Biofuels:
A potentially positive solution turned into a serious threat to
the South
No one in their right mind can accuse
President George W. Bush of overly concerning himself with climate
change. In this respect, his curriculum is spotless and both his
unreserved support to the oil industry and his oil wars have implied
significant inputs to global warming. And if any doubts
were left, his persistent refusal to sign the Kyoto Protocol has
made him the undisputed leader of those making the largest contribution
to the destruction of Planet Earth’s climate.
For this reason his recent interest
in biofuels is most astonishing. In fact, during his recent visit
to various Latin American countries (Brazil, Uruguay, Colombia,
Guatemala and Mexico) this was the clearest point on the agenda
of a trip that was defined by some media as “ethanol diplomacy.”
What is more, before starting his trip he visited the installations
of a company associated with ethanol production where he made
reference to “technologies that will enable us to convert wood
chips into fuels that are running automobiles.”
Bush’s sudden attentiveness to an issue
seemingly so distant from his interests and concerns serves to
better understand the reasons behind the fact that so many Northern
governments and agencies are promoting the development of biofuels
in so many Southern countries.
Contrary to other Northern government
representatives, Bush does not even try to present himself as
being “green.” The reasons he puts forth are basically strategic
and economic ones. He affirms that the promotion of biofuels is
“a very important national goal, to become less dependent on oil
from overseas, thereby ensuring that our national security interests
are better intact and our economic security interests are better
intact”. Regarding economic reasons he states that “It makes sense
to be able to -- as the price of hydrocarbons goes up- … that
there be alternative sources of energy coming to the market as
quickly as possible.”
Most probably the governments of most
of the countries of the North – and particularly the European
ones – have come to the same conclusions, making us doubt the
“greenness” of their intentions.
From the viewpoint of many governments
of the South, biofuels are simply perceived as a new product to
be exported, as an “opportunity.” This, added to the manifold
support they are receiving from cooperation agencies and multilateral
organizations, has given rise to the adoption of policies and
concrete measures for their promotion in dozens of countries,
without considering the possible social, political, economic and
environmental consequences.
In contrast, grassroots organizations
in the South see biofuels as a serious threat to subsistence.
In fact, government plans imply that millions of hectares of land
that today produce food, are going to be given over to the production
of fuel to feed automobiles. Crops such as maize, soybean, sugarcane,
oil palm and many others are going to be converted into ethanol
or biodiesel. In the words of Bush himself, wood-chips will
be converted into ethanol, implying the threat of even more monoculture
fast growing tree plantations to feed cars. All this will be done
to the detriment of lands producing food and of forests.
In this context, the recent meeting
held in Mali on food sovereignty with the participation of delegates
from over 80 countries, clearly declared itself against “the ‘Green
Deserts’ of industrial bio-fuel monocultures and other plantations.”
(see 1). The women meeting there also
supported this position in their declaration on food sovereignty,
emphasizing that “Monocultures, including those dedicated to agrofuels
… have a harmful effect on the environment and on human health…”
(see 2)
In a different context, the Peoples’
Permanent Tribunal (formerly the Russell Tribunal), at its recent
meeting in Cacarica, Colombia included serious accusations against
companies producing palm oil in its declaration. Among other things,
it accused them (and the Colombian Government) of having planted
oil palm on “the collective territories of Afro-Colombian communities,
an operation that was possible thanks to the commission and impunity
of over 113 crimes of Lese Humanity, 13 forced displacements,
15 cases of torture, 17 arbitrary arrests, 19 ransacking of settlements,
14 para-military style raids, aggressions on the humanitarian
zone, 4 murders or extra-judicial executions and the so-called
‘demobilization’ which has enabled the development of further
death threats and control over the population.” (see
3)
Of course this would not have overly
concerned the Colombian and US Presidents when they recently met,
as both have been – and continue to be – partners in the massacre
taking place in Colombia under the name of the “Colombia Plan.”
The final result will be positive for them: the production of
bio-diesel from oil palm. However, it is fitting that the future
consumers of this fuel reflect on the evidence of a women who
told the Tribunal that “oil palms are fertilized by the blood
of our brothers and sisters, friends and family members,” adding
that “we have nowhere to work as the territory is covered by oil
palm trees.”
This is the true face concealed behind
the so-called “biofuels” in the South. Bio means life. However,
the cultivation of these fuels means death. Death of entire communities;
death of cultures; death of people; death of nature. Be these
oil palm or eucalyptus plantations, be these sugarcane or transgenic
soybean monoculture plantations, be they promoted by “progressive”
or “conservative” governments. Death.
What could have been a positive solution
(replacing fossil fuels by fuels from biomass) has become, by
the grace of certain Northern interests, one of the most serious
threats to the survival of millions of people in the South. For
biofuels to become a positive solution the approach must change
completely. It must change from production for a global market
to production for local supply, from monoculture plantations to
diversity, from monopoly to decentralization, from socially and
environmentally destructive to respect for people and nature.
This is not in the minds of the companies, but it is possible
to find it in the minds of people, both in the South and in the
North. We appeal to them all to protect life and to help stop
this process which – under an “ecological” mantle – is a synonym
of death.
(1)
The full declaration is available at:
