http://www.truthabouttrade.org/content/view/12299/54/

Wheat Leaders Work on Goals

Red River Farm Network
Original Publish Date: August 25, 2008

The National Association of Wheat Growers Foundation Development Committee is concentrating on strategic planning. During last week’s meeting in Canada, the committee focused on ways to implement initiatives developed earlier this year. Those efforts include plans to increase wheat yields 20 percent within ten years; capture energy opportunities, including cellulosic ethanol production and improve risk management opportunities for wheat growers. After the committee meeting wrapped up, NAWG representatives met with Canadian wheat industry leaders to discuss biotechnology commercialization.

In reading over the minutes from the Debate in the Senate on June 26th,
http://www.parl.gc.ca/39/2/parlbus/chambus/senate/DEB-E/073db_2008-06-26-e.htm?Language=E&Parl=39&Ses=2#64

It would have been enlightening to access the entire testimonies of the witnesses who testified to the benefits and detriments of C-33. But I haven’t located them yet. Fortunately, we do have Mr. Mooney’s compassionate and intelligent report which only leads me to wonder what was said in opposition that swayed the debate and why? In the end, with whom did the government see fit to stand and on what basis? How many independent environmental or social scientists were in favor of the biofuel scheme? Are there any links to other testimony ETC can provide?

I see in a different document,
http://cmte.parl.gc.ca/Content/HOC/Committee/392/AGRI/Evidence/EV3299494/AGRIEV17-E.PDF
from February 2008 some of those who gave earlier testimony:

“I want to welcome all of you here to continue our study of Bill C-33, a bill enabling the government to set up our mandate on biofuels.
I want to welcome to the table today Roger Samson, executive
director of Resource Efficient Agricultural Production Canada, or
REAP Canada; and from Rothsay we have Todd Moser. From the
Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers’ Association we have Mark
Nantais; and from the Canadian Petroleum Products Institute we
have Gilles Morel and Gene Carrignan. Welcome to the committee.”
*******************************************
Many of their points would make for a good discussion as well. How sound is their science? Any ulterior, self-serving motives?
But back to the June 26th minutes, below:

Hon. Elaine McCoy: “We had excellent presentations from a range of people involved in the production of ethanol and biodiesel. Refiners were there. People from Oxfam were there; and people were there representing the voices of the poor around the world.”
[These are the elusive testimonies I have not found]
“We have what is a competition between a hierarchy of values. We all value helping the poor. We all value reducing greenhouse gases. We all value helping farmers. It is grain farmers when we say “farmers,” by the way. In Alberta, we want to ensure our livestock industry is healthy. [here,here! nice to have that little luxury] When grain prices go up, their profits go down and vice versa….”
***********************************
I’m not sure how biofuel mandates will satisfy any of the higher values, save perhaps–and only perhaps–relatively short-term goals of farmers and big business. However, Sen, McCoy’s conclusion that this all comes down to a value judgement–a hierarchy of competing values–rings true. I wonder who provided testimony that biofuel mandates will decrease greenhouse gas levels and help the poor in Africa or elsewhere. Consider how tragic this last year of US mandates has proven. How will a Canadian biofuel mandate satisfy that hierarchy of values to which Sen. McCoy called attention? Just what is the highest order of values? Somewhat confused by her testimony, I must ask, exactly, what are we meant to glean from this anecdote:

Senator McCoy: “I acknowledge the honourable senator’s superior experience in the field. Let me tell you one little story that we heard from a person who is working in the development field and who described one very appropriate use of biofuel technology.
It comes from Africa. It is a small village, and people there go out and gather castor oil beans. Children go out at recess, if they are lucky enough to be in school, and they bring them home and crush those castor oil beans, which becomes a biofuel. They use that to light their lamps at night so that they can study. That is a biofuel solution. It was brought to us by way of saying, “You know, this is not all bad.” It is the nuanced understanding, the scale and the way that we apply it that makes the difference between success and failure.”
***************************************

From that story I can not honestly tell if the Senator was using that tale in favor of or against the proposed biofuel scheme. The scale and application that she rightly mentions raise the question. How does crushing a few little castor beans found at recess for fuel at night compare to revamping the agricultural and energy policies of the most productive farming nations? Was Senator McCoy trying to demonstrate appropriate vs. inappropriate biofuel applications; it was difficult to tell from the transcript. If not, the whole issue is reduced to a nugget-sized bean, at once diminishing and magnifying the staggering importance of this policy to all of us–even those of us who aren’t forced to scrounge for food or fuel. Yet.

Is this little anecdote the answer our governments are giving to Mr. Mooney’s message from those representing the impoverished and hungry in Africa? The castor bean, a source of fuel oil and also of poison–just 8 little beans are enough to kill an adult. Hopefully someone is warning the children that even the castor bean, a natural, low-tech form of energy, is a mixed blessing.

IMO, the governments of today are lacking just that “nuanced understanding” to which Senator McCoy referred. Either they are not seeing the whole picture or else their hierarchy of values is terribly skewed. But at least the Senator is asking for a “continued public debate” later this Fall. It looks as though there is still time to collect more data and evidence of any public/scientific opposition to the bill. Hopefully there will be enough interest and resolve from all parties to fuel the debate.

I believe our adolescent society is reaching a new and long awaited level of maturity. We are beginning to recognize ourselves as an integrated part of the whole system in which we exist, our niche in society and the natural world. We realize we have to make better choices about energy and other resources, but we may be misguided when we rely on big business and career politicians to create that policy. We need to base our decisions on sound science and include the interests of all nations. Everything I have learned in life convinces me that our survival will ultimately depend on the energy choices our governments make right now, and that the survival of so many others who are not being given the choices that they deserve already does.