After experiencing several “food riots” from the poor regions of the globe over the skyrocketing prices of staple foods during the start of 2008, is the global community deliberately resisting genetically modified foods at their own peril?
By: Ringo Bones
Often referred to as “Frankenstein Foods”, foodstuffs derived from genetically modified or GM crops never fully gained widespread acceptance outside of the United States. Especially in Europe, where their resistance of anything with a semblance of genetic tinkering being passed of as fit for human consumption, unexpectedly made the organic food industry – which started supposedly as a fad in the middle of the 1990’s - into a multi-billion dollar leviathan that it is today. Despite of selling food that’s too expensive for those people living on less than 2 US dollars a day.
The issue surrounding the debate between GM crops versus their organically (grown without the aid of pesticides and factory-produced chemical fertilizers) produced counterparts have become the de facto herald of every pro-environment / anti-globalization / anti-capitalist movement in search of “Imperial Ambitions” in legislating their various agendas as legally-binding laws. An ambition that’s ruled mostly by political demagoguery – rather than scientific rationality – for citing the rationale of these various “pressure groups” in resisting the large-scale production of GM crops. Unfortunately, political demagoguery can work in anyone’s favor when it comes to publicly admonishing large corporations – especially ones with very terrible sins in the past like Monsanto.
Monsanto’s sordid avarice for profit over corporate social responsibility had bequeathed to the world products and services that not caused only unprecedented negative social upheaval during the 20th Century. But also, those said products and services’ negative repercussion, are still continued to be felt till this day. Take for instance polychlorinated biphenyls or PCB s. Developed near the end of the 1920’s, PCB s are sold to other manufacturing concerns, like the electrical manufacturing company GE, without thorough understanding of the human health and environmental impact of that particular product. Given that PCB production and use in the United States was banned around 1977, its hormone-mimicry effects still wreak havoc of the endocrine systems of humans and animals around the world. On Monsanto’s “patriotic duty” of bolstering the US Military-Industrial Complex battle against the spread of Marxist-Leninist Socialism in South East Asia, it provided defoliants to be used in Operation Ranch Hand during the 1961 to 1971 period of the Vietnam War. This resulted not only causing undesirable health defects to Vietnamese civilians near the defoliant-sprayed sites but also unusual forms of cancer to US servicemen who happened to be exposed. Monsanto later divulged that the Agent Orange defoliant batches used in Operation Ranch Hand contained high levels of dioxin – a very aggressive carcinogen – due to the hasty manufacture. Given Monsanto’s lack of corporate social responsibility, why should we – the consumers – trust this somewhat untrustworthy company to provide us with our daily bread? Does this lead to a compromised global food security? Especially to those people living on less than 2 US dollars a day.
When Monsanto became the sole monopoly of genetically modified crops, the company was hailed by the technocorporate elite for its pioneering efforts of spearheading a new economic venture – namely the marketing of crops that are genetically designed to be better than Mother Nature’s. Throughout the 1990’s, Monsanto was poised to rival – by fair means or foul – the market dominance of the world’s leading computer software company Microsoft. But the general public’s concerns over the “terminator gene” aspect of Monsanto’s GM crops has denied the company’s dreams of market dominance. Given the company’s “spotty” track record, no amount of scientific study backing the safety of their GM crops to both human health and the environment can calm the general public’s furor over “Frankenstein Foods”.
But it seems that Monsanto never learned lessons from its past sins. Many environmental pressure groups are vehemently criticizing Monsanto’s Mafiosi-style business practices. Like small family farmers being sued by Monsanto for using their “patented” GM technology without permission just because these small farmers live downwind from Monsanto-owned fields and their crops are “accidentally” cross-pollinated with Monsanto’s Roundup-ready crops. Even His Royal Highness, The Prince of Wales have recently joined in the resistance movement against Monsanto’s GM crops citing the product’s yet unproven possible negative side-effects on biodiversity. Given that Prince Charles is also busy campaigning for the protection of the albatross in the Southern Ocean, this high-level support of resistance against GM crops has further bolstered the movement against widespread cultivation.
Maybe it’s just bad luck that Monsanto’s GM crops safety concerns manages to coincide with the yet unproven safeguards against BSE / mad cow disease contaminated beef could be the products undoing. After all, testing for prion misfolded proteins via protein misfolding cyclic amplification or PMCA test for prion proteins in only just a few years old. Yet, we don’t yet have reliable test studies that prove GM crops are 100% harmless against human health or our ecological biodiversity.
Friday, August 29, 2008
Friday, July 25, 2008
OCS Crude Oil Exploration: Economic Bottom Line versus the Environment?
As our wildly swinging global crude oil prices finally retreats back to a somewhat manageable level, shouldn’t we be moving away from our crude oil incumbent industry and commerce instead of looking for more illusory “cheap oil”?
By: Vanessa Uy
A few years after Al Gore’s “environmental shocker” called An Inconvenient Truth finally convinced governments around the world to take the issue of global warming caused by industrially created greenhouse gasses much more seriously, the “Industrial West” is still a few decades away from being weaned from crude oil “addiction”. Sadder still, the current Bush Administration has initiated the process to repeal the executive domestic crude oil exploration ban established by then president George Bush, Senior.
This domestic crude oil exploration ban which specifically sites the Outer Continental Shelf or OCS regions in United States’ sovereign territory was initiated in part due to the overwhelming disdain of Americans back in 1989 of the negative impact of the petroleum industry on the environment. Add to that the Exxon Valdez oil tanker disaster, thus making patriotism indistinguishable from environmentalism during that time. Plus – as a politician – then president George Bush, Senior was very desperate to distance himself from the inane statements of his predecessor Ronald Reagan who said that trees are more polluting than automobiles. Despite of Bush Senior’s attempt to appease the growing American environmental fervor, he wasn’t elected for a second term in office.
Fast forward almost twenty - or so years later, current incumbent president George W. Bush has set to put into motion plans to repeal what his father had legislated with regards to the US domestic oil exploration ban, especially on American Outer Continental Shelf or OCS regions. The question now is, Is this a logical – even attainable – solution to America and the rest of the world’s problem of high crude oil prices? Never mind the ensuing future environmental consequences of the Industrial West’s Quixotic quest for a cheap and abundant source of crude oil.
Famed theoretical physicist and science documentary consultant Michio Kaku states that in order to maintain our current crude oil demand, an oil field of similar yield to that found on Saudi Arabia must be discovered and developed every ten years. Add to that the realistic assessment of petroleum company insiders citing that a viable crude oil field, once found, usually takes 5 to 10 years to develop into a commercially viable crude oil producing facility. Sadder still the 5 - to -10 year figure are somewhat optimistic at best. Which now begs into question whether petroleum companies who advertise on major news media outlets like the BBC or CNN really are telling the truth by stating that they are currently working alternatives to replace crude oil. When the truth is that they must spend their time eternally searching for crude oil just to keep their company running.
The current petroleum lobbyist controlled Bush Administration probably sees the repeal of the executive ban on oil exploration as a godsend because the Outer Continental Shelves in the US are usually located 50 to 200 miles off shore which can be somewhat hard to be picketed by environmental protestors. Except maybe by dinghy-equipped adventurous Greenpeace activists. Which for all intents and purposes is an environmental activism made out of sight and out of mind by sheer luck of the crude oil conglomerates’ latest praxis on greed. But the question now is, will every citizen of planet Earth be willing just to stand by as the insatiable greed for crude oil continues to compromise our planet’s ecosystem?
The issue of the US Government repealing the ban on domestic crude oil exploration is by no means just an issue that affects inhabitants of the North American continent. Nations bordering the Arctic Circle are setting their sites on the yet untapped crude oil fields found in there which was made more easily accessible due to the inexorable progress of global warming. Even though the Arctic Circle crude oil fields are estimated to only meet our current demands for just 3 years, the site has currently become too tempting to pass up despite of the environmentally sensitive nature of the area. USGS geologist David Gautier has stated on a July 25, 2008 interview on the BBC that crude oil exploration in the Arctic Circle region is a particularly risky exercise at best. This is so because of the United States Geological Survey’s lack of thorough understanding with regards to the environmental and geological dynamics of that region. Add to that the environmental impact studies that had yet to be undertaken in the Arctic Circle region, not just for crude oil exploration but also for mining concessions as well.
Given the environmental challenges, I wonder if it is high time for the Industrialized World to wean itself away from their crude oil incumbent systems for the sake of our environment. And also to end the needless deaths of our young men and women who made the ultimate sacrifice just to keep Halliburton and their ilk in business.
By: Vanessa Uy
A few years after Al Gore’s “environmental shocker” called An Inconvenient Truth finally convinced governments around the world to take the issue of global warming caused by industrially created greenhouse gasses much more seriously, the “Industrial West” is still a few decades away from being weaned from crude oil “addiction”. Sadder still, the current Bush Administration has initiated the process to repeal the executive domestic crude oil exploration ban established by then president George Bush, Senior.
This domestic crude oil exploration ban which specifically sites the Outer Continental Shelf or OCS regions in United States’ sovereign territory was initiated in part due to the overwhelming disdain of Americans back in 1989 of the negative impact of the petroleum industry on the environment. Add to that the Exxon Valdez oil tanker disaster, thus making patriotism indistinguishable from environmentalism during that time. Plus – as a politician – then president George Bush, Senior was very desperate to distance himself from the inane statements of his predecessor Ronald Reagan who said that trees are more polluting than automobiles. Despite of Bush Senior’s attempt to appease the growing American environmental fervor, he wasn’t elected for a second term in office.
Fast forward almost twenty - or so years later, current incumbent president George W. Bush has set to put into motion plans to repeal what his father had legislated with regards to the US domestic oil exploration ban, especially on American Outer Continental Shelf or OCS regions. The question now is, Is this a logical – even attainable – solution to America and the rest of the world’s problem of high crude oil prices? Never mind the ensuing future environmental consequences of the Industrial West’s Quixotic quest for a cheap and abundant source of crude oil.
Famed theoretical physicist and science documentary consultant Michio Kaku states that in order to maintain our current crude oil demand, an oil field of similar yield to that found on Saudi Arabia must be discovered and developed every ten years. Add to that the realistic assessment of petroleum company insiders citing that a viable crude oil field, once found, usually takes 5 to 10 years to develop into a commercially viable crude oil producing facility. Sadder still the 5 - to -10 year figure are somewhat optimistic at best. Which now begs into question whether petroleum companies who advertise on major news media outlets like the BBC or CNN really are telling the truth by stating that they are currently working alternatives to replace crude oil. When the truth is that they must spend their time eternally searching for crude oil just to keep their company running.
The current petroleum lobbyist controlled Bush Administration probably sees the repeal of the executive ban on oil exploration as a godsend because the Outer Continental Shelves in the US are usually located 50 to 200 miles off shore which can be somewhat hard to be picketed by environmental protestors. Except maybe by dinghy-equipped adventurous Greenpeace activists. Which for all intents and purposes is an environmental activism made out of sight and out of mind by sheer luck of the crude oil conglomerates’ latest praxis on greed. But the question now is, will every citizen of planet Earth be willing just to stand by as the insatiable greed for crude oil continues to compromise our planet’s ecosystem?
The issue of the US Government repealing the ban on domestic crude oil exploration is by no means just an issue that affects inhabitants of the North American continent. Nations bordering the Arctic Circle are setting their sites on the yet untapped crude oil fields found in there which was made more easily accessible due to the inexorable progress of global warming. Even though the Arctic Circle crude oil fields are estimated to only meet our current demands for just 3 years, the site has currently become too tempting to pass up despite of the environmentally sensitive nature of the area. USGS geologist David Gautier has stated on a July 25, 2008 interview on the BBC that crude oil exploration in the Arctic Circle region is a particularly risky exercise at best. This is so because of the United States Geological Survey’s lack of thorough understanding with regards to the environmental and geological dynamics of that region. Add to that the environmental impact studies that had yet to be undertaken in the Arctic Circle region, not just for crude oil exploration but also for mining concessions as well.
Given the environmental challenges, I wonder if it is high time for the Industrialized World to wean itself away from their crude oil incumbent systems for the sake of our environment. And also to end the needless deaths of our young men and women who made the ultimate sacrifice just to keep Halliburton and their ilk in business.
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Should We Be Creating Our Food from Crude Oil?
A certain UN top official has recently called our ill-conceived use of food crops as automotive fuel a crime against humanity. Would it surprise the same UN official that 50 years ago we tried to get cheap food from crude oil?
By: Vanessa Uy
Currently, the whole world is burdened by sky rocketing food prices in which our poorly planned bio-fuels program is mostly to blame. What if – in the mother of all ironic twists – we can derive food cheaply from where we get almost all of our automotive fuels, namely crude oil? But more importantly: is this even possible?
During the 1950’s through the 1960’s, a chemist working for the Société Française des Pétroles BP in Lavera, France had experimented with a process of deriving edible protein from crude oil. Chemist Alfred Champagnat added fertilizers to a batch of crude oil and air is bubbled through. This set-up resulted in a crop of yeast, which is about 50% edible protein. Though at the time other oil companies had also experimented with this method, the experiment showed very promising results. One pound of crude oil yielded about half a pound of protein. Amazingly, the process is very efficient because it creates edible protein several times faster than farm animals can synthesize protein from their feed or fodder. Though the crude oil derived protein resembled a tasteless and odorless powder in it’s raw state it can readily be turned into a meat-like concentrate and aromatic Far-Eastern style fish sauces. This crude oil derived protein has a tremendous potential as a source of low cost source of edible protein for the world’s poor during the time of the experiment. Alfred Champagnat estimated that only about 3% of the annual world output of petroleum / crude oil would be needed to produce 20 million tons of pure protein - –ore than three times the protein supplied by the world’s annual fish catch during the late 1950’s and early 1960’s. Champagnat’s experiment really showed promise back then, but will it be a viable solution today to our ever increasingly difficult quest to provide low-cost food for the world’s poor?
Even though the circa 2008 price for crude oil is now teetering near the 120 US dollar-per-barrel mark, it is still considered by experts – especially scientists employed by oil companies – to be one of the cheapest natural resources available. Sadly, it’s so very true. A liter of gasoline is costs even cheaper compared to some brands of bottled water of the same volume. Even the experts working for the crude oil conglomerates continually tell us that the cause of the present sky high fuel prices is due to increased demand in China and India and not because the world’s entire supply of crude oil is running out.
Environmental concerns aside – isn’t it a disturbing thought that we might be actually using more crude oil per unit volume than we are using plant derived cooking oil? And is this might be the reason why all of the used cooking oil derived bio-diesel schemes are - at present – doomed to failure? Our current transport, electricity generation and other industrial processes are heavily dependent on crude oil and other fossil fuels. Because of this, the greatest problem of shifting to cleaner sustainable energy technologies like hydrogen and fuel cell technologies is technological infrastructure incumbency. We cannot easily –at present - adopt hydrogen-based systems because we built our industrial infrastructure around fossil fuels for almost a century that we can even produce crude oil derived fuels far more cheaply than their plant derived counterparts. It’s the hydrocarbon technology incumbency problem that tied us down. Not to mention that we have invested billions in the crude oil industry for nearly a century in making gasoline almost as cheap as bottled water.
But what if the petrochemical conglomerates manage to make edible protein more cheaply than our current farming and fishing methods by using Alfred Champagnat’s method scaled-up to industrial levels. Would this grant them absolute power since these conglomerates now control not only our energy supply, but also our food supply as well? These are profit-driven corporations and helping our planet’s hungry and poor inhabitants probably ranks last when it comes to their day to day corporate practices. It’s a brave new world.
By: Vanessa Uy
Currently, the whole world is burdened by sky rocketing food prices in which our poorly planned bio-fuels program is mostly to blame. What if – in the mother of all ironic twists – we can derive food cheaply from where we get almost all of our automotive fuels, namely crude oil? But more importantly: is this even possible?
During the 1950’s through the 1960’s, a chemist working for the Société Française des Pétroles BP in Lavera, France had experimented with a process of deriving edible protein from crude oil. Chemist Alfred Champagnat added fertilizers to a batch of crude oil and air is bubbled through. This set-up resulted in a crop of yeast, which is about 50% edible protein. Though at the time other oil companies had also experimented with this method, the experiment showed very promising results. One pound of crude oil yielded about half a pound of protein. Amazingly, the process is very efficient because it creates edible protein several times faster than farm animals can synthesize protein from their feed or fodder. Though the crude oil derived protein resembled a tasteless and odorless powder in it’s raw state it can readily be turned into a meat-like concentrate and aromatic Far-Eastern style fish sauces. This crude oil derived protein has a tremendous potential as a source of low cost source of edible protein for the world’s poor during the time of the experiment. Alfred Champagnat estimated that only about 3% of the annual world output of petroleum / crude oil would be needed to produce 20 million tons of pure protein - –ore than three times the protein supplied by the world’s annual fish catch during the late 1950’s and early 1960’s. Champagnat’s experiment really showed promise back then, but will it be a viable solution today to our ever increasingly difficult quest to provide low-cost food for the world’s poor?
Even though the circa 2008 price for crude oil is now teetering near the 120 US dollar-per-barrel mark, it is still considered by experts – especially scientists employed by oil companies – to be one of the cheapest natural resources available. Sadly, it’s so very true. A liter of gasoline is costs even cheaper compared to some brands of bottled water of the same volume. Even the experts working for the crude oil conglomerates continually tell us that the cause of the present sky high fuel prices is due to increased demand in China and India and not because the world’s entire supply of crude oil is running out.
Environmental concerns aside – isn’t it a disturbing thought that we might be actually using more crude oil per unit volume than we are using plant derived cooking oil? And is this might be the reason why all of the used cooking oil derived bio-diesel schemes are - at present – doomed to failure? Our current transport, electricity generation and other industrial processes are heavily dependent on crude oil and other fossil fuels. Because of this, the greatest problem of shifting to cleaner sustainable energy technologies like hydrogen and fuel cell technologies is technological infrastructure incumbency. We cannot easily –at present - adopt hydrogen-based systems because we built our industrial infrastructure around fossil fuels for almost a century that we can even produce crude oil derived fuels far more cheaply than their plant derived counterparts. It’s the hydrocarbon technology incumbency problem that tied us down. Not to mention that we have invested billions in the crude oil industry for nearly a century in making gasoline almost as cheap as bottled water.
But what if the petrochemical conglomerates manage to make edible protein more cheaply than our current farming and fishing methods by using Alfred Champagnat’s method scaled-up to industrial levels. Would this grant them absolute power since these conglomerates now control not only our energy supply, but also our food supply as well? These are profit-driven corporations and helping our planet’s hungry and poor inhabitants probably ranks last when it comes to their day to day corporate practices. It’s a brave new world.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
The Rich Man’s Car
First it was the proverbial “rich man’s cow” that deprived the world’s poor from much needed staple grains, then came the bio-fuel industry making the “rich man’s car” the latest threat to the world’s poor. Will the injustice ever end?
By: Vanessa Uy
For over fifty years, the threat of starvation has always seemed unthinkable in affluent countries that benefited most from the post-World War II “Green Revolution”. But as more and more people manage to reach the upper echelons of the socio-economic ladder, they started to drastically affect the food supply of the entire world. As people get richer, they start to eat less grain. But they make up for this dietary paradigm shift by consuming more meat, and ironically that dietary lifestyle requires the consumption of enormous quantities of grain – by livestock.
Livestock – on average – must consume 10 kilograms of grain to produce 1 kilogram of meat. Thus the rich man consumes the equivalent of 10 kilograms of grain every time he consumes a kilogram of meat. In doing so, he disproportionately reduces the amount of grain available to feed the rest of humanity. And if there is not enough grain to go around, the rich man can easily outbid his less fortunate fellow human beings. As one United Nations food expert has succinctly put it more than thirty years ago, “The poor man’s grain is being siphoned off to feed the rich man’s cow.”
Then came the ill-conceived bio-fuel industry. Even though it is barely over three or so years old, it gained widespread acceptance with utter disregard for the ensuing environmental and social consequences. Thus the problem of the security of our global food supply has been greatly exacerbated. The rich man’s cow and the rich man’s car is now in competition – albeit unfairly when it comes to purchasing power – with the world’s poorer inhabitants when it comes to access to the world’s grain supply.
Thirty years ago when the bio-fuel industry was not yet the “logical alternative” to energy conservation measures. The world’s affluent society that embraced the American-Blue-Collar-Protestant-Work-Ethic-As-Ideology chose to harbor the perception that vegetarianism and energy conservation as a part of the Marxist-Leninist Socialism that threatens their Calvinist avarice. Even though reality seem to defy the socio-political construct of their perception like avarice should be a “God-given right”, or so it seems.
Inhabitants of underdeveloped Asian countries eat an average of 250 kilograms of grain per person per year. The average American – or anyone who can afford the “American Lifestyle” – consumes more than a metric ton of grain per person per year, and that’s before bio-fuels are added to the equation. The typical American eats 75 kilograms of grain annually as bread and breakfast cereals; The rest is fed to cattle, pigs and chickens to produce the meat, milk and eggs that serve as staples like grains do for the world’s poorer people. If we include the corn diverted to produce ethanol, our typical “American” is now consuming two metric tons of grain annually. Can all of us afford with a clear conscience the price we pay in maintaining our “American Dream” of freedom of mobility?
The recent food riots that happened in Egypt and Haiti is somewhat reminiscent to what happened back in the early 1970’s when droughts reduced global grain harvests and the oil crisis caused a sharp rise in staple food prices. It seems like our unquestioning faith to the energy intensive, chemically dependent agricultural methods of the Green Revolution has been betrayed. Even our current World Bank president Robert Zoellick has voiced alarm over spiraling prices of staple foods that could trigger more political unrest and even wars.
The impact of our current ill-conceived bio-fuel programs needs to be further examined since it is one of the main contributors to our current food shortage. Despite its touted “Green Credentials” many are finding out that the supposed “eco-friendliness” of a majority of our bio-fuel programs is a sham. What used to be a primeval tropical rainforest two years ago is now a bio-fuel plantation is more of a rule – rather than the exception when it comes to the bio-fuel industry. Will the inner environmentalist inside all of us be willing to just sit back and relax every time we’re enjoying the joyride in our bio-fueled “Sport Utility Vehicles”? Or will our policymakers be forced to fastrack bio-fuel programs that don't use staple food or the land used to grow them like India's Jatropha Bio-Fuel program which sadly is still in it's small scale / pilot stage?
The moral pressure over everyone jumping into the natural resource wasteful Western Industrial / American lifestyle has been around for over thirty years. Back then it was over increased meat consumption by both the rich man and his pet dog. Now, his car has joined into the picture. There’s even an increasing popularity being discussed on how Paris Hilton’s pet chihuahua has a bigger carbon footprint compared to the average working class Chinese. As more and more of us become affluent, will we ever adopt a less wasteful lifestyle? To me, not very likely because energy and natural resource conservation has been often touted as an anathema by those who have bought and sold the Calvinist / Protestant Work Ethic Avarice Driven ideology. They see vegetarianism and energy conservation as a very dangerous Left – Wing ideology. It looks like Conan O’Brien spoofing about Jesus Christ being a “NASCAR fan” has a kernel of truth in it. Or will it someday become part and parcel with the “Holy Scripture”?
By: Vanessa Uy
For over fifty years, the threat of starvation has always seemed unthinkable in affluent countries that benefited most from the post-World War II “Green Revolution”. But as more and more people manage to reach the upper echelons of the socio-economic ladder, they started to drastically affect the food supply of the entire world. As people get richer, they start to eat less grain. But they make up for this dietary paradigm shift by consuming more meat, and ironically that dietary lifestyle requires the consumption of enormous quantities of grain – by livestock.
Livestock – on average – must consume 10 kilograms of grain to produce 1 kilogram of meat. Thus the rich man consumes the equivalent of 10 kilograms of grain every time he consumes a kilogram of meat. In doing so, he disproportionately reduces the amount of grain available to feed the rest of humanity. And if there is not enough grain to go around, the rich man can easily outbid his less fortunate fellow human beings. As one United Nations food expert has succinctly put it more than thirty years ago, “The poor man’s grain is being siphoned off to feed the rich man’s cow.”
Then came the ill-conceived bio-fuel industry. Even though it is barely over three or so years old, it gained widespread acceptance with utter disregard for the ensuing environmental and social consequences. Thus the problem of the security of our global food supply has been greatly exacerbated. The rich man’s cow and the rich man’s car is now in competition – albeit unfairly when it comes to purchasing power – with the world’s poorer inhabitants when it comes to access to the world’s grain supply.
Thirty years ago when the bio-fuel industry was not yet the “logical alternative” to energy conservation measures. The world’s affluent society that embraced the American-Blue-Collar-Protestant-Work-Ethic-As-Ideology chose to harbor the perception that vegetarianism and energy conservation as a part of the Marxist-Leninist Socialism that threatens their Calvinist avarice. Even though reality seem to defy the socio-political construct of their perception like avarice should be a “God-given right”, or so it seems.
Inhabitants of underdeveloped Asian countries eat an average of 250 kilograms of grain per person per year. The average American – or anyone who can afford the “American Lifestyle” – consumes more than a metric ton of grain per person per year, and that’s before bio-fuels are added to the equation. The typical American eats 75 kilograms of grain annually as bread and breakfast cereals; The rest is fed to cattle, pigs and chickens to produce the meat, milk and eggs that serve as staples like grains do for the world’s poorer people. If we include the corn diverted to produce ethanol, our typical “American” is now consuming two metric tons of grain annually. Can all of us afford with a clear conscience the price we pay in maintaining our “American Dream” of freedom of mobility?
The recent food riots that happened in Egypt and Haiti is somewhat reminiscent to what happened back in the early 1970’s when droughts reduced global grain harvests and the oil crisis caused a sharp rise in staple food prices. It seems like our unquestioning faith to the energy intensive, chemically dependent agricultural methods of the Green Revolution has been betrayed. Even our current World Bank president Robert Zoellick has voiced alarm over spiraling prices of staple foods that could trigger more political unrest and even wars.
The impact of our current ill-conceived bio-fuel programs needs to be further examined since it is one of the main contributors to our current food shortage. Despite its touted “Green Credentials” many are finding out that the supposed “eco-friendliness” of a majority of our bio-fuel programs is a sham. What used to be a primeval tropical rainforest two years ago is now a bio-fuel plantation is more of a rule – rather than the exception when it comes to the bio-fuel industry. Will the inner environmentalist inside all of us be willing to just sit back and relax every time we’re enjoying the joyride in our bio-fueled “Sport Utility Vehicles”? Or will our policymakers be forced to fastrack bio-fuel programs that don't use staple food or the land used to grow them like India's Jatropha Bio-Fuel program which sadly is still in it's small scale / pilot stage?
The moral pressure over everyone jumping into the natural resource wasteful Western Industrial / American lifestyle has been around for over thirty years. Back then it was over increased meat consumption by both the rich man and his pet dog. Now, his car has joined into the picture. There’s even an increasing popularity being discussed on how Paris Hilton’s pet chihuahua has a bigger carbon footprint compared to the average working class Chinese. As more and more of us become affluent, will we ever adopt a less wasteful lifestyle? To me, not very likely because energy and natural resource conservation has been often touted as an anathema by those who have bought and sold the Calvinist / Protestant Work Ethic Avarice Driven ideology. They see vegetarianism and energy conservation as a very dangerous Left – Wing ideology. It looks like Conan O’Brien spoofing about Jesus Christ being a “NASCAR fan” has a kernel of truth in it. Or will it someday become part and parcel with the “Holy Scripture”?
Friday, March 7, 2008
Of Salinization and Agricultural Land Mismanagement
Despite the 5,000 year –or so – history of agriculture, does our contemporary agricultural community take heed on the lessons learned from the past on the causes of agricultural topsoil salinization?
By: Ringo Bones and Vanessa Uy
The serious – though preventable – problem of agricultural topsoil salinization is as old as the practice of agriculture itself, it seems like we at the present are not trying as hard as we should in preventing such problems. Especially by ignoring on what we had learned in the past about the phenomena of salinization and doing it in our peril. Is the problem still relevant in 2008 given we had learned so much before?
The Girsu Documents of southern Iran, which dates back 4,300 years, showed accounts on the progressive salinization of cultivated lands. The documents mentioned how the rich farmlands of Mesopotamia, in what is now Iraq, were ruined by irrigating them using the brackish water from the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. Wheat was once cultivated on a large scale but by 2,400 BC farmers turned to barley, which is more salt tolerant, as an alternative crop. Seasonal floods, which raised the water table, increasingly salted the topsoil. By 2,000 BC, even barley began to fail. Eventually the land was abandoned and the water table dropped, leaving a salt saturated desert where no crops can grow.
Typical of the alluvial plains of Mesopotamia and the rest of the Middle East, as in any dry area, there is relatively prodigious amount of salt in the ground because rain water, or even water in the surface soil, evaporates before the salty minerals has a chance to leach out. Therefore, any rise in the water table will lift up the salty water up to the surface soil. Seasonal floods, which cover large areas with standing water, can also cause such a rise. Our “start up” farming methods of centuries past has actively created such a situation in arid regions for centuries by digging a number of irrigation canals which continually silt up and overflow onto the surrounding land. Furthermore, in very hot and arid lands, the thirsty soil can actually suck up salty water from below via capillary action during the long, dry spells.
Despite the great havoc wreaked on the land before we learned better agricultural management, there is still hope that some areas – seemingly beyond salvation – may yet be brought back to full productivity via proper irrigation. A cause for hope is the fact that in most arid regions, rain has not yet leached the valuable surface minerals from the topsoil. At the same time, however, there is a concern that conventional irrigation methods will raise the water table and in doing so bring increasing amounts of harmful salt to the fertile surface through capillary action.
Years ago, a program was tried in Afghanistan (this was before the Soviet invasion and the subsequent Taliban takeovers) to combat and reverse salinization by flushing the fields with water to wash out the crystallized salt. And also deep drainage ditches were dug to assure that the water table stays below a safe minimum. Additionally, tamarisk trees were also planted. Tamarisk trees are salt tolerant plants and are being used to restore Afghan soil and these trees also sop up excess water thus guarding against further salinization.
The agricultural regions surrounding the Aral Sea and the Aral Sea itself was also a relatively recent victim of agricultural farmland mismanagement. Several rivers that fed the Aral Sea were diverted by the then Soviet Union to cotton fields used in the large scale production of nitrocellulose or guncotton (smokeless powder) to beef up the nation’s Cold War era arsenal. It was only in the last couple of years or so that existing programs were seriously involved in restoring the Aral Sea and the surrounding communities. Like the International Aral Sea Rehabilitation Fund – have shown favorable progress. But their work won’t be easy because the agricultural lands surrounding the Aral Sea not only suffer from salinization, but also contaminated with toxic pesticide residue left over from the chemically intensive Soviet era agricultural methods.
By: Ringo Bones and Vanessa Uy
The serious – though preventable – problem of agricultural topsoil salinization is as old as the practice of agriculture itself, it seems like we at the present are not trying as hard as we should in preventing such problems. Especially by ignoring on what we had learned in the past about the phenomena of salinization and doing it in our peril. Is the problem still relevant in 2008 given we had learned so much before?
The Girsu Documents of southern Iran, which dates back 4,300 years, showed accounts on the progressive salinization of cultivated lands. The documents mentioned how the rich farmlands of Mesopotamia, in what is now Iraq, were ruined by irrigating them using the brackish water from the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. Wheat was once cultivated on a large scale but by 2,400 BC farmers turned to barley, which is more salt tolerant, as an alternative crop. Seasonal floods, which raised the water table, increasingly salted the topsoil. By 2,000 BC, even barley began to fail. Eventually the land was abandoned and the water table dropped, leaving a salt saturated desert where no crops can grow.
Typical of the alluvial plains of Mesopotamia and the rest of the Middle East, as in any dry area, there is relatively prodigious amount of salt in the ground because rain water, or even water in the surface soil, evaporates before the salty minerals has a chance to leach out. Therefore, any rise in the water table will lift up the salty water up to the surface soil. Seasonal floods, which cover large areas with standing water, can also cause such a rise. Our “start up” farming methods of centuries past has actively created such a situation in arid regions for centuries by digging a number of irrigation canals which continually silt up and overflow onto the surrounding land. Furthermore, in very hot and arid lands, the thirsty soil can actually suck up salty water from below via capillary action during the long, dry spells.
Despite the great havoc wreaked on the land before we learned better agricultural management, there is still hope that some areas – seemingly beyond salvation – may yet be brought back to full productivity via proper irrigation. A cause for hope is the fact that in most arid regions, rain has not yet leached the valuable surface minerals from the topsoil. At the same time, however, there is a concern that conventional irrigation methods will raise the water table and in doing so bring increasing amounts of harmful salt to the fertile surface through capillary action.
Years ago, a program was tried in Afghanistan (this was before the Soviet invasion and the subsequent Taliban takeovers) to combat and reverse salinization by flushing the fields with water to wash out the crystallized salt. And also deep drainage ditches were dug to assure that the water table stays below a safe minimum. Additionally, tamarisk trees were also planted. Tamarisk trees are salt tolerant plants and are being used to restore Afghan soil and these trees also sop up excess water thus guarding against further salinization.
The agricultural regions surrounding the Aral Sea and the Aral Sea itself was also a relatively recent victim of agricultural farmland mismanagement. Several rivers that fed the Aral Sea were diverted by the then Soviet Union to cotton fields used in the large scale production of nitrocellulose or guncotton (smokeless powder) to beef up the nation’s Cold War era arsenal. It was only in the last couple of years or so that existing programs were seriously involved in restoring the Aral Sea and the surrounding communities. Like the International Aral Sea Rehabilitation Fund – have shown favorable progress. But their work won’t be easy because the agricultural lands surrounding the Aral Sea not only suffer from salinization, but also contaminated with toxic pesticide residue left over from the chemically intensive Soviet era agricultural methods.
Jatropha: Kick Starting Terraforming Technology?
With Jatropha’s ability to thrive in arid regions and it’s ability to stabilize and even reverse the effects of desertification. Will Jatropha cultivation be a baby – step towards the development of knowledge to be used in terraforming technology?
By: Vanessa Uy
With global warming now increasing the rate of desertification that’s poised to ruin the croplands of relatively arid developing nations. Even a “recently developed” country like China is loosing 54 billion yuan annually to desertification. In short, do we have to resort to a technology that only exists in science fiction literature in order to save humanity and our environment? But before delving any deeper, let us examine existing ideas in current use or will be used in making a certain piece of land suitable for farming and or returning it to its more naturally bio diverse state.
The concept of land reclamation is broadly defined by two distinct practices. One of which involves creating new land from the sea or riverbeds. Recently the most famous example is the one’s being demonstrated in the coastal region of Dubai, UAE – namely Palm Jumeirah or “The Palm Island” as the project is widely known in the West. The other practice of land reclamation involves restoring an area to a more natural state usually when an open pit mine is resealed, the topsoil returned so that the area can either be farmed or turned into an arboretum. Or recovering the chemical pollutants / contaminants from the topsoil and groundwater. Or reversing the effects of salination to make the land useable again. The last two are currently used to rehabilitate agricultural lands in the Aral Sea region, which was rendered useless due to irrigation and agricultural mismanagement that resulted in desertification compounded by salination and excessive amounts of pesticide contamination.
Did you know that even in dry climates, a typical virgin / undisturbed land is able to support considerable vegetation if not disturbed (the woodlands found in the Israel – Lebanon border for example). The roots of trees and plants secure the soil and hold water, thus preserving the area from erosion. But poorly managed cultivation / farming practices of the plains and timber cutting on the slopes removes roots and expose the land to wind and water erosion, which flushes away deposits of gravel from the lower slopes down to the plain. Further overcultivation destroys the productivity of the plains. Which is now set aside for grazing by herds of cattle. Agricultural activities of the area are forced to move up to the low slopes, where the hazard of rapid soil erosion of the topsoil is much greater. The ensuing loss of fertility of the steeper hillsides caused by topsoil runoff renders the area useless for further cultivation, and cattle grazing move up to the slopes, accelerating the process of erosion by constant grazing. If further “destruction” of the already barren landscape is left unchecked especially when there is no longer enough to browse for cattle. The area is then turned over to sheep and goats to be stripped clean. This results in the total desolation of a once fertile landscape and this stage is marked by the disappearance of all the topsoil and large sections of bedrock are exposed on the hill and plain. The resulting dusty land can no longer support life and could enlarge in area during times of scant or nonexistent rainfall. Thus accelerating the spread of desertification, like the one currently happening in China that’s costing the Beijing Government 54 billion yuan annually from farming revenue losses.
The man-made desertification described previously is now threatening to affect small villages in the South Sumatra region of Indonesia were the Palm Oil industry, driven by the bio-fuel boom, resorted to slash and burn methods of agriculture. Even ancestral lands of marginal economic value in the South Sumatra region are now starting to be affected by the hastily planned Palm Oil plantation expansion whose “green credentials” have recently been found of dubious value to say the least.
In evaluating the available solutions to halt the spread of desertification, Large scale Jatropha cultivation is probably one of the best – if not the best – way of stabilizing and even stopping the spread of desertification because Jatropha is not a genetically modified organism. Remember our bad experiences with genetically modified organisms back in the late 1990’s when Monsanto made a large scale trial cultivation of their genetically modified soybean crop. The genetically modified soybean was said to be pest and weed resistant, but quite a large number of people developed allergies when they consumed Monsanto’s genetically modified soybean.
Using Jatropha to make desertificated land arable can be compared that to the concept of terraforming. Terraforming as a concept is a staple in science fiction stories where an alien planet’s environment is made to be more hospitable to humans by using technology like large bio - reactors filled with genetically engineered blue-green algae to make the atmosphere breathable to humans. By turning excess atmospheric carbon dioxide into oxygen like the oft shown planned terraforming of the planet Venus and Mars. Desert environments are somewhat hostile to us humans especially if you take into account that you can’t grow any food crops there. As large scale Jatropha cultivation continues as a pioneering species, the leaves being shed as the plants continue to grow plus the waste pulp from bio-fuel production can be used as an organic fertilizer thus steadily increasing the fertility of the arid lands in which the Jatropha are planted. When it comes to the growing concern about increasing carbon dioxide in our atmosphere threatening the stability of our climate, large scale Jatropha plantations can also serve as a “carbon sink”. Jatropha can do this by absorbing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and depositing it into the plant’s own cellular structure as carbohydrates, sugars, and cellulose where it no longer contributes to the increased greenhouse effect. This is like hitting to birds with one stone since the increased carbon dioxide in our atmosphere is primarily responsible for the increased trend in desertification. This project could be the first step in making terraforming a practical environmental engineering reality, not just an esoteric / recondite intellectual exercise in science fiction novels.
By: Vanessa Uy
With global warming now increasing the rate of desertification that’s poised to ruin the croplands of relatively arid developing nations. Even a “recently developed” country like China is loosing 54 billion yuan annually to desertification. In short, do we have to resort to a technology that only exists in science fiction literature in order to save humanity and our environment? But before delving any deeper, let us examine existing ideas in current use or will be used in making a certain piece of land suitable for farming and or returning it to its more naturally bio diverse state.
The concept of land reclamation is broadly defined by two distinct practices. One of which involves creating new land from the sea or riverbeds. Recently the most famous example is the one’s being demonstrated in the coastal region of Dubai, UAE – namely Palm Jumeirah or “The Palm Island” as the project is widely known in the West. The other practice of land reclamation involves restoring an area to a more natural state usually when an open pit mine is resealed, the topsoil returned so that the area can either be farmed or turned into an arboretum. Or recovering the chemical pollutants / contaminants from the topsoil and groundwater. Or reversing the effects of salination to make the land useable again. The last two are currently used to rehabilitate agricultural lands in the Aral Sea region, which was rendered useless due to irrigation and agricultural mismanagement that resulted in desertification compounded by salination and excessive amounts of pesticide contamination.
Did you know that even in dry climates, a typical virgin / undisturbed land is able to support considerable vegetation if not disturbed (the woodlands found in the Israel – Lebanon border for example). The roots of trees and plants secure the soil and hold water, thus preserving the area from erosion. But poorly managed cultivation / farming practices of the plains and timber cutting on the slopes removes roots and expose the land to wind and water erosion, which flushes away deposits of gravel from the lower slopes down to the plain. Further overcultivation destroys the productivity of the plains. Which is now set aside for grazing by herds of cattle. Agricultural activities of the area are forced to move up to the low slopes, where the hazard of rapid soil erosion of the topsoil is much greater. The ensuing loss of fertility of the steeper hillsides caused by topsoil runoff renders the area useless for further cultivation, and cattle grazing move up to the slopes, accelerating the process of erosion by constant grazing. If further “destruction” of the already barren landscape is left unchecked especially when there is no longer enough to browse for cattle. The area is then turned over to sheep and goats to be stripped clean. This results in the total desolation of a once fertile landscape and this stage is marked by the disappearance of all the topsoil and large sections of bedrock are exposed on the hill and plain. The resulting dusty land can no longer support life and could enlarge in area during times of scant or nonexistent rainfall. Thus accelerating the spread of desertification, like the one currently happening in China that’s costing the Beijing Government 54 billion yuan annually from farming revenue losses.
The man-made desertification described previously is now threatening to affect small villages in the South Sumatra region of Indonesia were the Palm Oil industry, driven by the bio-fuel boom, resorted to slash and burn methods of agriculture. Even ancestral lands of marginal economic value in the South Sumatra region are now starting to be affected by the hastily planned Palm Oil plantation expansion whose “green credentials” have recently been found of dubious value to say the least.
In evaluating the available solutions to halt the spread of desertification, Large scale Jatropha cultivation is probably one of the best – if not the best – way of stabilizing and even stopping the spread of desertification because Jatropha is not a genetically modified organism. Remember our bad experiences with genetically modified organisms back in the late 1990’s when Monsanto made a large scale trial cultivation of their genetically modified soybean crop. The genetically modified soybean was said to be pest and weed resistant, but quite a large number of people developed allergies when they consumed Monsanto’s genetically modified soybean.
Using Jatropha to make desertificated land arable can be compared that to the concept of terraforming. Terraforming as a concept is a staple in science fiction stories where an alien planet’s environment is made to be more hospitable to humans by using technology like large bio - reactors filled with genetically engineered blue-green algae to make the atmosphere breathable to humans. By turning excess atmospheric carbon dioxide into oxygen like the oft shown planned terraforming of the planet Venus and Mars. Desert environments are somewhat hostile to us humans especially if you take into account that you can’t grow any food crops there. As large scale Jatropha cultivation continues as a pioneering species, the leaves being shed as the plants continue to grow plus the waste pulp from bio-fuel production can be used as an organic fertilizer thus steadily increasing the fertility of the arid lands in which the Jatropha are planted. When it comes to the growing concern about increasing carbon dioxide in our atmosphere threatening the stability of our climate, large scale Jatropha plantations can also serve as a “carbon sink”. Jatropha can do this by absorbing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and depositing it into the plant’s own cellular structure as carbohydrates, sugars, and cellulose where it no longer contributes to the increased greenhouse effect. This is like hitting to birds with one stone since the increased carbon dioxide in our atmosphere is primarily responsible for the increased trend in desertification. This project could be the first step in making terraforming a practical environmental engineering reality, not just an esoteric / recondite intellectual exercise in science fiction novels.
Friday, February 22, 2008
Will Jatropha Revolutionize the Bio-Fuel Industry?
With crude oil prices poised to reach the one hundred US dollar – per – barrel mark. Will a Jatropha based bio-fuel industry be a more eco-friendly and socially responsible alternative to food crops now currently used?
By: Vanessa Uy
With the controversy surrounding the use of staple food crops as a source of bio-fuels increasingly becoming a focus of a "media frenzy” for some time now. There might be a more Earth-friendly alternative without the unforeseen ecological impacts of genetically modified crops and the current “mono culture” based practice of intensified cultivation of a few species of staple food crops.
Jatropha, scientific name Jatropha podagrica also known as the physic nut, coral plant, gout plant, Buddha belly plant, is a plant which may hold such promise. Due to the plant’s ability to tolerate arid climates, fast growing and it’s usefulness for a variety of products, Jatropha can yield up to two tons of bio-diesel fuel per year per hectare. Put it another way, Jatropha can yield about 1,000 barrels of oil per year per square mile.
Basing on such relatively scant yield figures, Jatropha like other bio-fuels in general, is not yet an economically viable replacement to crude oil as a tradable commodity. But the plant’s other redeeming qualities like minimal requirement for irrigation and chemical fertilizers. And also a large field of Jatropha has the ability to stabilize or even reverse the effects of desertification means that growing the plant as a source of bio-fuel will not only be very eco-friendly but it will also not be in competition with staple food crops. And the plant is also a source of other products after the bio-fuel is extracted. Moreover, even diesel fuel from crude oil will cause far less pollution if bio-diesel additives are added. Not to mention the resulting revenue savings to those countries, which now don’t have to buy imported crude oil but instead develop their local agricultural industry by growing their own bio-fuel.
Currently, large - scale cultivation of Jatropha for bio-fuel purposes is still limited to some parts of India. But the plant’s hardy nature of thriving on land that’s too arid for staple food crops makes the large scale cultivation of Jatropha for the bio-fuel industry and other uses makes it a very eco-friendly enterprise. The practice is also socially responsible since Jatropha won’t be in competition with staple food crops. Thus staple food crop prices would remain stable. And Jatropha’s potential to reverse the effects of desertification could be tried in China where the effects of desertification is costing the country over 54 billion yuan annually. And a Jatropha bio-fuel industry in China could also help alleviate China’s chronic fuel shortage.
By: Vanessa Uy
With the controversy surrounding the use of staple food crops as a source of bio-fuels increasingly becoming a focus of a "media frenzy” for some time now. There might be a more Earth-friendly alternative without the unforeseen ecological impacts of genetically modified crops and the current “mono culture” based practice of intensified cultivation of a few species of staple food crops.
Jatropha, scientific name Jatropha podagrica also known as the physic nut, coral plant, gout plant, Buddha belly plant, is a plant which may hold such promise. Due to the plant’s ability to tolerate arid climates, fast growing and it’s usefulness for a variety of products, Jatropha can yield up to two tons of bio-diesel fuel per year per hectare. Put it another way, Jatropha can yield about 1,000 barrels of oil per year per square mile.
Basing on such relatively scant yield figures, Jatropha like other bio-fuels in general, is not yet an economically viable replacement to crude oil as a tradable commodity. But the plant’s other redeeming qualities like minimal requirement for irrigation and chemical fertilizers. And also a large field of Jatropha has the ability to stabilize or even reverse the effects of desertification means that growing the plant as a source of bio-fuel will not only be very eco-friendly but it will also not be in competition with staple food crops. And the plant is also a source of other products after the bio-fuel is extracted. Moreover, even diesel fuel from crude oil will cause far less pollution if bio-diesel additives are added. Not to mention the resulting revenue savings to those countries, which now don’t have to buy imported crude oil but instead develop their local agricultural industry by growing their own bio-fuel.
Currently, large - scale cultivation of Jatropha for bio-fuel purposes is still limited to some parts of India. But the plant’s hardy nature of thriving on land that’s too arid for staple food crops makes the large scale cultivation of Jatropha for the bio-fuel industry and other uses makes it a very eco-friendly enterprise. The practice is also socially responsible since Jatropha won’t be in competition with staple food crops. Thus staple food crop prices would remain stable. And Jatropha’s potential to reverse the effects of desertification could be tried in China where the effects of desertification is costing the country over 54 billion yuan annually. And a Jatropha bio-fuel industry in China could also help alleviate China’s chronic fuel shortage.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
