Food vs. ethanol
Science, economics and culture collide in Cuba
Last Updated: Thursday, May 15, 2008 | 11:09 AM ET Comments7Recommend18
By Stephen Strauss CBC News
One of the marvels of our time is watching how politicians deal with
science questions — or maybe that should more accurately be phrased as
"science-ized" questions.
The most obvious example is human-induced climate change, a domain in
which there is general scientific agreement that change is happening,
but where the question of what to do about it doesn't easily present
itself as a "political science." I argue this from the context of a
recent trip to Cuba where I gave a talk to the Fundacion Antonio Nunez
Jimenez de la Naturaleza y el Hombre (FANJ), a Cuban environmental
non-governmental organization (NGO).
I had never been to Cuba before, and so as I was coming from the airport
I was much struck by a billboard that proclaimed — in my rough
translation — that turning food into energy was stupid.
I wasn't sure where that sentiment came from until I came across what
one might term Fidel Castro's late-life conversion, a series of speeches
he recently has given on climate change and food production. In them he
says unequivocally that, "transforming food into fuel is a monstrosity."
And he goes on to argue that the efforts by U.S. President George W.
Bush to create more ethanol — both in the U.S. and in places like Brazil
— are driving the world down the path of food shortages.
Particularly worrisome for him is the conversion of crops like corn and
soya into ethanol. The creation of biofuel from them would save the
United States, Europe and the industrialized countries, "more than $140
billion [U.S.] each year, without having to worry about the consequences
for the climate and hunger," writes Castro.
And he is not alone in these worries.
A recent, much-discussed paper in the journal Science calculated that
instead of 20 per cent savings in carbon emissions coming from ethanol,
the changeover would encourage poor farmers to convert forests and
grasslands to ethanol production. And by the paper's authors' measures,
that would double greenhouse emissions over 30 years and increase
greenhouse gases for 167 years. If corn was changed to switchgrass,
which is even better for producing ethanol, emissions would go up by 50
per cent.
On top of this argument has been the volley of recent media stories
tying increases in grain prices, hunger and food riots to the drive to
make more ethanol.
What's the science-based policy option which moves us away from using
fossil fuels but still allows us to feed the hungry masses?
Nobody is sure, but a letter to Science following up on the corn/ethanol
original analysis suggested that what Americans, and likely Canadians,
should do to mitigate global warming is to become vegetarians. Since
cattle require 13 kilograms of grain and 30 kilograms of forage to
produce a kilogram of meat, and similarly high numbers go into the
production of other meats, switching over to a lacto-ovo-vegetarian diet
"requires animal feed, but about half as much as a meat-heavy American
diet," said the letter. So by swearing off meat, one could devote
present farmland to growing biofuel crops without hurting anyone.
This need to radically change lifestyles was on my mind after I spoke to
FANJ. I noted to the group following my formal presentation — it had
nothing to do with climate change — that I had a question. I said I had
seen the billboards and read Castro's speeches and thought there was
much truth to what he said about the self-interest of the developed
world, but I wondered why he didn't also say that if Cuba wanted to deal
with global warming it would have to think not as poor people but as
revolutionaries.
Specifically, Cuba would have to break with its historical agricultural
past.
It should take all those fields devoted to producing tobacco and use
them to grow ethanol, I suggested to the audience. Cuba does, after all,
have the second-largest area of planted tobacco fields of any country in
the world. And why didn't it take some of those fields it used to grown
sugar cane to make rum — nobody's definition of a food — and use it to
produce ethanol?
Yes, there might be land-use changes, but those scenarios don't involve
turning food into ethanol. They turn, well, poison and drugs into ethanol.
The answers I got from audience members were interesting. One woman said
she thought that was a good idea and worthy of thought. But another put
up her hand and remarked that while what I said might be true, you also
had to remember how it was that Cuba earned its foreign exchange. Cuban
cigars and Cuban rum were big sellers — indeed, they are almost brand
names that define Cuba to the world.
I listened and wished Castro was there, so I could tell him: I
understand everyone's attachment to the products that have historically
defined Cuban-ness, but you also have to understand that if mankind is
going to deal with climate change and energy worries, we all must change.
Cuba, for example, is going to have to redefine itself into being
something other than the home of cigars and rum. Cuba is going to have
to stop complaining about the rich countries' duplicities and
reconfigure what has been the source of its own richness. Cuba is going
to have to think Revolucion o Muerte when it comes to dealing with
climate change.
I can't say that is the political wisdom of science, but it is as
politically wise as this gringo science writer gets.
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/05/13/f-strauss-ethanol.html
No comments:
Post a Comment