When I wrote about John McCain not succumbing into endorsing a farm bill that would increase subsidies to corn producers whose products would then turn into ethanol, I didn’t know that Republican candidate’s opposition to this alternate fuel was connected to only that specific piece of legislation and not the fuel as such (although voicing against subsidies in times where every Iowan can push you either into a seat in an Oval office or attic at a ranch in Arizona is an honorable act by itself and requires lots of bravery). This week’s The Economist looks more at the issues of ethanol, and for the second concludes with a stand I strongly oppose (the first clash between me and the writers involved a Leaders article on Bill Gates’ departure from Microsoft). The Economist supports further expansion of Brazilian sugar cane plantations, blindly believing in what Brazilian governmental agencies tell him.
Some greens say that the spread of sugar is deforesting the Amazon. That is not true. The vast majority of the sugar crop is grown thousands of miles away from the forest, in São Paulo state or the north-east. Some 65% of new planting of sugar cane has been on land that was previously pasture; the rest was previously used for other crops, according to Conab, a government agency.
Really? So why is it disappearing at such a high pace? Interesting that only last year Reuters, The Guardian or even The Economist argued against the increase of biofuels usage, citing the rainforest destruction as one of the primary reasons.
But maybe I am only biased and narrow-minded when it comes to biofuels. After all, the Brazilian rain forests and the land-extensive agriculture have cost me two debate victories — at first last year at the Worlds against Indonesia and seconly in April in the final debate of the Czech debate league. I’m sentenced by those misfortunes to be acerbic when discussing those for a very long time.
