Political Cortex: Brain Food for the Body Politic

Former US Vice President Al Gore has warned that the drive to produce alternative fuels to combat global warming must not create new forms of environmental damage.

Speaking in Argentina on Friday, Gore, whose global warming documentary An Inconvenient Truth won an Academy Award this year, said: "Every potential solution much be handled carefully and the danger with biofuels is that extremely valuable forests will be destroyed unnecessarily.

"Another danger is that, if it is not pursued carefully, it will drive food prices up."

Gore was talking to a private gathering of biofuel industry players inside a Buenos Aires hotel.

US President George Bush wants to slash petrol consumption by 20% by 2017, a move requiring 35 billion gallons of alternative fuels to replace fossil fuels.

But South American sceptics worry that diverting farmland for biofuels made from corn, sugarcane, palm oil and other agricultural products will harm the environment and worsen already troublesome inflation in the developing world.

As Gore spoke, outside the hotel demonstrators on bicycles and wearing surgical masks chanted slogans against multinational agribusinesses, saying the biofuel boom will cause deforestation.

Gore Warns Of Biofuel Dangers

In reading what Mr. Gore had to say at this conference I am very pleased he spoke about the impact upon food production and prices as well as environmental devastation the production of biofuels on a massive scale can have if not handled equitably and morally. In Brazil for example, this is a problem especially because 30% of its people live on less than two dollars a day, and much of the arable land is owned by the rich with a power struggle regarding land rights currently taking place.

The tragic murder of environmentalist and peoples' advocate Sister Dorothy Strang brought this to the forefront, and it is said that the current president of Brazil, Lula, is working to bridge the gap between rich and poor. Of course, I don't see how signing any pact regarding biofuels with Bush on behalf of companies like Archer Midland Daniels that controls more than half of the grain market business accomplishes that, which is what people were protesting outside of Mr. Gore's speech in Argentina and with good reason.

There is a risk that the rush in seeking solutions may just wind up giving us more problems than what we started with if not handled correctly with the same status quo controlling our lives. This should not only be an opportunity for people on a global scale to change lifestyles to save this planet, but also an opportunity for the poor of our world to finally have a place in the solutions that will not only benefit the sustainability of our world for us and our children, but also finally bring parity between those who have always controlled our fate at our own detriment.

That is why I believe it is so important to have Al Gore and others out here speaking as advocates for people and to mobilize smaller companies into taking on the task of becoming involved in the biofuel market in a way that will sustain the environment and the livelihoods of the people indigenous to those areas. What Mr. Gore is doing as a global environmental advocate is now the most important thing he could be doing in standing up to the status quo and in seeking a new way of not only doing business, but living.

A recent UN Biofuel Report, Sustainable Bioenergy; A Framework For Decision Makers shares those sentiments as well as it looked at the link between biofuels, deforestation, and food production, and the harm that a rapid change to biofuels could make if communities involved are excluded from ownership without the right ecological balance, especially regarding damage to land and water usage. Again, this all goes back to our moral code that Mr. Gore so correctly alluded to in his speech in Argentina.

And in reading his comments and those of the UN Biofuels Report, I too have concerns, even though I do believe that biofuel is a very viable renewable energy source that must be pursued vigorously (along with solar power) especially by developing nations looking to bring themselves out of poverty while providing a way for the global community to lessen its impact upon this world in order to mitigate climate change.

One of my concerns is that companies like Archer Midland Daniels will use its influence to entice farmers in countries with limited agricultural land to switch from food production to biofuel production exclusively. And even though that might lift some out of poverty, if not handled correctly it could lead to higher food prices, water scarcity (which already exists particularly in South America due to glacial melt) and more environmental degradation of the land.

It is also fact that privatization of resources has many times only exacerbated environmental devastation. This is why I do not believe in clearing forests to specifically use land only for biofuel crops, especially in developing countries where water resources are already scarce and available agricultural land limited.

I believe making cellulosic ethanol as a biofuel is a much better way because the cellulose contained in the stalks of corn for example, would not deplete the food supply (which is important with the world population set to reach 9 billion.) I also think switchgrass (because it is a very low water intensive plant, drought resistant, and can be grown in warm climates) and other second generation biofuels are more viable because they have much fewer well- to-wheel CO2 emissions, but there is much we need to learn about them, and we must do it in a very short time.

Which brings me to the biggest concern I have in all of this, which is replacing what may be cut down to be used for biofuel. Without replacing trees cut down to make way for biofuel plants, we would essentially be pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere, and that defeats the purpose. Therefore, any country devoted to taking on biofuel production must have a sustainable plan where trees will be planted to offset the deforestation that would ensure an energy balance.

The bottom line to all of this then is ensuring a way for new technologies to provide what we need in a world that is also aware of any repercussions to economic markets and the lives of those already being affected by the climate crisis, as well as the ecological impact they will have as well as what works best considering the area of the world it is being grown in and the current economic and environmental situation. Biofuels offer one of the few options to effectively mitigate climate change, but as Mr. Gore warned in his speech in Argentina, if not handled correctly it will lead to the exacerbation of other problems in the developing world that would in essence negate the good being done.

We stand on the horizon of a new world with possibilities that never existed before, and this is our chance to make sure that the decisions made not only lead to a cleaner, sustainable, safer world for our children (without nuclear,) but also lead to a more equitable planet where the moral imperative takes precedence over the temptations of human nature that led us here to begin with. I then feel much more secure regarding our environmental future with advocates like Mr. Gore reminding us of our moral obligations.