos agrícolas no son aún conocidos. Biochar en o cerca de la superficie incrementaría el ‘hollín’ en la atmósfera, el cual contribuye enormemente al calentamiento global. Para evitar esto, el carbón debería ser incorporado en el suelo a cierto nivel de profundidad. Pero esto alteraría la estructura del suelo, pudiendo causar una liberación significativa de CO2 a la atmósfera. Las afirmaciones de que el biochar en el suelo constituye un “sumidero permanente de carbono” son falsas.

2) ¿Cuáles serían los impactos probables de cultivar cantidades de materias primas suficientes para producir biochar como estrategia climática de geoingeniería?

Los defensores del biochar sugieren dejar crecer vastas áreas de árboles y cultivos, en el orden de al menos 500 millones de hectáreas, para su converión en carbón. Los terribles efectos de las plantaciones industriales de árboles para la producción de celulosa y papel, y para agrocombustibles, ya vienen siendo comprobadas hace tiempo. La conversión de tierras a esta escala supone graves amenazas para la biodiversidad y los ecosistemas, desplaza comunidades, interfiere con la producción de alimentos y degrada los suelos y las fuentes de agua poable. El uso propuesto de ‘residuos agrícolas y forestales’ se basa en consideraciones irreales de la disponibilidad de estas materias, cuya utilización para estos fines privaría al suelo de nutrientes y materia orgánica, contribuyendo a la erosión y reduciendo el habitat de la biodiversidad.

3) ¿Cuáles son los efectos de la adición de carbón en el suelo?

Los defensores del ‘biochar’afirman que mejora la fertilidad del suelo, reduciendo la necesidad de fertilizantes químicos y mejorando la retención de agua. Pero la pequeña cantidad de estudios realizados han mostrado resultados variables, y en algunos casos incluso lo contrario: que la productividad se reduce. Reiteramos que no existen estudios de largo plazo. De hecho, la investigación y desarrollo del ‘biochar’ se centra en gran parte en el carbón combinado con fertilizantes sintéticos y carbón ‘enriquecido’ el producto resultante de la combustión de gases en centrales energéticas a base de carbón (bicarbonato amónico).
El impacto de la aplicación del biochar a gran escala y los daños mecánicos que implica en suelos ricos en microorganismos son deconocidos, pero altamente preocupantes cuando se proponen en una escala tan masiva.

4) ¿Qué otros impactos deben ser considerados?

La pirólisis puede tener como resultado la contaminación del aire y emisiones de partículas que se sabe que tienen impactos serios sobre la salud humana. Como con la icineración convencional, las toxinas que contienen las materias primas son emitidas al aire o retenidas en cenizas o en el carbón. Algunas de las compañías de biochar ya están utilizando una amplia variedad de “deshechos” que incluyen especies de madera tratadas (químicamente), residuos de cosechas que han sido fumigados con agroquímicos, plásticos, neumáticos usados o carbón combinado con otros tipos de biomasa. El impacto de añadir grandes cantidades de carbón con toxinas al suelo debe ser investigado, así como también las emisiones de la pirólisis al aire.

Resumen:

Frente a tales incertidumbres científicas, el apoyo político para la comercialización y expansión de esta tecnología es extremadamente riesgoso e injustificado. Existe el riesgo de empeorar severamente en lugar de mitigar el cambio climático, si tienen lugar las emisiones a causa del cambio de uso de los suelos, de la descomposición de los suelos o de pérdidas de carbono del ‘biochar’.


Para más información, ver “Biochar for Climate Change Mitigation: Fact of Fiction?” (en inglés), Almuth Ernsting y Rachel Smolker, www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/docs/biocharbriefing.pdf
Una versión en español estará muy pronto disponible en www.salvalaselva.org/news.php?id=1222

Etiquetas: ,

From George Monbiot's blog:

Shell's subtle switch from renewables to the murky world of 'alternative' energy

Shell's spending on renewables – except biofuel – appears to have fallen from $200m a year to zero over the past nine years

The Royal Dutch Shell headquarters in The Hague

So at last we have an explanation. During my video interview with Jeroen van der Veer, the chief executive of Shell, I asked the same question 15 times: "What is the value of your annual investments in renewable energy?"

After several attempts to change the subject, he admitted that he knew the figure, then flatly refused to reveal it. Nor could he give me a convincing explanation of why he wouldn't tell me, claiming only that "those figures are misused and people say it is too small" and it "is not the right message to give to the people".

Yesterday, Shell announced that it has stopped investing in conventional renewables: wind, solar and hydro. It will concentrate instead on developing second-generation biofuels. There are a number of possible reasons for this shift:

• Shell's portfolio was spread too thinly

Carbon prices, which reflect the carbon caps imposed by governments, are extremely low. Without some major policy shifts, they are likely to stay that way, which means that renewables are an unattractive investment

• The prospect of a liquid fuels-crunch caused by declining oil reserves means that Shell will get better returns for its money by investing in tar sands and biofuels than by investing in electricity supply

Greenwash isn't working any more. Some of us suspected that the primary purpose of Shell's investment in renewables was public relations. Though he did not express himself clearly on this point, van der Veer appeared to concede in our interview that some of the company's advertising had not been honest:

If we are very big in oil and gas and we are so far relatively small in alternative energies, if you then every day only make adverts about your alternative energies and not about 90% of your other activities ... then I say transparency, honesty to the market, that's nonsense.

So much for speculation. This week I received a leaked extract of van der Veer's latest newsletter to his staff. It says:

Finally, let me update you on our renewable energy activities. As you know, our strategy is to investigate a range of alternative energy and CO2 technologies. We spent about $1.7bn on them in the last five
years. The one that is closest to our core business is sustainable biofuels. That's where we'll focus in 2009 and 2010. So as you can see, we're making good progress. We are on track with our strategy and our projects, building the foundations of our future. Thank you for contributing to our momentum!

Now this is really confusing. The obvious explanation for van der Veer's refusal to give me a figure for current investments – which appears to be supported by the comments he made – is that they had fallen from the previous level of spending. In 2000, the company had boasted that it would be investing $1bn dollars in renewable energy between 2001 and 2005.

So why, if its spending over the past five years has risen by 70%, wouldn't he tell me? He didn't even try the obvious excuse – that the figure was "commercially confidential".

My guess is that the difference hinges on definition. You'll notice than in the newsletter he switches from "renewables" to "alternative energy and CO2 technologies". Alternative energy is not necessarily renewable energy. The figure might include the cost of assessing the prospects of exploiting oil shales, for example – an extremely polluting fuel source, from which it takes a great deal of energy to extract liquid fuels.

In our interview, van der Veer conceded that this was something Shell had been researching. The CO2 technologies might refer to investigating the prospect of capturing carbon from Shell's tar sands operation. Alternatively, the money might all be going into biofuels.

So perhaps there is no conflict between these figures. Shell's spending on renewables – except biofuel – appears to have fallen from $200m a year to zero over the past nine years. Its spending on liquid fuel production of all kinds has risen. Shell is consolidating: has it stopped pretending to be anything other than a liquid fuel and gas company?

The big question now, however, is this: without a strong carbon price, who is going to invest in renewables?

Monbiot.com

Etiquetas: , , ,