THE SINISTER NEW BIO-FUEL ALLIANCE

By Joao Pedro Stedile and - - Reprint | | Print |

This column is available for visitors to the IPS website only for reading. Reproduction in print or electronic media is prohibited. Media interested in republishing may contact romacol@ips.org.

SAO PAOLO, Mar 3 2007 (IPS) - The Landless Movement of Brazil and the international organisation Via Campesina condemn the new initiative of President George Bush, who in his upcoming trip to Latin America hopes to seduce and co-opt the countries of the region into becoming major producers of bio-fuels for export to the US, writes Joao Pedro Stedile, leader of the Landless Movement of Brazil (MST) and Via Campesina Brazil. In this article, Stedile writes that a diabolical alliance of the oil companies, the transnationals that control agricultural and GM seeds, and the automobile industry, in order to maintain the current consumerist model of the first world and its profit levels, are trying to convince the governments of the South to concentrate their agriculture in bio-fuel production to supply the cars of the first world. The new US plan would be a tragedy for tropical agriculture and would transform major areas of our best lands into monoculture tracts, aggravate the loss of biodiversity, and reduce the amount of land dedicated to food production, forcing millions of peasants around the world from their land and into the swelling slums of the big cities.

Recently 600 leaders of peasant movements from around the world, scientists, environmentalists, and feminist leaders met in Mali to debate problems related to the development of food sovereignty in our countries. At this event, we analyzed the offensive being launched for vegetable-based fuel production and reached the conclusion that a diabolical alliance has been forged between the major sectors of international capital: the oil companies, the transnationals that control agricultural and genetically-modified seeds, and the automobile industry.

What do they want? To maintain the current consumerist model of the first world and its profit levels. To this end they are trying to convince the governments of the South to concentrate their agriculture in bio-fuel production to supply the cars of the first world. The energy contained in grains or plants is in reality an agri-chemical metamorphosis of solar energy which is transformed into a fuel as either vegetable oil or alcohol. The best conditions for this to occur are in the south of the world, where solar energy is greatest.

In addition, the firms want to take advantage of the agri-fuel push to expand their genetically-modified soy and corn business, guaranteeing profits through the exercise of their patents and the sale of fertilizers used in the development of energy agriculture.

This drive for the production of fuel from sunflower, corn, soy, almonds, African palm, or sugar cane is apparently well intentioned: to replace petroleum, a non-renewable and polluting fuel with renewable fuels that do not harm the environment. This alternative will be rewarded with wide and free publicity because it will be presented as a goodwill gesture to reign in global warming.

But this trilateral alliance is interested only in producing profits, not protecting the environment. It opted for renewable energy to free itself from the dependence on oil imported from countries with nationalistic governments like Venezuela and Iran, because the failure of the war in Iraq prevented the US from appropriating its oil, and because of the political instability in Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, and Angola — in other words, because of problems in the major oil exporting countries to Europe and the US.

The peasant movements hold, first of all, that the term ”bio fuel” should not be used because it creates a non-existent concept by generically relating energy with life (bio); they would prefer adoption of the term ”agri-fuel”.

Second, while we admit that agri-fuels are more suitable for the environment than oil, this does not affect the essence of the dilemma now facing humanity: replacing the current model of energy squandering and individual transport with one based on mass transit (trains, metro, etc.)

Third, we are against the use of goods generated for human consumption– like sunflowers or corn– to make agri-fuels.

Four, even if the production of agri-fuels is considered necessary, it must be at sustainable levels. We are fighting the current neo-liberal model of large-scale monoculture agriculture, which damages the environment with its intensive use of pesticides and mechanisation, which eliminates the need for labourers and increases the warming of the planet by destroying bio-diversity and preventing water and rains from keeping in balance with agricultural production.

We argue that it is possible to produce fuels from agricultural products if they are cultivated sustainably, on a medium or small scale, and so do not unbalance the environment and allow for greater autonomy over energy control for the peasants and its supply to cities.

The peasant movement opposes Bush’s tour of the region –between March 8-14 he will visit Brazil, Uruguay, Colombia, Guatemala, and Mexico– because it is the first step in his offensive to get Latin American countries to export agri-fuels on a large scale to the US. In exchange, the American entrepreneurs of the trilateral alliance are demanding the right to build a large number of new alcohol plants throughout North and South America — 100 in Brazil alone. To render the plan viable, the Bush administration is calling for alcohol-ethanol to be reclassified as a non-agricultural ”energy raw material” in order to avoid the rules imposed on agricultural products by the WTO. It also proposes that Brazil, the US, South Africa, India, and other countries negotiate a common technological standard for agri-fuels derived from sugar cane, corn, or other plants that would be accepted internationally, creating a kind of agri-fuel OPEC that would oversee world trade in the substance.

In the upcoming months, the peasant movements will maintain their dialogue with researchers, scientists, and environmental organisations to come up with a better formulation of a proposal for sustainable and viable production. Above all, we will discuss how to fight the new US plan, which, if successful, will be a tragedy for tropical agriculture and would transform major areas of our best land into monoculture tracts, aggravate the loss of biodiversity, and reduce the amount of land dedicated to food production, forcing millions of peasants around the world from their land and into the swelling slums of the big cities. All this to supply gas so that those in the First World can drive their own cars and maintain the consumption levels of “the American way of life”.

This debate, and this fight, are just beginning. We hope that the discussion will extend to all societies and that the media will fully cover this matter, which is fundamental to the future of our peoples. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)