In defence of Brazil option for biofuels

US President George Bush’s visit to Brazil and his subsequent meeting with President Lula, at Camp David, has generated an unprecedented discussion about the role of biofuels in the world’s energy matrix. Cuban President Fidel Castro has criticised the use of ethanol and biodiesel, a position that is shared by other presidents who are friends of Brazil and also by conservative interests. For the Cuban leader, the production of ethanol, especially from corn, will favour consumption by the rich at the cost of “burning food” that is intended for the poor.

The Brazilian option for biofuels has a long history. It gained momentum after 2003 and has been included in the dialogue between Lula and his Latin American colleagues over the last few years. These contacts have resulted in concrete initiatives with Bolivia, Uruguay, Ecuador, Haiti, and Venezuela, to name a few.

The United States’ interest in this energy alternative has given greater visibility to the topic. Therefore, it is understandable that government leaders who are critics of the Bush administration will take this opportunity to highlight their differences with Washington.

However, Brazilian energy options should not be transformed into an arena for political and ideological discussion, as if there were two opposite camps in the Americas. Co-operation with the US on biofuels is valid and does not change Brazil’s foreign policy in the region.

Both in Sao Paulo and at Camp David, President Lula reiterated that our diplomacy is centred on South American integration. I would note that the region is going through a positive period, with democratic governments that enjoy strong legitimacy from the electoral ballot, and are motivated by a concern with reform, which has contributed to political and social inclusion for thousands of men and women who had been deeply affected by “neoliberal” policies that devastated the region.

In the US, President Lula explained why this energy option plays a central role in Brazil, a country that has achieved self-sufficiency in oil, with 60 per cent of its electrical power coming from hydroelectric sources, that will soon become self-sufficient in natural gas, and that in addition has advanced programmes in the areas of solar, wind and nuclear energy. The Brazilian Government is convinced that renewable fuels will allow us to face the four greatest challenges of the century.

The first is the energy crisis that has affected humanity, including developed countries, and which constitutes a threat to development in our region. In Africa, Asia and Central America and almost the entire Caribbean, biofuels offer an alternative for solving the energy deficit of many countries that have become victims of stagnation and foreign dependency.

The second challenge is responding to the crucial problem we have inherited from the 20th century, ie unemployment and acute inequality. Biofuel production is capable of creating thousands of jobs, keeping workers on their land, thereby reducing disruptive migratory flows. By creating jobs, biofuels provide for increased and better distribution of income, primarily if family agriculture is stimulated, as set forth in the Brazilian legislation.

The third challenge is to contribute to reducing global warming, a topic that has acquired apocalyptic overtones. As a fuel or an additive to fossil fuels, ethanol and biodiesel reduce pollutant emissions.

The last challenge is to establish the basis for a state-of-the-art industry—to replace the petrochemical industry—capable of producing new materials, drugs, fertilisers and animal feed from biofuels.

The Brazilian model indicates that the risk that biofuel programmes will contribute to increased hunger is not correct. Hunger is not the result of lack of food. It is the result of unemployment and lack of income that affect millions of men and women. As sociologist Emir Sader recalls, the food produced today would suffice to feed 12 billion people.

The Brazilian experience similarly demonstrates that land allocated to raw material production for ethanol and biodiesel is not appropriate for cultivating food crops. Less that one-fifth of Brazil’s 320 million hectares of arable land is being cultivated.

Of this total, only one per cent is used for sugarcane ethanol, which is one sixty-fifth of the millions of hectares of depleted pasture, where cultivation is expanding. To say that Brazil may one day become an enormous sugarcane plantation reflects a misunderstanding of the situation. Likewise, there is no risk to the Amazon, a region that is not appropriate for agriculture intended for energy needs, where significant decreases in deforestation are being achieved.

Obviously, the global production of biofuels deserves careful consideration. It is necessary to select grains the cultivation of which for energy purposes will not cause price increases for food items, as has occurred with corn. Unlike sugarcane—primarily after the advances in terms of productivity as a result of years of research—corn is not suitable in economic or social terms for producing ethanol.

Biofuels, as demonstrated by the Brazilian experience, do not increase the dependency of poor countries on rich countries. On the contrary, they have a positive impact on the balance of trade of the former, by reducing imports and increasing exports.

Finally, rigorous government certification of new fuels on the part of producing countries—which can be the subject of multilateral agreements—will prevent injury to nature and ensure decent working conditions. National legislations, as in the case of Brazil, will strike a balance between small family producing units and large plantations.

An energy revolution is currently underway. It does not put biofuels at odds with fossil fuels. On the contrary, they complement one another. It will allow consolidation of South America as the region with the greatest and most diversified energy potential in the world.

Dialogue must replace confrontation. The only passion that is acceptable at this time is that which favours South American unity and the well being of our peoples.

Marco Aurélio Garcia

Special foreign policy adviser to President of Brazil

Tickets mess at CWC games

The ticketing for the Cricket World Cup has been a farse with those responsible for making tickets available to the public making a mess.

Imagine during the first phase of ticket sales in July 2006, cricket fans had to pay either online or hard cash at one of the ticketing venues and then entered into a lottery to know the result in September.

I know of fans who applied for the India-Sri Lanka game who were not successful for this lottery and were reimbursed at a rate of TT$6 to US$1 when they paid TT$6.30 to US$1.

During the warm-up games at the UWI grounds, it was announced that tickets for the India-Sri Lanka game were sold out, while attendance showed about 80 per cent.

On the morning before the game I happened to overhear a member of the LOC stating that sponsors had returned tickets and that they were now available at the ticketing venues. There were no formal ads on radio, TV or in the newspapers, leaving fans eight hours to purchase tickets. Most did not even know that tickets had become available.

About five days prior to the India-Bangladesh game, it was also announced as a sellout. The attendance at this game was even more embarrassing—at about 20 per cent.

I tried purchasing tickets at the venue two days prior to the game and was told they were sold out, even though I was seeing tickets were available online. I promptly purchased online and then went back to the ticketing box to collect my tickets, all within one hour.

During my stay in the line there was a lot of clamouring for tickets for both those India games, with patrons being told they were sold out.

How could they ask fans to purchase tickets at the last minute when they were duped initially?

I do hope the cricketing public is not made the scapegoat for the mess that was made by those responsible for the distribution of tickets.

I Hosein

Gulf View

San Fernando

State money for my funeral too?

I do not know the story behind the young man, Joel Charles, who was shot in Laventille the other day, so I will pass no judgment.

However, I want to know what criteria Fitzgerald Hinds used to decide that state money should be used to bury Charles.

In fact, as a taxpaying citizen I demand to know how and when such a decision was made. This is not to say there might not be a good reason for doing so, just that I do not know why.

My family might be particularly interested in this information in the event that I meet an untimely fate. Am I also eligible for a free burial or do I live in the wrong constituency? Maybe I should ask MP Robinson-Regis.

Is this a new Cepep? With the “C” for “Cemetery?”

Arthur Gordon

Arouca

Normal midnight meeting, Harry?

I listened to Harry Harnarine on April 10 on Shakti Radio, which is owned by the shareholders of the Hindu Credit Union, and heard him attempt to justify his secret meeting with Patrick Manning. He tried to say that it was a normal meeting with the Prime Minister to discuss the 2020 vision.

If this was so, why was the meeting held at the home of Jameel Ali in Valsayn close to midnight. Why not a public office? Why were the media not informed? Why did Manning himself call it a cottage meeting and why did Manning say that certain East Indian businessmen had come on the side of the all-inclusive PNM?

There was obviously a hidden agenda. Has Harry “sold out” to the PNM?

Harnarine has a right to support any political party, but as the president of a credit union he has to account to his members. The Central Bank and the commissioner for credit unions should investigate this latest move. Are members’ funds being used?

I wonder what Ken Ali has to say now that his boss has apparently thrown his hat in the ring? So much for journalistic independence.

Shastri Rampersad

Chaguanas

Party coaches only on WI team

It is with a heavy heart that I feel compelled to write this.

Shame, shame and more shame for the administration, the board, coach and, most of all, the players of the “Worst Indies.”

Pray tell me why there is no bowling coach, no batting coach, no fielding coach, just a lot of party coaches.

A clean sweep please from captain to cook.

E Abraham

Federation Park, PoS

Talk your mind

Letters via post should be sent to the

Editor-in-chief,

22-24 St Vincent Street,

Port-of-Spain.

Faxes: 625-7211.

E-mail:letters@ttol.co.tt

©2005-2006 Trinidad Publishing Company Limited

Designed by: Randall Rajkumar-Maharaj · Updated daily by: Nicholas Attai