On the defensive after George Bush and Lula da Silva of Brazil started getting friendly over ethanol, Hugo Chavez has now backed away from plans for building a massive array of 29 ethanol plants.
His rationale tears a page from the nascent biofuel backlash movement, saying that land should be used to feed people, not to fill "rich people's cars." As with most things Chavez, this is probably largely about politics and somewhat about people: he doesn't want to be outflanked by Bush's new foothold in the region. But it's a stand that will win him points in many quarters, and he's expected to make it again later this month at a South American energy summit.
Corn-based meat and ethanol: burning the planet to a crisp
The violent twilight of oil and a strategy to expose it
Comments
View as Flat
Jason D Scorse Posted 1:19 pm
07 Apr 2007
J.S.
I teach environmental economics and blog at http://www.voicesofreason.info. I am a proud liberal, who stands on the shoulders of giants.
Permalink
smoothsilk Posted 12:16 am
08 Apr 2007
Of course, his attempt to turn around the decades of abuse that the poor have suffered in Venezuela is something I am 1000% FOR. In addition, his comment strikes a good chord in spite of what I said above: rich people's cars usually guzzle fuel -- no matter what it is or where it comes from -- and if that doesn't change for the better, then no amount of biofuels is going to help the environment, or anyone or anything else. Using land for fuel isn't as compelling a need if the fuel is used wisely, and using fuel wisely allows more land for food, and for habitat, and thus requires less for fuel.
Lastly, the only reason Venezuela would be in the dumps after 5 more years of Chavez would be because of interference from both/either the US government -- and Venezuela's own short-sighted, old-school elite.
(I am not a Marxist -- or even a socialist myself -- but I am certainly against what has almost always claimed to be "capitalist," but is -- in reality -- anything but a true free-market system. To confuse "modern" capitalism with real capitalism would be to confuse the Spanish Inquisition with the teachings of Christ.)
Permalink
Tom Philpott Posted 12:43 am
08 Apr 2007
Victual Reality
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:42 am
08 Apr 2007
I still think his joke about smelling sulfur fumes at the podium after duuhbya spoke was pretty funny. Duuhboy could never deliver a punchline like Chavez did, even if he found someone who would write a joke for him that was actually funny.
Bush IS a joke, a very bad one. However I still think Chavez is a toruring, murdering dictator, just like duuuhboy. Both grabbed their power illegitametly.
Of course Chavez didn't start a war based on oily lies (that has killed 100s of thousands)that he couldn't finish, so duuuh still has him beat as far as pure evilness. Let's count up the numbers of tortured and dead, the crawdad cheerleader still beats chavez.
I predict JS will blow with the wind and adopt the energy reforms that some of us here have been touting for a year or so. Then he will pretend he actually was for them all along. Hehehey.
He has already changed from corporate libertarian to "liberal" (whatever that means from his point of view).
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
arob Posted 2:29 pm
08 Apr 2007
I think your post demonstrates historic American prejudices towards Latin America that go back to the Monroe Doctrine. Just because countries don't obey Washington does not mean they have Communist dictators. I would remind you that environmental solutions do not have to act contrary to social ones. Neo-liberal trade policies that contribute to global economic inequities also contribute to tropical deforestation, the industrial agriculture, and biodiversity loss.
Haha, thanks for inspiring to me to make my first post. I'm not a Marxist, just I have a huge problem with American arrogance towards developing countries, especially when we are the major drivers of global problems such as climate change. And, in regards to the question of Chavez and biofuels, I also believe he is posturing. Biofuels are competition for Venezuela's oil.
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 5:09 pm
08 Apr 2007
A couple of points about Chavez's comments on ethanol.
First, a more detailed article from the Miami Herald.
Second, Fidel Castro has leveled two blasts against Bush's corn ethanol policy. (first and second blasts.)
Interesting sidelight: the conservative UK magazine, The Economist just published a piece supporting Castro's stand. (full text). Not only The Economist, but also the conservative Heritage Institute has come out against corn ethanol. Strange bedfellows indeed.
arob wrote: "Biofuels are competition for Venezuela's oil."
Actually, I don't think that's true. Chavez and the Venezuelans know that oil is a limited resource, and they will have to find the Next Big Thing. Biofuels based on sugar cane (in contrast to corn) do have potential. Apparently, Venezuela is suited for sugar cane, and having both oil and biofuels would be a real one-two punch for Venezuela.
I suspect that Chavez will change policy and quietly continue work on the sugar cane project.
Bart
Energy Bulletin
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 11:51 pm
08 Apr 2007
The case against Chavez.
True he hasn't nearly the death and torture toll racked up by the duuhbyaist regime, but that doesn't clean up his record of dictatoring as usual.
Progressives ought not support dictatorship even if it is not as bad as the one we now live under in these United States of America.
April 19 is the aniversary of the start of The Revolutionary war in 1775. Let's have another revolution! Against the forces of corporate feudalism.
The first revolution was impelled largely by one of the first multinational corporate feudal entities and was actually owned by a king. The British East india Tea Company. Remember them?
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 1:21 am
09 Apr 2007
I also am heavily critical of my own government and the Bush Admin. Intelligent people can criticize more than one government at a time and not every time an American criticizes the leader of a developing country is it an example of arrogance. In fact, if people in developing countries spent less time worrying about America and more time about their own leaders we all would be much better off.
J.S.
I teach environmental economics and blog at http://www.voicesofreason.info. I am a proud liberal, who stands on the shoulders of giants.
Permalink
arob Posted 3:31 am
09 Apr 2007
The South American energy summit will be extremely interesting. Sugar cane derived-biofuels plus oil would be a formidable one-two punch indeed for Venezuela. I hope geopolitics does not get in the way of smart energy policy.
And I wasn't trying to say criticizing Chavez is arrogant, but rather that the use of sensationalist rhetoric such as "murdering" and "torturing" can be problematic.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 3:41 am
09 Apr 2007
Essentially, it gives them the "Freedom" to liquidate their countries resources, take huge unpayable high interest loans, and accept big bribes in return for massive tax holidays.
http://www.amazon.com/o/ASIN/1576753018/104-4525509-18143 ...
_
And people wonder why the Latin America spends so much time trying to distance themselves from that....
Permalink
smoothsilk Posted 10:51 am
09 Apr 2007
Of course, there are those who will see this populist uprising as another manifestion of the All the Kings Men phenomina, and certainly there is some justification for this. But to say, as some have, that he is a "tin pot" dictator is absurd, and ignores all the hurdles that he and the Venezuelan people have gone through to get to the point they're at now, which has been a long struggle.
Was there this same concern for human rights when Chavez himself was briefly ousted in a coup -- and this was widely mis-reported in our country as a "resignation"? No.
Likewise, when Chavez himself -- years before -- attempted a coup, was the reason for this (that IMF imposed policies were causing starvation in Venezuela, and protestors were being shot and killed by the police) reported? No. (Nor has this been reported since, except in the alternative press).
And when Chavez suspended the training of Venezuelan troops at the infamous "School of Assassians" (known for its endless murders, disappearances, and other human rights abuses), was this act applauded in our press -- or in the so-called libertarian press -- as a major blow against our imperialist and cruel empire? For the most part, No.
In order to understand Chavez, one must also understand what he is up against. I'm glad that there are those who monitor his acts and express concern -- it is absolutely necessary. But would these actions of his that cast a less glorious light on his tenure, have received public support in Venezuela (or at least, are been condoned) if the opposition itself wasn't so much worse? Has anyone noticed that the talk is always only about Chavez -- and not what went on before he came to power? Does anyone even know the names of the previous five (or ten!) presidents of Veneuzula, and what political parties they belonged to, and what their policies were? Are not our social studies abnormally deficient? Is the mainstream media ever concerned about our lack of knowledge and try to fill this void? No, of course not.
As Clint Eastwood's "Dirty Harry" stated in Magnum Force, he would happily have joined the renegade, vigalante policeman if they had something better to offer than the compromised, medicore system that these rebel policemen claimed to be fighting, but they didn't. And neither do those who so glibly attack Chavez.
Thus, unless some more effective solution presents itself (like maybe Buddha and Christ coming out of the sky and miraculously granting the majority of Venezuelan people their share of rights, land, and wealth that they so richly deserve), then I think Chavez is about as good as it can get. Though not perfect, he's an incredible boon to Venezuela and Latin America compared to everything else currently -- or previously -- extant. Absolutists will chafe at his reforms and point out his faults, but since they can't produce any other alternatives, they shouldn't be taken seriously.
To remove Chavez would be to return to a status quo that kept 80% of its people in poverty for the past 50+ years, despite its vast oil wealth (and concentrated in a such a relatively small country!).
But if he and his party stay in power, a larger, more educated, healthier middle class will emerge and expand, and that can only bolster the living quality of everyone there.
Permalink
smoothsilk Posted 11:50 am
15 Apr 2007
By NATALIE OBIKO PEARSON, AP Business Writer
However, even if all arable land on Earth were turned over to biofuel production, it still would not meet world demand for oil, so Chavez is joined by many experts who caution that promoting ethanol as a substitute for gasoline is environmentally misguided.
Venezuela still plans to expand its own ethanol production for use as a fuel additive -- and reduce dependence on Brazilian imports. Venezuela's $900 million plan envisions becoming self-sufficient in ethanol by 2012 by planting 300,000 hectares of sugar cane, manioc and rice and building up to 17 processing plants.
Other Chavez ethanol projects include a January agreement with Ecuador to study jointly commercializing ethanol, and a February deal with Cuba to jointly build 11 ethanol plants.
Chavez denies any conflict with Silva, and Garcia in turn said the Brazilian leader is coming to the summit on Margarita Island "in peace and love," to promote ethanol "not as an ideological fuel, but simply a fuel."
Chavez and Silva plan to meet before the summit Monday to praise the construction of a petrochemical complex involving the Brazilian company Braskem and Pequiven, a division of Venezuela's state oil company.
For the complete article:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070415/ap_on_bi_ge/venezuela ...
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 12:39 pm
15 Apr 2007
For instance, the usual thing chanted is
"OMG we have to stop paying Saudi Arabia for Oil"
Completely misguided hype.
The other thing they do is point towards Brazil and go "OMG Look at Brazil, they got independant from Oil by using Ethanol!"
The part they miss is that Brazil still uses Oil for more than 80% of it's fuel.
"Huh wha?"
Brazil is the second largest Oil producing nation in Latin America.
They produce over 2,000,000 barrels of oil a day, and only about 482,000 barrels of ethanol. (Where each barrel contains 30% less energy content)
And they plant to drill a lot more from there on. (Note all the drilling cites planned)
The key being that they don't IMPORT OIL.
But they still Use a hell of a lot of it.
Thats what you call a Political lie.
It's not factually wrong, but it's entirely misleading.
Permalink
smoothsilk Posted 12:01 pm
18 Apr 2007
However, the Dilbert cartoon (from the other link) implies that people who buy fuel-efficient cars do so only because they want to reduce "the nation's dependence on foreign oil," and not for other reasons, like reducing their own dependence on oil(and perhaps waste and pollution too).
What is missing from that cartoon is the fact that many people (such as myself) love efficiency in cars, appliances etc. simply because it is inherently beautiful (to us, anyway), just as any great feat of engineering is beautiful.
It is important to understand that while embracing "alternative" energy sources, or buying more efficient appliances and vehicles etc. etc., might reduce the amount of money to terroists (or what not), that isn't the primary reason many of us do it. We do it because we love doing things the best way we can, and owning a great product, rather than one designed and slapped together by drooling idiots (-: . (If I was a genius engineer -- which I'm not -- I think I could do a lot better than what manufacturers usually produce).
As any fan of Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead knows (though you hardly have to be a fan of her or her novels -- in fact you can be a vehement socialist to see this), you must primarily "love the doing" to really be successful -- not how that "doing" may benefit others, or the environment, or "world peace" etc. etc. (and not that you don't want those things -- of course you do!)
This principle is also in places like the Bhagavad Gita, such as when Krishna admonishes Arjuna not to "think of the fruit" of action when he acts. Likewise, the Zen are said to focus on the archer's form in their archery lessons, and not on hitting the target (though that is part of the ultimate goal, obviously).
The problem I find with most capitalists these days is that they seem to think that people love "green" items (like hybrid cars) purely because they "help" others -- out of some outrageous, self-abnegative, do-gooding altruism (or from some sinister plot to appear altruist, when their secret agenda is actually power over others, like Rand's infamous Ellsworth Tooey did), when most of us do it because such products take more intelligence to produce. The fact that the ultimate effect is very positive (in my opinion) is simply the result of that greater intelligence that is put into such products.
In short, I find the Dilbert cartoon rather irrelevant and insulting! (laugh)
Permalink