View the original article here.
Good article Callum- it is a very complex debate.
According to a quick wikipedia search- the world cannot provide enough land for fuel-based agriculture and leave enough for food for consumption.
Also bio-fuels are argued as “hydrocarbon recyclers”:
it “costs” as much energy/resources to make biofuels as they allegedly save.
Thus no nett reduction of emissions, and if the industry grows- the nett effect is growth in undesirable emissions.
Palm oil industry is notorious for destruction of forest for sole-species plantation- and the West is guilty of de facto sponsorship of this environmental destruction.
India and China well within their rights to safeguard their energy security have opted for a resource they have cheap and secure access to- coal.
The whole debate leads to many uncomfortable other questions- should we start decreasing world population?
What right does the 1st world have to oppress the majority poor?
Then the issues of GM food cropping and IP rights on plants.
Can plants be patented?
Why does the first world have more rights to IP on plants than the plants’ original nation?
Then the issues of GM food cropping and IP rights on plants.
What alternative foods/food sources should we look into?
What about alternative food farming practices?
For example- soy bean tempe- once called Javanese meat- provides the same if not more protein per portion than animal meat- yet requires less energy and resource to produce. Same for Shiitake mushrooms.
Summarily- the West caused the problem- so it is entirely their responsibility to fix it.
It is unjust, immoral and offensive in the extreme- the negligible polluting Third World be inconvenienced by the global minority and their First World Greed.
Copyright Indonesia Matters 2006-10
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact