The power of big finance and bad ideas
With royal fanfare, British Petroleum recently announced a massive
donation to UC Berkeley, Lawrence Livermore Laboratories and the
University of Illinois to develop new sources of energy – primarily
biotechnology to produce biofuel crops. This comes on the anniversary of
Berkeley's hapless research deal with seed giant Novartis ten years ago.
However, at half a billion dollars, the BP grant dwarfs Novartis'
investment by a factor of ten. The graphics of the announcement were
unmistakable: BP's corporate logo is perfectly aligned with the flags of
the Nation, the State, and the University.
CEO/Chairman Robert A. Malone proclaimed BP was "[J]oining some of the
world's best science and engineering talent to meet the demand for low
carbon energy… we will be working to improve and expand the production
of clean, renewable energy through the development of better crops…"
This partnership reflects the rapid, unchecked and unprecedented global
corporate alignment of the world's largest agribusiness (ADM, Cargill
and Bunge), biotech (Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayer, Dupont), petroleum (BP,
TOTAL, Shell), and automotive industries (Volkswagen, Peugeot, Citroen,
Renault, SAAB). With what for them is a relatively small investment,
these industries will appropriate academic expertise built over decades
of public support, translating into billions in revenues for these
global partners.
Could this be a "win-win" agenda for the University, the public, the
environment and industry? Hardly. In addition to overwhelming the
University's research agenda, what scientists behind this blatantly
private business venture fail to mention, is that the apparent free
lunch of crop-based fuel can't satisfy our energy appetite, and it will
not be free, nor environmentally sound.
Dedicating all present U.S. corn and soybean production to biofuels
would meet only 12% of our gasoline demand and 6% of diesel demand.
Total U.S. cropland reaches 625,000 sq.mi. To replace U.S. oil
consumption with biofuels we would need 1.4 million sq.mi. of corn for
ethanol and 8.8 million sq. mi. of soybean for biodiesel. Biofuels are
expected to turn Iowa and South Dakota into corn-importers by 2008.
The biofuel energy balance – the amount of fossil energy put in to
producing crop biomass compared to that coming out – is anything but
promising. Researchers Patzek and Pimentel see serious negative energy
balances with biofuels. Other researchers see only 1.2 to 1.8 fold
returns, for ethanol, at best, with the jury still lukewarm on
cellulosic biofuels.
Industrial methods of corn and soybean production depend on large scale
monocultures. Industrial corn requires high levels of chemical nitrogen
fertilizer (largely responsible for the dead zone in Gulf of Mexico) and
the herbicide atrazine, an endocrine disruptor. Soybeans require massive
amounts of non selective, Roundup herbicide that upsets soil ecology and
produces "superweeds." Both monocultures produce massive topsoil erosion
and surface and groundwater pollution from pesticides and fertilizer
runoff. Each gallon of ethanol sucks up 3-4 gallons of water in the
production of biomass. The expansion of irrigated "fuel on the cob" into
drier areas in the Midwest will draw down the already suffering Ogallala
aquifer.
One of the more surreptitious industrial motives of the biofuels
agenda—and the reason Monsanto and company are key players—is the
opportunity to irreversibly convert agriculture to genetically
engineered crops (GMOs). Presently, 52% of corn, 89% of soy, and 50% of
canola in the US are GMO. The expansion of biofuels with "designer corn"
genetically tailored for special ethanol processing plants will remove
all practical barriers to the permanent contamination of all non-GMO crops.
Obviously the U.S. can't satisfy its energy appetite with biofuels.
Instead, fuel crops will be grown in the developing world on large scale
plantations of sugarcane, oil palm and soybean, which are already
replacing primary and secondary tropical forests and grasslands in
Argentina, Brasil, Colombia, Ecuador, and Malaysia. Soybeans have
already caused the destruction of over 91 million acres of forests and
grasslands in Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay and Bolivia. To satisfy world
market demands, Brasil alone will need to clear 148 million additional
acres of forest. Reduction of greenhouse gases is lost when
carbon-capturing forests are felled to make way for biofuel crops.
Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of small-scale peasant farmers are
being displaced by soybean expansion. Many more stand to lose their land
under the biofuels stampede. Already, the expanding cropland planted to
yellow corn for ethanol has reduced the supply of white corn for
tortillas in Mexico, sending prices up 400%. This led peasant leaders at
the recent World Social Forum in Nairobi to demand, "No full tanks when
there are still empty bellies!"
By promoting large scale mechanized monocultures which require
agrochemical inputs and machinery, and as carbon-capturing forests are
felled to make way for biofuel crops, CO2 emissions will increase not
decrease. The only way to stop global warming is to promote small scale
organic agriculture and decrease the use of all fuels, which requires
major reductions in consumption patterns and development of massive
public transportation systems, areas that the University of California
should be actively researching and that BP and the other biofuel
partners will never invest one penny toward.
The potential consequences for the environment and society of BP's
funding are deeply disturbing. In the wake of the report of the external
review of the UCB-Novartis agreement, that recommended that the
University not enter into such agreements in the future, how could such
a major deal be announced without wide consultation of the UC Faculty?
The University has been recruited into a corporate partnership that may
irreversibly transform the planet's food and fuel systems and
concentrate tremendous power in the hands of a few corporate partners.
It is up to the citizens of California to hold the University
accountable to research that supports truly sustainable alternatives to
the energy crisis. A serious public debate on this new program is long
overdue.
Miguel A. Altieri is an associate professor in the Department of
Environmental Science, Policy and Management at the University of
California, Berkeley. Eric Holt-Gimenez is Executive Director of Food
First in Oakland, Ca.
--
No comments:
Post a Comment