Blanquear nubes, fertilizar el océano, tapar el sol, inyectar nanopartículas de azufre en la estratosfera, abrillantar los mares, “sembrar” miles de árboles artificiales, plantar millones de árboles para quemar como carbón y enterrarlos como “biochar”, invadir las tierras con mega-plantaciones de transgénicos súper brillantes para reflejar los rayos solares… Suena como lista de delirios, pero son algunas de las propuestas “serias” de los que propugnan por la geoingeniería como solución a la crisis climática.

La geoingeniería se refiere a la manipulación intencional de grandes trozos del planeta para, supuestamente contrarrestar el cambio climático. Hasta hace poco era considerada ciencia ficción. Ahora, poderosos intereses económicos y políticos, presionan por llevarla a la práctica. En el último año, varias instituciones científicas de renombre –como la Sociedad Real del Reino Unido– se han prestado a publicar informes sobre geoingeniería, con escasa o nula participación de científicos críticos, concluyendo que “se debe financiar con recursos públicos la investigación y experimentación de la geoingeniería”.

Los científicos que promueven la geoingeniería alegan que como los políticos no se ponen de acuerdo para enfrentar el cambio climático, hay que tener preparado un “plan B”. Reconocen que implica enorme riesgos, pero según ellos, no hay otra salida. Después del fracaso de la cumbre del clima en Copenhague, paradójicamente provocado por los mismos gobiernos y empresas que causaron el cambio climático, científicos provenientes de esos mismos países convergen en decir que la democracia no es útil para enfrentar las crisis. Proclaman que ellos tendrán que salvar al planeta y a la humanidad, aunque sea a la fuerza y contra nuestra voluntad. James Lovelock, famoso científico preocupado por el ambiente, declaró que “habrá que poner la democracia en pausa” ( The Guardian, 29/3/10). Para él, la única alternativa es manipular el clima con geoingeniería. Lo mismo expresa el científico canadiense David Keith, que en enero 2010 publicó en la revista Nature que urge “manejar la radiación solar”, inyectando nanopartículas azufradas en la estratosfera, para que desvíen los rayos del sol. Esto imitaría la nube que se forma en una erupción volcánica, y quizá bajaría la temperatura global (teóricamente lo que sucedió con la erupción del volcán Pinatubo en 1991). Tendría muchos y gravísimos impactos y efectos colaterales no deseados, sobre todo en regiones al sur del mundo, muy lejos de los países de Keith y Lovelock, pero como aclara Keith “el manejo de la radiación solar tiene tres características esenciales: es rápida, barata e imperfecta”. Pese a eso, Keith aboga por experimentar con geoingeniería en campo a la brevedad, sin que haya intromisión de Naciones Unidas u otro tipo de supervisión multilateral, que solamente demorará lo que algunos científicos y unos cuantos hombres ricos y empresas pueden hacer sin que los molesten las instancias democráticas internacionales.

La semana pasada salió a luz el proyecto de otros científicos, financiados con dinero de Bill Gates, para experimentar el “blanqueo de nubes”, inyectando agua del mar desde barcos no tripulados en una superficie de 10 mil kilómetros cuadrados de océano. (www.etcgroup.org/es/node/5138). Argumentan que es “barato” y solamente un experimento. Pero en rigor, la etapa “experimental” no existe en geoingeniería. Para tener algún efecto sobre clima debe ser a mega-escala. Los que proponen blanquear las nubes para aumentar el reflejo de la luz del sol, reconocen que habría que cubrir cerca de la mitad del Océano Pacífico con barcos que lancen agua de mar a las nubes, para quizá tener algún efecto sobre el clima. No son sólo científicos los que proponen la geoingeniería. Ellos proveen el discurso y las “capacidades” a los más interesados: grandes capitales y trasnacionales, sobre todo empresas que hasta ahora negaban el cambio climático porque son los principales culpables (como petroleras, de carbón, energía). Ahora ven en la geoingeniería no como plan B, sino como plan A. Para ellos y gobiernos como Estados Unidos y Reino Unido, la geoingeniería es la solución “perfecta” al cambio climático: no hay que cambiar nada, se puede seguir contaminando y emitiendo gases de efecto invernadero, porque podrían enfriar el planeta permanentemente, lo cual además les reportará lucros adicionales.

El discurso de que “todos” somos igualmente responsables de las crisis climáticas y ambientales y que la democracia no sirve, les viene de perillas para tener aún más impunidad. Ahora hasta parece que nos están salvando. Frente a estas tropelías, se creó en el marco de la reciente Cumbre de los Pueblos frente al Cambio Climático en Cochabamba, la campaña “No manipulen la tierra”, que ya cuenta con la adhesión de más de 100 organizaciones y grandes redes internacionales de ambientalistas, campesinos, indígenas y otras. La demanda central es prohibir la geoingeniería y cambiar las causas reales de la crisis climática. (handsoffmotherearth.org) Un primer logro a nivel internacional, es que un cuerpo de asesoramiento científico técnico de Naciones Unidas, acordó el 14 de mayo 2010, en Nairobi, Kenya, recomendar al Convenio de Diversidad Biológica establecer una moratoria sobre la geoingeniería, por los impactos que puede tener sobre la biodiversidad y las formas de vida relacionadas a ella. Un primer paso de una lucha que será dura, pero que cada vez cuenta con una oposición mayor desde todos los rincones del planeta. *Investigadora del Grupo ETC

Publicado por La Jornada, México, 22 de mayo de 2010

Tiquipaya, Bolivia. Más de 35 mil personas respondieron a la convocatoria que lanzó Bolivia a la Conferencia Mundial de los Pueblos sobre Cambio Climático y Derechos de la Madre Tierra (CMPCC), en Cochabamba, del 19 al 22 de abril. La tercera parte vino de 142 países en cinco continentes. La mayoría de los participantes fueron movimientos sociales, campesinos, indígenas, organizaciones de mujeres, ambientalistas, pescadores. También acudieron representantes de gobierno de 47 naciones, académicos, intelectuales, activistas, artistas, músicos. Se debatió intensamente en 17 grupos de trabajo convocados por los organizadores y 127 talleres autorganizados.

Además, una de las grandes federaciones indígenas de Bolivia: el Consejo Nacional de Ayllus y Markas del Qullasuyu (Conamaq), llamó con otras agrupaciones a la “Mesa 18″ para tratar temas que no veían reflejados en la agenda de la conferencia, como la crítica a proyectos mineros, de gas y petróleo.

La convocatoria a esta cumbre rebasó todas las expectativas, tanto en número como en contenido, convirtiéndose en un hito histórico en el debate internacional sobre la crisis climática. Ante las maniobras de los gobiernos poderosos en Copenhague, Bolivia convocó a las bases de las sociedades del mundo a manifestar sus posiciones y plantearlas a los gobiernos. Ambas cosas sucedieron en forma contudente. También se afirmaron las redes e interacciones entre los movimientos, con una sana distancia de las propuestas de crear nuevas redes globales, ahora sobre crisis climática. Esto quedó para discutir entre los movimientos: la mayoría no considera que se necesita una nueva estructura, sino más interacción y complementación.

Se creó sí, una base común para la compresión, el análisis crítico y las estrategias frente a la crisis climática, enriquecida por diversas perspectivas desde muchas culturas, pueblos, organizaciones temáticas y sectoriales del continente y el mundo. El Acuerdo de los Pueblos en Cochabamba refleja esto (www.cmpcc.org) .

Hubo rechazo enérgico y repetido al “Entendimiento de Copenhague” que quiso imponer una veintena de países –los mayores responsables de la crisis climática– en diciembre pasado. Los cínicos “compromisos” que allí se firman significarían un aumento de la temperatura hasta de cuatro grados, una catástrofe anunciada para los pueblos del Sur. La CMPCC exige detener el calentamiento “descolonizando la atmósfera”, con una reducción de 50 por ciento de las emisiones de gases de los países industrializados en su fuente, no mediante mecanismos de mercados de carbono, a los cuales se opone en todas sus variantes. Rechaza también los mecanismos llamados REDD, que bajo el título de reducir la deforestación, en realidad la aumentarán y provocarán la alienación del manejo de los bosques por las comunidades y pueblos, además de promover los monocultivos de árboles, que no son bosques, sino agravantes de las crisis.

Enmarcando todo esto, se plantea una denuncia de las causas reales de la crisis climática planetaria. “Confrontamos la crisis terminal del modelo civilizatorio patriarcal basado en el sometimiento y destrucción de seres humanos y naturaleza, que se aceleró con la revolución industrial. El sistema capitalista nos ha impuesto una lógica de competencia, progreso y crecimiento ilimitado. Este régimen de producción y consumo busca la ganancia sin límites, separando al ser humano de la naturaleza, estableciendo una lógica de dominación sobre ésta, convirtiendo todo en mercancía: el agua, la tierra, el genoma humano, las culturas ancestrales, la biodiversidad, la justicia, la ética, los derechos de los pueblos, la muerte y la vida misma”, expresa el Acuerdo de los Pueblos.

Condena la agricultura industrial y las corporaciones de los agronegocios –directamente responsables de cerca de la mitad de las emisiones que causan la crisis climática–, así como los mecanismos y propuestas que apoyan el avance de las trasnacionales y la devastación de la Madre Tierra, como los tratados de libre comercio y la introducción de nuevas y riesgosas tecnologías, como transgénicos, tecnología terminator, nanotecnología, geoingeniería y agrocombustibles.

“Denunciamos cómo el modelo capitalista impone megaproyectos de infraestructura, invade territorios con proyectos extractivistas, privatiza y mercantiliza el agua y militariza los territorios, expulsando a los pueblos indígenas y campesinos de sus tierras, impidiendo la soberanía alimentaria y profundizando la crisis socioambiental”, continúa el Acuerdo de los Pueblos.

La declaración de la “Mesa 18“ enfatiza estos mismos aspectos, criticando políticas extractivistas y proyectos de explotación de hidrocarburos y mineros del gobierno boliviano. Aclara que su iniciativa no fue “una tribuna para desacreditar al gobierno ni para socavar la legitimidad de un cónclave del que nos sentimos parte… (se trata de) formular propuestas que ayuden a enderezar el rumbo del proceso de cambio, asumiendo la responsabilidad de defenderlo y protegerlo, porque ha sido concebido por el movimiento popular boliviano en muchos años de lucha”.

La CMPCC plantea también estrategias y propuestas, como el reclamo de la deuda ambiental, la creación de un tribunal internacional de justicia climática, la Declaración Universal de los Derechos de la Madre Tierra. La de más largo alcance sigue siendo implementar la soberanía alimentaria, basada en formas de vida y producción campesinas, indígenas y locales, que es el principal factor que enfría el planeta y el que puede volverlo al equilibrio, además de promover la justicia social y la biodiversidad.

Todo esto y más llegará a Cancún, donde las negociaciones oficiales sobre el clima sesionarán en diciembre. Pero sobre todo, ya está entre los movimientos sociales de todo el mundo.

*Investigadora del Grupo ETC

Publicado en La jornada, México, 24 de abril de 2010

Del 19 al 22 de abril se realizará en Cochabamba, Bolivia, la Conferencia Mundial de los Pueblos sobre el Cambio Climático y los Derechos de la Madre Tierra. La iniciativa fue anunciada por el presidente Evo Morales después del desastre de las negociaciones sobre cambio climático en Copenhague el pasado diciembre. Es una respuesta a la urgencia del caos climático y una interpelación a los gobiernos del Norte y otros que, como Brasil, India, China y Sudáfrica, firmaron –a espaldas de todos los demás y de años de negociaciones en Naciones Unidas– el llamado Entendimiento de Copenhague, una burla a los pueblos del Sur más afectados por el caos climático.

Las metas de reducción de gases de efecto invernadero a que se comprometieron los países firmantes de ese entendimiento (sin ninguna obligación legal), garantizan que el planeta se seguirá calentando vertiginosamente, aumentando la temperatura promedio del globo hasta 4 grados Celsius antes de 2050. Es una catástrofe de proporciones épicas, según los informes científicos de referencia en Naciones Unidas. Este nivel de calentamiento provocará huracanes, inundaciones y sequías mucho más violentas y extremas, la desaparición de todos los glaciares (y la debacle de abastecimiento de agua en grandes áreas conectadas), el exterminio de los arrecifes coralinos, la extinción de casi la totalidad de animales y plantas actualmente en peligro de extinción, menor rendimiento (hasta de 30-40%) en cultivos básicos, situaciones de hambruna extremadamente agravadas en los países de África subsahariana, la desaparición o daño irreversible de zonas costeras y países isleños, la reducción drástica de agua dulce por salinización de las capas freáticas y otros desastres mayúsculos.

Esta debacle anunciada (y firmada) es el contexto mundial de la próxima conferencia en Cochabamba. La respuesta de los movimientos y organizaciones sociales del mundo a esta iniciativa ha sido contundente y masiva, en parte por la preocupación sobre el tema, pero también por la necesidad de llamar las cosas por su nombre. Es refrescante que en lugar de floreos diplomáticos, desde la convocatoria se establece que el cambio climático es producto del sistema capitalista, y que los temas a debate vayan directo al hueso de problemas reales.

Hay más de13 mil asistentes registrados, de un centenar de países, la mayoría de pueblos originarios, campesinos, movimientos y organizaciones sociales de países latinoamericanos. También delegados de gobierno de 90 naciones, porque Bolivia convoca a los pueblos y movimientos sociales y defensores de la Madre Tierra en el mundo e invita a los científicos, académicos, juristas y gobiernos que quieren trabajar con sus pueblos. Asistirán una mayoría de países del Sur, pero entre otros, Francia, Rusia y España también enviarán delegados.

El análisis de las causas estructurales y sistémicas que provocan el cambio climático y medidas de fondo y estrategias para enfrentarlas son uno de los ejes centrales de la conferencia. También debatir y acordar un proyecto de Declaración Universal de los Derechos de la Madre Tierra; sentar las bases para un Tribunal Internacional de Justicia Climática; acordar propuestas para las negociaciones de cambio climático de Naciones Unidas (que en diciembre sesionarán en Cancún) sobre temas que incluyen la crítica y peligros del comercio de carbono, migrantes climáticos, tecnologías, pueblos indígenas, agricultura y soberanía alimentaria, bosques y otros.

Los temas a debatir están organizados en 17 grupos de trabajo que sesionarán en mesas durante la conferencia, además de un centenar de eventos autogestionados por movimientos y organizaciones del mundo. Las mayores organizaciones sociales de Bolivia participaron en una pre-cumbre a finales de marzo, para dar sus aportes a cada mesa. Asistieron delegados de la Central Obrera Bolivia, la Confederación Sindical Única de Trabajadores Campesinos de Bolivia, la Confederación Nacional de Mujeres Campesinas Indígenas Originarias de Bolivia Bartolina Sisa, el Consejo Nacional de Ayllus y Markas del Qullasusyu, la Confederación de Pueblos Indígenas de Bolivia y la Confederación Sindical de Comunidades Interculturales de Bolivia. Sus aportes están en el sitio de la conferencia (www.cmpcc.org). Constituyen un arcoiris de fuertes críticas y propuestas, que incluye también contradicciones dentro de los propios temas –sobre lo cual habrá oportunidad de debatir en Cochabamba– y con posiciones y estrategias gubernamentales. Los movimientos de Bolivia están vivos y exigen cuentas al gobierno continuamente desde sus propias autonomías y visiones.

Muchos otros movimientos sociales, campesinos, indígenas, ambientalistas de otros países se preparan para la conferencia. La Coordinadora Andina de Organizaciones Indígenas, desde su segundo congreso realizado en marzo en Ecuador, expresó: “La crisis climática no se resuelve con dinero (…) Enjuiciaremos a los países y empresas trasnacionales responsables del cambio climático, expulsaremos a las empresas que dañan la Pachamama, resistiremos los proyectos que dañan la tierra y el agua e impediremos concesiones en nuestros territorios (…) de proyectos extractivos (minería, petróleo, forestales e hidroeléctricas) para detener el maltrato a la Madre Tierra”.

Aunque estarán en franca minoría también asistirán quienes se proponen lo contrario, tanto de gobiernos como empresas e intereses comerciales. Por ejemplo, entre los eventos auto-organizados hay uno de promotores de geoingeniería, para tratar de ganar legitimidad a tan riesgosa y absurda alternativa. Estas y otras propuestas serán contestadas en lo que sin duda, será un hito de la discusión global sobre el cambio climático.

* Investigadora del Grupo ETC

Publicado en La Jornada, México, 10 de abril de 2010

Un variopinto sector, que abarca algunos científicos, grandes inversionistas, poderosos gobiernos y algún ambientalista despistado, convergen en impulsar la geoingeniería o manipulación del clima, alegando que no se pueden cambiar las causas de la crisis climática. Proponen entonces un plan B: técnicas para manipular grandes trozos del planeta, desde oceános a la estratosfera, para contrarrestar los efectos del calentamiento global. Saben que implica enormes riesgos y por eso afirman que es sólo para casos de emergencia –que ellos mismos definirán cuándo ocurre.

El lobby del carbón (cabilderos de las industrias de petróleo, energía y transportes), que por décadas negó que había cambio climático, cambió el discurso. Ahora lo aceptan, pero son grandes entusiastas de la geoingeniería. Para estas poderosas industrias (y los gobiernos que les sirven), es excelente la perspectiva de no tener que cambiar nada: proponen enfriar el planeta con tecnologías de alto riesgo, mientras siguen calentándolo sin parar. Así mantienen el lucro que obtienen con las sucias actividades que provocan el cambio climático, y consiguen ganancias adicionales con nuevos megaproyectos de geoingeniería.

El pésimo resultado de las negociaciones sobre el clima en Copenhague el pasado diciembre alentó más a estos piratas globales, que cuentan con un reducido pero influyente sector científico que les teje el discurso de justificación. La geoingeniería, que era vista como un absurdo, ahora ocupa lugares en publicaciones científicas y grandes medios. Instituciones como la Sociedad Real del Reino Unido, la Academia de Ciencias de Estados Unidos y otras, han organizado reportes y seminarios que concluyen que se debe invertir recursos públicos (además de privados) en la investigación y experimentación de geoingeniería. Son informes parciales, con participación de geoingenieros y ninguna o escasa apreciación crítica e independiente, pero sirven de base para la acción de algunos gobiernos. En febrero 2010 los comités de ciencia y tecnología de Estados Unidos y Reino Unido convocaron audiencias con participación casi exclusiva de promotores de la geoingeniería. Luego anunciaron que están elaborando legislación para financiar y permitir estos experimentos.

Esto es muy grave, porque lo que se haga para manipular el clima –un sistema global e interdependiente– no es ni nunca será, competencia de unos o pocos países, es problema de todos. Hablar de legislación nacional es simplemente una coartada para jusitificar experimentos que seguramente tendrán impactos dramáticos en otros países, incluso muy lejos de donde se inicien.

Para atajar la crítica, los impulsores de la geoingeniería convocan a una reunión en Asilomar, California, este marzo para crear códigos de conducta voluntarios, imitando la reunión que en el mismo lugar hicieron los biotecnológos en 1975, para evitar la regulación y supervisión independiente.

Una de las propuestas que más se impulsan actualmente es inyectar nanopartículas azufradas en la estratosfera, para crear sombrillas gigantes que tapen los rayos solares. David Keith, entusiasta de la geoingeniería, consiguió publicar recientemente un artículo pretendidamente serio sobre el tema, en la revista Nature (28/1/2010). Se inspira en la erupción del volcán Pinatubo en 1991 en Filipinas, cuya nube volcánica bajó la temperatura global 0.5 grados mientras se mantuvo. Claro que cualquiera que haya estado en el área de alcance de una nube volcánica, sabe que su descenso tiene impactos: la ceniza tóxica daña cultivos, flora, fauna y seres humanos. Provoca acidificación de mares y bosques.

Los que propugnan este método –hecho público por el premio Nobel Paul Crutzen en 2006– saben que las partículas inyectadas caerán posteriormente, causando daños similares en mar y tierra, además de muerte prematura de cientos de miles de personas (medio millón estimado). Crutzen contestó que también el cambio climático amenaza la vida de la gente. También se agravará el agujero en la capa de ozono, que ya tiene impactos serios en varios países del mundo: aumento notable de cáncer de piel en humanos y ceguera en ganado comprobados.

Alan Robock, un eminente climatólogo, analizó la propuesta de crear estos parasoles azufrados. Además de confirmar varios de los impactos nombrados, indicó que aunque los experimentos se hicieran en el Ártico (con la idea de enfriar los países del Norte, que es el objetivo de sus promotores) tendrían impactos en los patrones de precipitación y vientos globales, alterando los monzones en Asia y aumentando la sequía en África. Robock señala que esto pondría directamente en riesgo las fuentes de agua y alimentos de unos 2 mil millones de personas (Science, 29/1/2010). Explica también que para saber que sucedería con la inyección de azufres, habría que hacerlos a una escala de tal magnitud que no serían experimentos, sería despliegue de geoingenería, con efectos irreversibles, porque una vez colocadas en la estratosfera, las partículas no se pueden retirar a voluntad.

Esta es sólo una de las técnicas de geoingeniería que se impulsan, que se suma a otras como las de fertilización oceánica (esas fueron detenidas por una moratoria global de Naciones Unidas en 2008). La geoingeniería es un plan de los mismos gobiernos y empresas que provocaron el cambio climático, para convencernos que podrán resolver el desastre con un plan B que traerá más y nuevos riesgos que lo anterior, pero les permitirá mantener sus privilegios.

Ellos habrán diseñado su plan B, pero no existe un planeta B. Es imperativo cambiar las causas, no los síntomas, del cambio climático. La única regulación necesaria sobre geoingeniería es una prohibición global de cualquier experimento o despliegue en el mundo real.

*Investigadora del Grupo ETC

Publicado en La Jornada, México

13  de marzo de 2010

When I left at midnight last night, the technology text was four pages long (and was in the secret category that NGOs could access only if a government delegate gave it to them) — down from 30 that we had seen at the start of the Copenhagen summit.  That could be read as progress, except in fact the paper said virtually nothing.   It created three new levels of bureaucracy but their mandates were hopelessly vague and did not have enough to please either those who want to export their technology nor those who want to access it.

This morning the text is 12 pages and all the contentious stuff is back in.   Top of the list on contentious items is intellectual property protection. That is the core issue when it comes to technology transfer.  It’s a sad statement on these negotiations that exhausted delegates are all up in the middle of the night negotiating meaningless language on the technologies that could play an important role in the fight against climate change.  Even sadder is the notion that these governments will not put in place any mechanism whatsoever to evaluate whether a particular technology is worthy of support.

One would think that in a global meeting such as this, discussions about technology transfer would be about the … um… transfer of the technologies that developing countries need to adapt to and mitigate climate change.  Not so.   Rather, the various institutions that have been set up under the UNFCCC have more to do with the interests of businesses in OECD countries in expanding markets for new  (and existing) technologies and getting public support for them than they do with the actual needs of people in developing countries.  That orientation is liable to be reinforced if anything at all gets agreed at this meeting.

The discussion on technology development and transfer is really about the expanding markets for ill-defined “environmentally sound technologies” — which many people in this forum expect will save us from climate change. Of course, as the experience of biofuels has shown, so-called “environmentally sound technologies” can sometimes do more harm than good.  At the beginning of the Copenhagen talks, about 200 organizations called for the inclusion of “assessment” of social and environmental impacts of technologies in the cycle of “research, development, demonstration, deployment, diffusion, transfer” in a common declaration called “Let’s Look Before We Leap“. This ad-hoc coalition also called for real civil society input and the participation of indigenous peoples and local communities that could be affected by these new technologies that would receive institutional, political and financial support from a new deal to be signed in Copenhagen.  Such precautionary assessment is nowhere to be found in the current working drafts.  And the failure to assess what technologies are supported could prove costly to us all.

So how do things really work in the world of climate-friendly technology transfer? Take for example, the “technology needs assessments” which are targeted for support.  One would expect these to be assessments by developing countries of their technological needs – perhaps a study into what would be the appropriate balance between wind and solar energy, or a structured plan to get certain parts of the country on electrical grids, or early warning systems for extreme weather events. Not at all. The publication that the UNFCCC has developed to show how “technology needs assessments” should be done is basically a training manual for business on how to attract investment capital and expand  markets. The manual itself came out of two workshops, held in Montreal and Bonn, in collaboration with the private sector and the Climate Technology Initiative — a body created under the International Energy Agency to implement technology transfer agreements, whose members are ALL from the OECD!  G77 and China have been fighting for “country-driven” policies in the technology text but all the institutions devoted to technology seem to be entirely driven by the needs of business and those with the expertise and the implementation mandates are based in the North.  Last night, developing countries stayed up late putting interesting language on the sharing of intellectual property rights back in the text  – basically trying one last time to get important climate-related technologies in the public domain.

The new text guts the old structures such as the Expert Group on Technology Transfer in favour of a new “Technology Mechanism” (an executive committee and a Climate Technology Centre) which would focus on doubling global “energy related research, development and demonstration by 2012″  and will basically decide what kinds of activities get funding from whatever resources get allocated.     There are two options defining in more detail what the precise mandate of the technology mechanism would be, and of course one reflects the views and interests of the North, and the other of the South.  They are quite diametrically opposed.   The South wants rapid action on accessible, affordable technologies, new financing, capacity building, accountability in terms of support offered to the Conference of the Parties and country-driven technology plans, looser intellectual property arrangements, and joint R & D.   The North wants “improved enabling environments”, technology needs assessments and planning processes , regional innovation centres,  road maps and action plans that report to the Subsidiary Bodies for Scientific and Technological Advice and the status quo on intellectual property.  As a representative of Microsoft stated yesterday in a side event, they are “quite satisfied” with current arrangements at the WTO and WIPO.
Finally, the text foresees a Climate Technology Network that will also facilitate public-private partnerships, accelerate diffusion of technologies and provide “technical assistance and support”.  Basically, there seems to be three new layers of support for private sector involvement in technology transfer, which would be in keeping with the work of the soon-to-be-phased out Expert Group on Technology Transfer, and the conclusions of the SBSTA from this weekend.  There is no mention whatsoever of civil society groups, local communities or social impacts!  It is not at all difficult to imagine this network holding meetings on geo-engineering over the next few years!

At a side event organized by the International Chamber of Commerce on December 14, the business community made it very clear that they wanted strong IP protection, predictable regulatory environments and claimed that 80% of technology transfer was done by business. As Peter Taylor of the International Energy Agency said: “Business sees the whole climate change issue just as much as an opportunity as a threat”. That is precisely the way the new text on technology transfer is structured: not to meet the threat of climate change, but as a new business opportunity.

In a best case scenario, we have useless layers of bureaucracy so it will be business as usual. In a worst case scenario, we shall have accelerated deployment and financing of unproven and even untested technologies that will potentially worsen the climate crisis — exactly what happened with biofuels.

Those who say no deal is better than a bad deal are right.  And although tension is rising with 100 heads of state arriving in the next few days, from inside the Bella Centre, a deal looks more and more unlikely. Naomi Klein commented this morning in a press conference for the Angry Mermaid Award that there is not enough talk about corporate lobbying in this forum and that it is far too polite.  So true.  As NGOs, it is extremely difficult to think that we have any leverage at all to influence text at this point in time but the multinational corporations, so effectively coordinated by the ICC and the large international agencies and international financial institutions continue to get what they want: precious little action on climate change.

Today of course was a highlight — the demonstration for action organized by several hundred organizations from around the world.  An estimated 80-100,000 people in the streets — very varied and colourful crowd, calling for Climate Justice now!  The march was so long it was impossible to walk from one end to the other, let alone find someone you were looking for.   We had printed 5000 Stop Geoengineering stickers and I was able to distribute about 4000 of them during the march.   They look like this:

But loads of people will blog about the demonstration — and the arrests that ensued which i did not see —  and no-one will talk about what is happening in this meeting with regards to technology, so let me spend a bit of time on what has been happening there.

The Royal Society issued a report earlier this year on geonengineering which really helped to bring this set of technologies out from the margins and into the mainsteam of scientific and public policy debates on climate change.  ETC Group at the time issued two controversial sets of commentaries on it, one before and one after.   Neither was particularly appreciated by the august institution, which opened its press conference with a denunciation of our report laying out what we expected them to say.   They were particularly offended at our insinuation that that the report would legitimize geoengineering research and end up making crackpot profiteers acceptable.  Of course, that is exactly what has happened.

So here we are in Copenhagen and the Royal Society has teamed up with The Climate Fund (directed By Margaret Leinen, better known for her association with Climos, her son Dan Whaley’s ocean fertilization firm), Jason Blackstock doing double duty for CIGI and IIASA and lead author of one of the most frightening geoengineering reports to date as well as the Stockholm Environmental Institute and IISD to host a series of three side events on different aspects of geoengineering.  To my great surprise, I was invited to speak at one of them, an invitation I gladly accepted.   Then I found out I only had 2 minutes to comment on the rather lengthy presentations by John Shepherd (on the science) and Jason Blackstock (on the governance aspects).  The whole was chaired by the affable Oliver Morton who just joined the economist and lost his byline.

It ain’t easy to do battle with these guys and and I was called simplistic (publicly) and stupid (privately). I was however able to make my point that no real-world geoengineering experiments should be allowed to go ahead, especially not before some real international governance mechanisms were in place.  I tried to explain why geoengineering was a bad idea, why it was sheer hubris to think we could actually “manage solar radiation” by putting sulphates in the stratosphere or sunshades in space.  I insisted on how the debate is really one between white male scientific elites and how a much broader conversation needed to take place. Difficult as it was though, I did appreciate the possibility of dialogue and frankly it was in private conversations after the event that I felt the most hostility.  Maybe that was because alot of people in the audience seemed to share my skepticism.

The next day however we (Silvia Ribeiro from ETC Mexico and I) had planned a workshop on geonegineering at the Klima Forum where the NGOs and the activists gather every day. Lo and behold, the whole gang walked in  – Shepherd, Leinen, Whaley, KPMG — with their suitcases fully of glossy Royal Society reports.  That was rather astonishing since the day before I had been told I could not distribute a two-page declaration that has been signed by 180 organizations from around the world in their side-event!   However, we let them distribute it and a lively debate was had in a small jam-packed room of people wanting information about what geoengineering was all about.  I am pretty sure it was the first time any of them had had such a close encounter with civil society activist types and certainly Silvia gave them a piece of her mind about how cloud whitening along the Pacific coast would be received by the people of Ecuador, Peru and Chile!
There is much much more to say  – most importantly perhaps was the G77 Chair’s meeting with civil society groups yesterday.  He — a very well respected diplomat from Sudan Ambassador Lumumba — who blasted the West and those NGOs who are not strong enough to blast their governments  – now on youtube.  This is mostly about attempts inside the official process to kill the Kyoto Protocol and seed divisions between developing countries which so far has not been successful — but that will have to be my next blog…

I am leaving Montreal for the international summit tomorrow although the conference actually got underway today.  In between urgent emails over the weekend I found the time to take my ten year old daughter and two of her friends to see A Christmas Carol, a Geordie Theatre production of the Dickens classic.   The play was great but it was hard to keep my mind off what was going on in Copenhagen — plus Scrooge kept reminding me of Stephen Harper.

May the ghosts of Christmas past, present and future visit him in his sleep.  May he be reminded continuously for the next two weeks  – and far beyond–  of his appalling record on climate change, his indifference to the suffering people are already living in countries where crops, livelihoods, homes and infrastructure are being destroyed by the ravages of climate change.   May all Canadians read George Monbiot’s article before the next election!

Stephen Harper last week had this to say about the conference:

“The key to all this is not the setting of targets. It is actually the development and implementation of the technology that over time will make significant targets possible.”

These are the talking points we have been expecting from the Conservatives for some time.  This government has its head stuck in the tar sands and there is no way it will agree to meaningful targets on carbon emissions (which would mean tackling the tar sands) or meaningful money for adaptation (which would mean stop pouring good money after bad in Afghanistan).    A technofix is exactly what this government wants.   Not only is it pouring hideous amounts of money into carbon capture and sequestration and biofuels, but– we can anticipate that Canada, along with other governments will be championing a “Breakthrough on Technology” over the next two weeks.  In fact, a “deal on technology” might look good for lots of people — so we need to see what is behind that.

Unfortunately, if there is a breakthrough on technology it is likely to make a bad situation worse.   The draft negotiating text make much ado about “enhancing action” on technology  – but the chain of command is “research, development, deployment, transfer, diffusion” with nary a pause to stop and evaluate whether or not a particular technology is appropriate — or whether, like biofuels have proved to be — it will have side effects like hunger, poverty, land grabs and rising food prices.   That’s why we (ETC Group)  have worked to put together an international coalition of groups to call for assessment in the texts on technology.  See Lets Look Before We Leap

In Copenhagen we shall also be releasing two new reports — one on geoengineering and one on “Who Feeds the World”.   Both of these reports are in final stages of production so everyone is madly multitasking and editing trying to get them ready.

Written for The Ecologist – March 2009

Available online at http://www.theecologist.org/pages/archive_detail.asp?content_id=2125

Climate change due to human interference with fragile ecosystems? No problem – we can just dump 20 tonnes of iron sulphate into the ocean

The time has come to talk about geo-engineering – and I mean really talk about it. If you’ve never heard the term then get used to it because ‘geo-engineering’ will be turning up more in editorials, policy pronouncements and heated arguments. It describes any large-scale techno-fix that deliberately tinkers with the climate, weather or ecosystems.

Polluting the upper atmosphere with nanoparticles that cool the planet? That’s geo-engineering. Turning plantations into charcoal to bury our problems in the soil? That’s geo-engineering. Changing the chemistry of the seas to soak up more greenhouse gas? Also geo-engineering.

As I write, an Indo-German experiment, dubbed Lohafex, is dumping 20 tons of iron sulphate over an area of the southern ocean about the size of the Maldives. The iron will prompt the growth of tiny plankton, leaving a long green scar on the ocean visible from space. Proponents say this plankton bloom will suck CO² out of the atmosphere and lock it away forever. Dr Victor Smetacek, co-chief of the expedition, imagines deploying five to 10 ocean-fertilisation ships all year round, fantasising that this could remove a gigatonne of CO² from the atmosphere. Whimsically, he muses that the ships might accommodate eco-tourists who would volunteer to shovel iron sulphate overboard!

In March, geo-engineers associated with the Australian based Ocean Nourishment Corporation want to dump industrial urea into the Tasman Sea. US-based Climos Inc intends to carry out another large dump in early 2010.

Is all this legal? Actually no. In the past two years, civil society groups and some sober governments have put the brakes on the ocean-fertiliser crowd. Last May, 191 states at the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) agreed a de facto moratorium on ocean fertilisation. The Lohafex expedition ignored both the CBD agreement and the strong advice of the German environment minister, who requested a halt.

The science suggests not only that ocean fertilisation is ineffective at mitigating climate change, but also that artificially messing with marine ecosystems this way might lead to reduced oxygen in the water, the growth of toxic algae species and even more damaging greenhouse gases. If you want to see how fertilising our already stressed oceans can go badly wrong, check out the vast dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico, where nitrogen fertiliser runoff has already done what the geo-engineers are hoping to mimic.

But the urgent public debate on geo-engineering has to be broader than the specific risks of this one technique. We need to decide if geoengineering of any kind is a road worth travelling. Its advocates are already calling for public funds and society’s blessing to conduct realworld tests of equally risky proposals. They will use an upcoming Royal Society report to make their case for increased experimentation.

Like GM field trials or nuclear testing, such experiments will massively interfere with our environment. In each case, a small group of scientists and their backers will be using the climate crisis to broker their own legitimacy to alter the planet. We shall hear that extreme times require extreme measures. James Lovelock, originator of Gaia theory, has already described geoengineering in medical terms as planetary medicine – ‘an emergency treatment for the pathology of global warming’.

The geo-engineers want to put the whole planet into experimental chemotherapy: nanoparticles injected into the sky, charcoal mixed into soil and iron dumped in the ocean.

When I hear such arguments I think of my grandmother. Shortly before she died of cancer, she underwent debilitating chemotherapy. ‘Those doctors can kill you with their drugs,’ she warned me angrily – and indeed they did. She chose an extreme intervention at an extreme time in her life and it didn’t work – but at least it was freely chosen.

What scares me is that the geo-engineers want to put the whole planet into experimental chemotherapy: nanoparticles injected into the sky, charcoal mixed into soil and iron dumped in the ocean. Right now they are preparing to wheel the planet-as-patient into the emergency ward and are not very interested in broader societal permission. We live on that planet. It is time to speak up – before irreversible procedures are set in motion.

available online at http://www.theecologist.org/pages/archive_detail.asp?content_id=2053

Somebody somewhere has to have a cunning plan to fix our environmental problems and save the world – right? Jim Thomas sorts through the big tech ideas you’ll be reading about this year 

Almost every day sees new technologies being proposed to fix old problems. 2008 witnessed global technology fights over the rapid development of biofuels, protests against ‘clean coal technology’ and GM crops staging a come-back of sorts. In all three cases, ‘solving climate change’ was presented as the excuse for gambling on high-risk technologies. That theme is likely to continue. Here are a selection of technological controversies on the drawing board. See if you can sort through the silver bullets, technofixes and false solutions that are sure to keep cropping up this year… 

‘Solving climate change’ is presented as the excuse for gambling on high-risk technologies.

1) Geo-engineering 

Three years ago, the idea of re-engineering the Earth’s climate was considered politically unacceptable. In 2009 though, geo-engineering, intentional large-scale manipulation of the climate, is poised to enter mainstream climate policy discussions. High-risk projects are now gaining a shocking respectability as panic rises over climate change. They include polluting the upper atmosphere with sulphur nanoparticles to refl ect sunlight back to space or changing the chemistry of the ocean to absorb more carbon dioxide. Former climate change sceptics such as Newt Gingrich and several right wing think tanks have started to promote geo-engineering as a painless quick-fix which would bypass the need for emission reductions. This summer, the UK Royal Society will publish a report purporting to weed out the good geo-engineering schemes from the bad. Unfortunately, it will be written mainly by geo-engineering enthusiasts. Despite a global moratorium on one ocean geo-engineering technique, fertilising the ocean to grow CO2 gobbling plankton, India may launch a pilot scheme this year and private geo-engineering company Climos threatens to take to the seas in 2009 or early 2010. 

2) GM insects 

If the thought of GM pollen spreading on the breeze worries you, then watch out – the latest GM products have wings! In 2009, Oxford based Oxitec intends to become the first company to sell genetically modified insects for large scale release. Oxitec has developed a GM pink bollworm (moth larvae) that it claims will mate with natural bollworms (a cotton pest) and render them sterile. However, Oxitec’s plans don’t stop there. This also looks to be the year when it will proceed with a large scale trial release of genetically modified mosquitos also intended to spread sterility in wild populations. Oxitec, which received a $5m grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, claims the technology will help wipe out dengue fever which is on the rise as climate change bites. The ‘terminator mosquitos’ were due to be released on Pulau Ketam island, which lies off the coast of Malaysia, but local Chinese fishermen raised concerns that they are being used as a test bed. Further experiments of this type have been planned for Mexico and India. Biosafety experts warn that the genes may spread, the sterility plan may fail and the product may contravene a global moratorium on terminator (sterility) technology. 

3) Synthetic biology 

Every few years a technology platform upgrades itself – handguns become machine guns and VHS becomes DVDs. Right now genetic engineering is in the process of reinventing itself as synthetic biology – an extreme form of genetic engineering that allows the genetic code of organisms to be built entirely from scratch. With more than a dozen synthetic biology companies aiming to put products on the market in the next couple of years and major investment by the likes of BP, Du Pont, Chevron and Goodyear, 2009 may be the year the public notices a multibillion artificial life industry is now well established. In particular, expect front page headlines this year if genome tycoon J Craig Venter succeeds in bringing to life the world’s first entirely synthetic bacterial species, dubbed Synthia. He has already applied for patents on a method that he claims will make millions of such synthetic species every day – a prospect that dwarfs the current trickle of GM organisms and may overwhelm our inadequate GMO laws. 

4) Nano-regulation 

If you received new socks or cosmetics this Christmas, there is a good chance you might already be wearing nanoparticles – tiny engineered lumps of matter with unusual industrial properties. Although nanoparticles have been used unlabelled and untested in hundreds of consumer products for several years now, governments and consumer watchdogs are now finally cottoning on to the new toxicity problems that these novel materials may pose. In September, 70 governments, 12 intergovernmental organizations, and 39 nongovernmental organizations participated in the Intergovernmental Forum on Chemical Safety in Dakar, Senegal. They agreed producers should label nanomaterials in consumer products and that countries should have the right to refuse imports of nanoproducts. In November, the UK’s Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution joined the growing chorus of concern about the lack of nanoregulation and the Austrian government called for a moratorium on food uses of nanotechnology. The coming year is likely to see increased efforts by trade unions and consumer groups to get some oversight of nano-risks. In May, the issue will go to the UN’s International Conference on Chemicals Management. The European Commission already accepts new labelling laws may be needed for nanotechnology products. 

5) Cellulosic biofuels

 After last year’s food price crisis you would be hard pressed to find anyone still arguing the case for turning food crops into ethanol. Instead the new orthodoxy among biofuel advocates is that a ‘second generation’ of biobased fuels (see this month’s cover story) will soon power our cars without affecting food. Using modified microbes or heat, companies such as Mascoma and Koskata are this year commercialising ‘cellulosic biofuels’, turning cellulose sugars (found in the woody part of plants and trees) into vehicle fuel. By switching from food crops towards wood and ‘agricultural waste’ (such as corn stalks) they hope to sidestep the ‘food vs fuel’ debate. If it works, expect to see a massive corporate grab on plant matter and a new debate over biomass. Forest communities will oppose the increased forest destruction associated with cellulose production for fuels. Sustainable agriculture advocates will argue that removing corn stalks from fields will deplete soils and increase fertiliser use and GM campaigners will express alarm at the threat of powerful modified microbes escaping. 

6) Biochar 

Take wood, turn it into charcoal and then bury it in the soil – that’s the basic technique behind  biochar, sometimes referred to as agrichar. Its promoters claim this technology can deliver a triple whammy of removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, improving soil fertility and increasing crop yields. In the last three years, a rash of biochar start-up companies has emerged – led by eco businessmen such as organic pioneer Craig Sams of Green & Blacks or carbon offsetting pioneer Dan Morrell of Future Forests. Advocates talk of planting a billion hectares of fast growing plantations to suck carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and bury it in soils, speeding up the carbon cycle and maybe earning carbon credits in the process. Look for opposition from forest activists. They wonder where the research is that shows biochar does actually improve all the different kinds of soils there are, as opposed to the most arid ones, and see the biochar associated rapid expansion of monoculture plantations as a threat to stressed forest ecosystems and to communities. 

7) Spaceflight

Expect to hear a lot about spacecraft in 2009 – not from the boffins at NASA but from the brand new space tourism industry. In early 2010, Virgin Galactic hopes to start the first regular commercial flights to outer space and will be running tests of its Spaceship Two rocket throughout 2009 with celebrity passengers on board. Billionaire Virgin boss Richard Branson is locked in competition with at least two other commercial companies – SpaceX and Rocketplane Global which hope to kick off a multi-billion pound commercial space industry. As publicity ramps up, Virgin Galactic is preparing itself for criticism from the same climate campaigners opposing regular air travel. Virgin Galactic public relations folks claim that a trip to the edge of space is less carbon intensive than a London-New York air flight and they are offering to run atmospheric experiments from their spacecraft to help understand climate change better. An early passenger will be controversial ecologist James Lovelock who sees no problem in blessing the new spaceflight industry just as he has given his approval to the nuclear industry and to geo-engineering. The first flights will run out of the Mojave desert and later Spaceport America in New Mexico but Virgin Galactic is also considering building a Spaceport Scotland at RAF Lossiemouth for flights from 2013. After recent UK campaigns against airport expansion, maybe we’ll soon see spaceport campaigners locked on to launchpads too? 

8) Data centres

If you think reaching outer space increases carbon emissions, consider the climate costs of accessing virtual space. According to one set of calculations, every search query carried out on the internet uses 11 watt hours of energy – the equivalent of releasing seven grams of carbon. Behind the seemingly weightless world of websites and social networking, huge data processing warehouses suck up energy to run rows of computer servers and whirring cooling fans. Such datacentres are proliferating fast. Management consultancy McKinsey estimates that by 2050, data centres will be responsible for more greenhouse gas emissions than the airline industry, as the digitalisation of medical records, libraries and genomic databases swells the global need for switched on servers. Some data centre users are stepping up to the energy challenge. Google aims to be powering their so-called ‘googlefarms’ with renewable energy and is investing accordingly but there may be other problems to tackle. Like e-waste. As the global data centre boom gets underway, the need for cheap, upgradable server equipment – chips, boards and plastic casings – will become a major new source of electronic waste, releasing toxic chemicals in both assembly and disposal. In the past three years, environmental groups such as Greenpeace and Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition have had major successes forcing home PC makers to green their products. In 2009 it may be time to take on Google, Amazon, Ebay, Yahoo and Facebook too. 

9) Obama’s chief technology officer

With the advent of a new commander in chief, the United States is also being promised a new czar for all matters technological – a ‘chief technology officer’. Who the geek-in-chief might be has set the technology press alight with speculation. Will it be Eric Schmidt, the CEO of Google? (Apparently not.) Might it be Bill Gates recently retired from Microsoft? (We certainly hope not.) How about software hero Bill Joy, famous for raising concerns about nanotech, genetic engineering and robotics? (That would be interesting). Why this matters is that it signals that Obama intends to put the interests of the technology sector at the heart of his new administration complete with a corporate inspired job title. For those hoping this administration might bring back the much missed Office of Technology Assessment or bring some participatory democracy to technology policy, there is likely to be disappointment. The new chief geek may carry out some socially useful tasks such as fending off the monopolisation of the internet and reforming patent law to make room for open source systems. On the fundamentals of who controls and assesses new technologies however, all signs are that corporations and the military will hand over none of that power. Expect howls of protest when whoever it is cashes in their personal technology stock options tax-free under a little-known loophole and further howls when the fearless new geek leader turns out to hold patents, maintains corporate ties or other conflicts of interest. 

By Silvia Ribeiro

All the companies which produce transgenic crops -
-Syngenta, Monsanto, Dupont, Dow, Bayer, BASF- have investments in crops designed specially for the production of biofuels such as ethanol and biodiesel. They also have collaboration agreements in a similar vein with Cargill, Archer Daniel Midland, Bunge, transnacional companies which dominate the global trade in grains.

In most cases, research is geared towards obtaining (amongst other things) new types of genetically modified maize, sugar cane, soya – making these crops inedible. This drastically increases the inherent risks of transgenic contamination.

At the global level, companies and governments are waging an intense campaign to present biofuels as environmentally friendly alternatives which could help to combat climate change, substituting a part of the petrol consumption dedicated to fuel for transport.

However, the inner logic is not to abandon petrol, nor to change the consumption patterns which produce climate change, but to take advantage of the situation to create new sources of business, promoting and subsidizing the industrial production of crops to serve these goals.

Studies exist which show that industrial cultivation of biofuels pose many problems. Brian Tokar, from the Institute for Social Ecology in Vermont, USA, draws attention to two recent studies from Cornell and Minnesota Universities. The studies show that the complete production cycle for biofuels leaves a destructive environmental balance sheet. Given that the processing of these crops requires a significant quantity of energy, their net energetic contribution
is very limited.

Although biofuels can replace a large proportion of petrol, they require large areas of intensive industrial agricultural production, increasing the use of agrotoxic chemicals which erode and contaminate the soil and water, as well as entailing competing for use of the land with food production. According to researcher Lester Brown (quoted by Tokar), “Now it is cars, not people, which set the annual demand for grains. The quantity of grains which is required to fill the tank of a single SUV [Sport’s Utilities Vehicle] with ethanol is enough to feed one person for a whole year.

The producers of transgenics see an excellent opportunity in all this to increase their profits and to justify genetic engineering as something that is environmentally beneficial. Their investments in biofuels included the development of transgenic crops with a high sugar content (in order to convert into ethanol), high oil content (for biodiesel), and the insertion of genes which emit [Tr: expresan in Spanish original] enzymes in order to make fuel-processing easier.

Sygenta is working in collaboration with Diversa Corporation to develop maize which produces on its own an enzyme which converts the maize into ethanol, originating from an extremofila bacterium which can survive in high temperatures. The bacterium has been taken from the collection of bacteria which the company has garnered from around the world. Diversa has a similar collaboration with Dupont, by way of its subsidiary Pioneer Hi-Bred, developing a maize which has a higher cellulose and starch content.

They are using an enzyme which comes from a manipulated bacterium (Zymomonas mobilis), which is found naturally in the agave cactus. In both cases, the genetic manipulation compromises the use of maize as a food crop, increasing the chances that contamination could occur.

In this case it is interesting to recall that until 2001 Diversa maintained a bioprospecting agreement with Biotechnology Institute of the Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM) to search for extremofilic organisms and bacteria that are unique to Mexico. This contract was later suspended due to the efforts of a broad coordination of organizations and celebrities which started a broad popular rejection of the contract, denouncing it as biopiracy.

Despite this, Diversa never returned to Mexico the samples it had takend during the short amount of time that the contract was in place. It would sem. paradoxical that the transnational companies would use microorganisms extracted from our country in order to first genetically manipulate the maize and later try to sell it here as an “environmentally friendly” product.

Regrettably, the initiative of a Law for the Development and Promotion of Bio-energy, which has already been debated in both chambers in the Mexican Congress, promotes this form of development, and is supported by all the political parties. The justification of the initiative simply regurgitates the already endlessly repeated clichés used in industry propaganda in order to continue with the farce. What is more, it is argued that this form of development should indicate a support for small scale agriculture.

In other words, the peasants who created the maize should be ready to sow transgenic seeds of inedible maize, which will sooner or later contaminate the indigenous maize varieties, thus making it useless, are being asked to give it [the transgenic maize] their official endorsement. Or as if with the other crops, such as sugar cane, had to be at the costs of food production in conditions imposed and according to the demands of the agribusiness companies, which would by those who offer the cheapest price from any part of the world. This is why they promote such laws and programs simultaneously in many different countries.

Instead of food sovereignty, we will have more heavily subsidized multinational companies and more transgenic threats for the maize and for peasant economies.

Originally published in La Jornada, México,
November 23, 2006.
Silvia Ribeiro is researcher at ETC Group.