- Enabling Economic Recovery Through Innovation
- The Top 12 Science Progress Features of 2008
- Breaking: Physicist John Holdren Is Likely Pick for Science Advisor
- Looking for a Research Bailout
- Want to Work Together? The Impact of Multi-University Collabortion
- “The Single Most Effective Way to Prevent the Transmission of Disease”
- Chu Is Bringing Science Back
- National Research Council: Nanotech Safety Needs a Closer Look. Much Closer.
- Neuroscience Everywhere
- Change for America on Science and Tech Policy, Part 4: The Office of Science and Technology Policy
- CNN Decides It Can Cover Science Without Dedicated Science Reporters
- Stem Cell Recommendations for the New Administration
Bio-fuels and Human Rights
Brazilian ethanol produced from sugar cane is one of the most promising stories in renewable energy technologies. For those committed to shifting away from fossil fuel dependence, the idea that we can grow an oil substitute is a very attractive idea. Moreover, Brazilian sugar cane ethanol is an established industry that offers a far better return on investment than American corn ethanol.
So, renewable energy advocates and environmentalists should support the rapid expansion of this industry, right?
Well, not exactly and certainly not unconditionally. The key thing to realize is that land is finite and there are competing demands for its use. In many cases, using land for energy means not using it for other human needs. Nowhere is this clearer than in the history of the Brazilian sugar cane industry.
Sugar has long served as an important cash crop for the Brazilian economy. In the 1960s and 1970s, many sugar cane plantations consolidated and expanded their operations—often using foreign capital—with the result that poor workers were pushed off lands they had used to supplement their food intake. As described in devastating detail by Nancy Scheper-Hughes and others, losing these small plots led to famine, poverty, sickness, and in many cases, death.
This story is not particular to Brazil. Throughout the world, particularly in areas colonized by European powers, there has long been a tension between using land to grow food for locals versus using land to grow cash crops for foreigners. Sadly, cash crops have won this battle more often than the needs of locals. In many areas, this has created slow starvation, cyclical poverty, and environmental degradation.
We must not repeat this history. If Brazilian ethanol—or any other bio-fuel—is to be part of our energy solution, we must ensure that it does not come at the expense of the world’s rural poor. President Bush visited Brazil this past March to discuss an ethanol agreement with Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva. Any trade agreement emerging from these discussions should require limits to the overall land use of the Brazilian ethanol industry, ensuring that sufficient land remains for the rest of Brazil’s population.
Solving global fossil fuel dependence is a tricky issue that will require some hard choices to be made. However, outsourcing these costs onto the world’s poor is not the answer. We should only support bio-fuels as part of the solution if human rights are protected.
This post by Chris Jones originally appeared on Smarter Energy.
Comments on this article
Pursuing the noble of of human rights through bilateral trade agreements is interesting, but amiss. Doing so would unfairly prejudice a specific country–Brazil–in a world economy where energy is a increasingly competitive commodity. As the piece itself noted, this problem is not limited to Brazil. Thus, the U.S. should not limit its influence to Brazil either–that would be inequitable and presumptuous. Instead, a multinational approach should be taken to ensure the success of human rights along side the success of innovative technologies.
October 16th, 2007 at 5:19 pmThe trouble with the bio fuel alternative is that people will go for it in a big way, without seriously cutting back on fuel consumption. It gives them a way out, instead of suffering the consequences of the wildly wasteful attitude that the average consumerist has.
It is having devastating effects in Borneo - forest is being cleared for palm tree planting, this is decimating the orang utan population as well as releasing huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere via millions of rotting trees. When are people going to accept that our current way of living (and I say we even though I am not really doing that much, but I probably use more than I think I do)is fundamentally unsustainable?
October 24th, 2007 at 6:24 pm