Brazil peasants storm farms, torch sugar plants (ethanol) - Reuters

[Eugene]

Source: Reuters

Brazil peasants storm farms, torch sugar plants
13 Apr 2007 18:12:50 GMT
Source: Reuters

BRASILIA, April 13 (Reuters) - Landless peasants torched at
least 30 tonnes of unplanted sugar cane this week in Brazil's
main ethanol-producing state, pledging to invade other farms
they say are illegally leasing land to producers of the
alternative fuel, a peasant group said on Friday.

Lourival Placido de Paula, a leader of the Landless Peasants'
Movement, or MST, in western Sao Paulo state, said the
movement would "continue the struggle" against a boom in
new plantings of sugar cane, which is used to make ethanol.

De Paula said farms all around the region were planting or
preparing to plant cane.

Ethanol is starting to come under fire from left-leaning
critics, who say expanding cane fields in Brazil could crowd
out small farmers and food crops.

-snip-

Read more: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N13447755.htm

[poopfuel]

1. as a pro-ethanol advocate, here's what I say to the landless peasants

Go get 'em.

You deserve your own land, your own crops, the right to form cooperatives. You don't need big growers crowding you out due to greed. You should have your piece of the pie, enlist the unions on your behalf. Human rights should not be trampled at the expense of profits. Target those agribusinesses and forestry producers any way you need to and make noise. Then go out and grow and make your own.

It's not an issue of the evils of ethanol. It is simply another case of abuse against little guys carried out by big guys. It is about transnational capitalism, at its worst.

[jpak]

5. This isn't just an ethanol thing - cattle ranchers are also to blame.

IIRC much of the strife that spawned the Landless Peasant Movement in Brazil was the due of predatory antics of large cattle ranchers - not sugar cane producers...

http://web.mit.edu/12.000/www/m2006/teams/mariond/landownership.html

[jpak]

7. History of the landless peasant movement in Brazil

http://198.62.75.1/www2/mst/index1.html

It began long before anyone heard of cane ethanol...

[NNadir]

6. Actually it's about energy density.

If the peasants labor for ethanol, they labor for cars and cars are for people who are not peasants.

The way to real poverty is to insist on low energy density methods.

The only people who can really afford renewable energy are rich, at least in a relative sense.

[Tom Joad]

2. Go Reds, Smash State!

[chaska]

3. We DUers must go to the freakin' barricades against the ethanol push...

it's absolutely terrible policy.

[NNadir]

4. This is not as dramatic as the fellow who engaged in self-immolation to protest ethanol.

He was freaked out by the destruction of the Pantanal, the world's largest wetlands, to make ethanol farms.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4434970.stm

It's pretty funny to see ethanol protests starting in a way. Not so long ago everything about ethanol was presented as wonderful.

It's a demonstration of how the practical is very different than the theoretical.

Here's the real problem with ethanol: It takes a lot of land. What is happening here should have been predictable. It's going to get worse, too.

Biofuels may have a place, but they're not even close to being the panacea people have been dreaming they are.

[Peace Patriot]

8. A protest that reaches very far and wide, politically and economically...

The Bush Junta, their plans foiled for violent overthrow of South American democracies, send Bush on a mission for "deliverables" to their Global Corporate Predators masters, namely, a) "isolate" Hugo Chavez, Venezuela and the Bolivarian revolution (So. American self-determination and regional cooperation)--BUSH FAILED; b) "divide and conquer" Mercosur (So. American trade group, probable precursor to So. American "Common Market" and common currency)--BUSH FAILED; c) sell one of the many leftist governments on Global Corporate Predator corn/soy fuel production--POSSIBLE SUCCESS (Brazil fell prey--deal in the works).

Bush's trip to Latin America was almost a complete bust. Leaders from Brazil to Mexico lectured him publicly on the sovereignty of Latin American countries, with Mexico's rightwing president mentioning Venezuela in particular. Just prior to Bush's visit, a huge scandal in Columbia began to hit the newsstream, with the top echelons of Uribe's government (big pal of Bush) involved in rightwing paramilitary drug trafficking, mass slaughter of leftists and peasants, and a plot to assassinate Hugo Chavez (and probably to assassinate leaders/ destabilize other So. American countries, probably the other Andean democracies, Bolivia and Ecuador).

Foiled! Exposed! I think all the Latin American leaders, left and right, know about it. (I think it's only a matter of time before WE know about it--Bushite connections to these Colombian rightwing terrorists. Bush has larded billions of dollars on the Colombian military--and its CHIEF was recently named in the scandals.) I also think that at least one CONDITION was placed on Bush for his Latin American visit, by Latin American leaders--no Chavez bashing. (An AP reporter asked Bush why he wasn't mentioning Chavez--perhaps sniffing out the story of this condition placed on Bush).

Bush/Rice/Negroponte did not succeed in "isolating" Chavez/Venezuela. They succeeded in rallying bipartisan support for Venezuela's democratically elected government. They did not succeed in "dividing and conquering" Mersocur--Uruguay (leftist government) turned down their trade deal. But they apparently got to Lulu, to some degree. He was at Camp David recently, for further talks on a corn/soy fuel deal that may have very short-term benefits for Brazil's poor, but will devastate portions of the Amazon (no net gain on global warming, and probably worsening), and will throw thousands of farmers off their land, and will ultimately contribute to job loss and more poverty.

Lulu (Lula da Silva--president of Brazil) is not a bad guy--former steelworker, champion of workers and the poor; led the third world revolt at the WTO meeting in Cancun; has pointedly supported Chavez--but he does not have a good record on the environment. I have a lot of sympathy for all the new leftist leaders in Latin America. They are sometimes caught between a rock and a hard place. They are dealing with decades--and centuries--of oppression and impoverishment of the majority. Their economies are still entangled with US corporations and bad actors like the World Bank (--although some countries are quickly disentangling themselves--namely Argentina, Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador). Ethanol is a bad deal for Brazil. A very bad deal. But Lulu has obviously been tempted. And the best to hope for is that he drives a hard bargain for his people, for some significant short term gain. As far as I can see, he has the advantage over Bush. The Bush regime is teetering--and Bush's Global Corporate Predator puppetmasters are no doubt pressing for something like this (control of the ethanol market; expansion of production), as the price for propping up the failing Bush Junta and keeping its principles out of jail. (It's also possible that Lulu has traded this--the ethanol deal--for the Bushites backing off on violent disruption of Brazil's neighbors, or Brazil itself).

This farmer protest is highly significant, in this context. Small farmers have been leading the world in the fight against corporate agriculture and unfair trade. It also indicates that a significant portion of the left in Brazil (Lulu's natural constituency) see the long term implications of this bargain, and strongly oppose it. This could spell big trouble for Lulu. (And who knows if this is part of the Bushite plan?--they cause trouble wherever they go.) The small farmers--upon whom all of Latin America critically depends, for food supplies--and other interested groups, like environmentalists and labor unions, could present a huge problem for Lulu and his deal with Bush. (Note: US ethanol production has caused a quadrupling of the price of the tortilla in Mexico--with huge potential implications--starving people, mass unrest. Ethanol production is not only an assault on the environment, it seriously messes with the food supply in the western hemisphere.)

For more info on the bad consequences of mass ethanol production (which is mostly for filling US fuel-guzzling autos, and padding the pockets of global warming profiteers), see: http://www.foodfirst.org/node/1662

[poopfuel]

9. too many good points invalidated by inaccuracies

US ethanol production has not harmed Mexico's tortilla market. Free trade agreements have.
There is no food versus fuel conflict in the manufacture of ethanol. It's been talked about many times here. Every time that can of worms is opened up,usually by Lester Brown, it is shown to be false. Do you know how much food a permaculturist can grow in a couple of acres? You'd be surprised. It's not about not enough food, it's about who has money to pay for the food. This is the myth that will never die. You try to explain to people that the byproduct of the DDG from corn or any starch/sugar product is a healthier food for animals (most of our corn crop goes to animals) and they just cover their ears in disbelief. You tell them the DDGs can be returned to the soil as organic fertilizer, they say, well that isn't done enough so don't bother me. Concrete steps can be taken to make the manufacture of ethanol into a huge benefit for poor countries to become self sufficient in energy (someone just posted about alcohol fuel powered stoves). And instead of pointing this out as a better way, progressives curse the present system that favors the big guys. If we keep letting the big guys dominate the discussion, no one will ever know it's possible to do anything differently! We'll just continue with the attitude of "we're totally screwed, there's no hope, and it's useless to try."

No rainforest has been destroyed in the making of ethanol, only in the raising of cattle. No, the ethanol industry in this country and Brazil are NOT dominated by big corporations and the idea is to encourage the little guy and medium sized folks to persist, rather than getting swallowed up by the big guys. The majority of ethanol producers in this country are farmer cooperatives. check out e3biofuels.com for how plants can and should be built.

Don't rule out the use of desert crops or water based plants (cattails, algae) in the manufacture of ethanol. These take up no arable land and do no harm to desert or waterways.

There's more to say but it's been said in other posts.