Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: Etanolo: Fidel ha ragione

Tenere a mente queste parole: "The food supply, in other words, is being 
diverted to feed  America's hungry cars".
Namib
----------------------
http://www.soyatech.com/news_story.php?id=2077
On Ethanol, Castro Is Right, Says The Economist
The Economist -- April 6, 2007 -- As a green fuel, ethanol is a good idea,
but the sort that America produces is bad.
It is not often that this newspaper finds itself in agreement with Fidel
Castro, Cuba's tottering Communist dictator. But when he roused himself from
his sickbed last week to write an article criticising George Bush's
unhealthy enthusiasm for ethanol, he had a point. Along with other critics
of America's ethanol drive, Mr Castro warned against the "sinister idea of
converting food into fuel". America's use of corn (maize) to make ethanol
biofuel, which can then be blended with petrol to reduce the country's
dependence on foreign oil, has already driven up the price of corn. As more
land is used to grow corn rather than other food crops, such as soy, their
prices also rise. And since corn is used as animal feed, the price of meat
goes up, too. The food supply, in other words, is being diverted to feed
America's hungry cars.
Ethanol is not much used in Europe, but it is a fuel additive in America,
and a growing number of cars can use either gasoline or ethanol. It
accounted for only around 3.5% of American fuel consumption last year, but
production is growing by 25% a year. That's because the government both
subsidises domestic production and penalises imports. As a result,
refineries are popping up like mushrooms all over the midwest, which now
sees itself as the Texas of green fuel.
Why is the government so generous? Because ethanol is just about the only
alternative-energy initiative that has broad political support. Farmers love
it because it provides a new source of subsidy. Hawks love it because it
offers the possibility that America may wean itself off Middle Eastern oil.
The automotive industry loves it, because it reckons that switching to a
green fuel will take the global-warming heat off cars. The oil industry
loves it because the use of ethanol as a fuel additive means it is business
as usual, at least for the time being. Politicians love it because by
subsidising it they can please all those constituencies. Taxpayers seem not
to have noticed that they are footing the bill.
Bad, good and best
But corn-based ethanol, the sort produced in America, is neither cheap nor
green. It requires almost as much energy to produce (more, say some studies)
as it releases when it is burned. And the subsidies on it cost taxpayers,
according to the International Institute for Sustainable Development,
somewhere between $5.5 billion and $7.3 billion a year.
Ethanol made from sugar cane, by contrast, is good. It produces far more
energy than is needed to grow it, and Brazil--the main producer of sugar
ethanol--has plenty of land available on which to grow sugar without
necessarily reducing food production or encroaching on rainforests. Other
developing countries with tropical climates, such as India, the Philippines
and even Cuba, could prosper by producing sugar ethanol and selling it to
rich Americans to fuel their cars.
There is a brighter prospect still out there: cellulosic ethanol. It is made
from feedstocks rich in cellulose, such as wood, various grasses and shrubs,
and agricultural wastes. Turning it into ethanol requires expensive enzymes,
but much research is under way to make the process cheaper. Cellulosic
ethanol would be even more energy-efficient to produce than sugar ethanol
and would not impinge at all upon food production. Eventually, it might even
allow countries with lots of trees and relatively few people, such as Sweden
and New Zealand, to grow their own fuel rather than import oil.
That is still some way off. In the meantime, America should bin its silly
policy. If it stopped taxing good ethanol and subsidising bad ethanol, the
former would flourish, the latter would wither, the world would be greener
and the American taxpayer would be richer.
Ethanol is not going to solve the world's energy problems on its own. But
its proponents do not claim that it will. Ethanol is just one of a portfolio
of new energy technologies that will be needed over the coming years. Good
ethanol, that is--not the bad stuff America is so keen on.

 diverted to feed  America's hungry cars".
Questo si può dire anche di altri prodotti che finora
non hanno causato scandalo in tale direzione (non è
che si nota ora perchè è Bushee a proporre la cosa?).
Comunque il discorso non serve lo dica l'Economist poichè
è semplice logica che se dirotti una coltivazione alimentare in
coltivazioni non alimentari, i primi salgono di prezzo.
C'è anche da dire che la speculazione finora ha fatto
i loro porci comodi dei prezzi bassi e ci sono i margini per mantenere
i prezzi al consumo decenti sebbene aumentino alla produzione
ed anche che molto potenziale agricolo dei Paesi in via di sviluppo
è stato soffocato dai contributi dati dai Paesi ricchi ad i loro parassitari
agricoltori (alla faccia del libero mercato)
Mi pare oltrettutto che l'articolo non critichi tanto l'etanolo,
quanto la sua produzione tramite mais mentre è favorevole a quello
da canna da zucchero (c'è poi da tenere conto di potenziali
migliorie ogm).
La canna da zucchero non è adatta al clima Usa?
Ci vuole troppa acqua?
Comunque in ogni caso, molti Paesi  del "terzo mondo"
possono diventare potenziali produttori della canna da zucchero,
altri sono produttori di petrolio (che comunque perchè il
tutto si regga deve mantenere prezzi alti) e il potenziale
agricolo mondiale non è del tutto espresso perchè non conveniva.
Se ci fosse un governo mondiale che facesse coincidere i vari
interessi direi che la cosa potrebbe produrre un buon riequilibrio...
peccato che a comandare siano il WTO e il FMI che non hanno alcun
interesse agli interessi generali.
Ciao!