FOOD CRISIS: ‘The greatest demonstration of the historical failure of the capitalist model’

Ian Angus, April 28, Socialist Voice

“If the government cannot lower the cost of living it simply has to leave. If the police and UN troops want to shoot at us, that’s OK, because in the end, if we are not killed by bullets, we’ll die of hunger.” — A demonstrator in Port-au-Prince, Haiti

In Haiti, where most people get 22% fewer calories than the minimum needed for good health, some are staving off their hunger pangs by eating “mud biscuits” made by mixing clay and water with a bit of vegetable oil and salt.[1]

Meanwhile, in Canada, the federal government is currently paying $225 for each pig killed in a mass cull of breeding swine, as part of a plan to reduce hog production. Hog farmers, squeezed by low hog prices and high feed costs, have responded so enthusiastically that the kill will likely use up all the allocated funds before the program ends in September.

Some of the slaughtered hogs may be given to local Food Banks, but most will be destroyed or made into pet food. None will go to Haiti.

This is the brutal world of capitalist agriculture — a world where some people destroy food because prices are too low, and others literally eat dirt because food prices are too high.

Record prices for staple foods

We are in the midst of an unprecedented worldwide food price inflation that has driven prices to their highest levels in decades. The increases affect most kinds of food, but in particular the most important staples — wheat, corn, and rice.

The UN Food and Agriculture Organization says that between March 2007 and March 2008 prices of cereals increased 88%, oils and fats 106%, and dairy 48%. The FAO food price index as a whole rose 57% in one year — and most of the increase occurred in the past few months.

Another source, the World Bank, says that that in the 36 months ending February 2008, global wheat prices rose 181% and overall global food prices increased by 83%. The Bank expects most food prices to remain well above 2004 levels until at least 2015.

The most popular grade of Thailand rice sold for $198 a tonne five years ago and $323 a tonne a year ago. On April 24, the price hit $1,000.

Increases are even greater on local markets — in Haiti, the market price of a 50 kilo bag of rice doubled in one week at the end of March.

These increases are catastrophic for the 2.6 billion people around the world who live on less than US$2 a day and spend 60% to 80% of their incomes on food. Hundreds of millions cannot afford to eat.

This month, the hungry fought back.

Taking to the streets

In Haiti, on April 3, demonstrators in the southern city of Les Cayes built barricades, stopped trucks carrying rice and distributed the food, and tried to burn a United Nations compound. The protests quickly spread to the capital, Port-au-Prince, where thousands marched on the presidential palace, chanting “We are hungry!” Many called for the withdrawal of UN troops and the return of Jean-Bertrand Aristide, the exiled president whose government was overthrown by foreign powers in 2004.

President René Préval, who initially said nothing could be done, has announced a 16% cut in the wholesale price of rice. This is at best a stop-gap measure, since the reduction is for one month only, and retailers are not obligated to cut their prices.

The actions in Haiti paralleled similar protests by hungry people in more than twenty other countries.

• In Burkino Faso, a two-day general strike by unions and shopkeepers demanded “significant and effective” reductions in the price of rice and other staple foods.
• In Bangladesh, over 20,000 workers from textile factories in Fatullah went on strike to demand lower prices and higher wages. They hurled bricks and stones at police, who fired tear gas into the crowd.
• The Egyptian government sent thousands of troops into the Mahalla textile complex in the Nile Delta, to prevent a general strike demanding higher wages, an independent union, and lower prices. Two people were killed and over 600 have been jailed.
• In Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire, police used tear gas against women who had set up barricades, burned tires and closed major roads. Thousands marched to the President’s home, chanting “We are hungry,” and “Life is too expensive, you are killing us.”
• In Pakistan and Thailand, armed soldiers have been deployed to prevent the poor from seizing food from fields and warehouses.

Similar protests have taken place in Cambodia, Cameroon, Ethiopia, Honduras, Indonesia, Madagascar, Mauritania, Niger, Peru, Philippines, Senegal, Thailand, Uzbekistan, and Zambia. On April 2, the president of the World Bank told a meeting in Washington that there are 33 countries where price hikes could cause social unrest.

A Senior Editor of Time magazine warned:

“The idea of the starving masses driven by their desperation to take to the streets and overthrow the ancien regime has seemed impossibly quaint since capitalism triumphed so decisively in the Cold War…. And yet, the headlines of the past month suggest that skyrocketing food prices are threatening the stability of a growing number of governments around the world. …. when circumstances render it impossible to feed their hungry children, normally passive citizens can very quickly become militants with nothing to lose.”[2]

What’s Driving Food Inflation?

Since the 1970s, food production has become increasingly globalized and concentrated. A handful of countries dominate the global trade in staple foods. 80% of wheat exports come from six exporters, as does 85% of rice. Three countries produce 70% of exported corn. This leaves the world’s poorest countries, the ones that must import food to survive, at the mercy of economic trends and policies in those few exporting companies. When the global food trade system stops delivering, it’s the poor who pay the price.

For several years, the global trade in staple foods has been heading towards a crisis. Four related trends have slowed production growth and pushed prices up.

The End of the Green Revolution: In the 1960s and 1970s, in an effort to counter peasant discontent in south and southeast Asia, the U.S. poured money and technical support into agricultural development in India and other countries. The “green revolution” — new seeds, fertilizers, pesticides, agricultural techniques and infrastructure — led to spectacular increases in food production, particularly rice. Yield per hectare continued expanding until the 1990s.

Today, it’s not fashionable for governments to help poor people grow food for other poor people, because “the market” is supposed to take care of all problems. The Economist reports that “spending on farming as a share of total public spending in developing countries fell by half between 1980 and 2004.”[3] Subsidies and R&D money have dried up, and production growth has stalled.

As a result, in seven of the past eight years the world consumed more grain than it produced, which means that rice was being removed from the inventories that governments and dealers normally hold as insurance against bad harvests. World grain stocks are now at their lowest point ever, leaving very little cushion for bad times.

Climate Change: Scientists say that climate change could cut food production in parts of the world by 50% in the next 12 years. But that isn’t just a matter for the future:

• Australia is normally the world’s second-largest exporter of grain, but a savage multi-year drought has reduced the wheat crop by 60% and rice production has been completely wiped out.
• In Bangladesh in November, one of the strongest cyclones in decades wiped out a million tonnes of rice and severely damaged the wheat crop, making the huge country even more dependent on imported food.

Other examples abound. It’s clear that the global climate crisis is already here, and it is affecting food.

Agrofuels: It is now official policy in the U.S., Canada and Europe to convert food into fuel. U.S. vehicles burn enough corn to cover the entire import needs of the poorest 82 countries.[4]

Ethanol and biodiesel are very heavily subsidized, which means, inevitably, that crops like corn (maize) are being diverted out of the food chain and into gas tanks, and that new agricultural investment worldwide is being directed towards palm, soy, canola and other oil-producing plants. This increases the prices of agrofuel crops directly, and indirectly boosts the price of other grains by encouraging growers to switch to agrofuel.

As Canadian hog producers have found, it also drives up the cost of producing meat, since corn is the main ingredient in North American animal feed.

Oil Prices: The price of food is linked to the price of oil because food can be made into a substitute for oil. But rising oil prices also affect the cost of producing food. Fertilizer and pesticides are made from petroleum and natural gas. Gas and diesel fuel are used in planting, harvesting and shipping.[5]

It’s been estimated that 80% of the costs of growing corn are fossil fuel costs — so it is no accident that food prices rise when oil prices rise.

* * *

By the end of 2007, reduced investment in the third world, rising oil prices, and climate change meant that production growth was slowing and prices were rising. Good harvests and strong export growth might have staved off a crisis — but that isn’t what happened. The trigger was rice, the staple food of three billion people.

Early this year, India announced that it was suspending most rice exports in order to rebuild its reserves. A few weeks later, Vietnam, whose rice crop was hit by a major insect infestation during the harvest, announced a four-month suspension of exports to ensure that enough would be available for its domestic market.

India and Vietnam together normally account for 30% of all rice exports, so their announcements were enough to push the already tight global rice market over the edge. Rice buyers immediately started buying up available stocks, hoarding whatever rice they could get in the expectation of future price increases, and bidding up the price for future crops. Prices soared. By mid-April, news reports described “panic buying” of rice futures on the Chicago Board of Trade, and there were rice shortages even on supermarket shelves in Canada and the U.S.

Why the rebellion?

There have been food price spikes before. Indeed, if we take inflation into account, global prices for staple foods were higher in the 1970s than they are today. So why has this inflationary explosion provoked mass protests around the world?

The answer is that since the 1970s the richest countries in the world, aided by the international agencies they control, have systematically undermined the poorest countries’ ability to feed their populations and protect themselves in a crisis like this.

Haiti is a powerful and appalling example.

Rice has been grown in Haiti for centuries, and until twenty years ago Haitian farmers produced about 170,000 tonnes of rice a year, enough to cover 95% of domestic consumption. Rice farmers received no government subsidies, but, as in every other rice-producing country at the time, their access to local markets was protected by import tariffs.

In 1995, as a condition of providing a desperately needed loan, the International Monetary Fund required Haiti to cut its tariff on imported rice from 35% to 3%, the lowest in the Caribbean. The result was a massive influx of U.S. rice that sold for half the price of Haitian-grown rice. Thousands of rice farmers lost their lands and livelihoods, and today three-quarters of the rice eaten in Haiti comes from the U.S.[6]

U.S. rice didn’t take over the Haitian market because it tastes better, or because U.S. rice growers are more efficient. It won out because rice exports are heavily subsidized by the U.S. government. In 2003, U.S. rice growers received $1.7 billion in government subsidies, an average of $232 per hectare of rice grown.[7] That money, most of which went to a handful of very large landowners and agribusiness corporations, allowed U.S. exporters to sell rice at 30% to 50% below their real production costs.

In short, Haiti was forced to abandon government protection of domestic agriculture — and the U.S. then used its government protection schemes to take over the market.

There have been many variations on this theme, with rich countries of the north imposing “liberalization” policies on poor and debt-ridden southern countries and then taking advantage of that liberalization to capture the market. Government subsidies account for 30% of farm revenue in the world’s 30 richest countries, a total of US$280 billion a year,[8] an unbeatable advantage in a “free” market where the rich write the rules.

The global food trade game is rigged, and the poor have been left with reduced crops and no protections.

In addition, for several decades the World Bank and International Monetary Fund have refused to advance loans to poor countries unless they agree to “Structural Adjustment Programs” (SAP) that require the loan recipients to devalue their currencies, cut taxes, privatize utilities, and reduce or eliminate support programs for farmers.

All this was done with the promise that the market would produce economic growth and prosperity — instead, poverty increased and support for agriculture was eliminated.

“The investment in improved agricultural input packages and extension support tapered and eventually disappeared in most rural areas of Africa under SAP. Concern for boosting smallholders’ productivity was abandoned. Not only were governments rolled back, foreign aid to agriculture dwindled. World Bank funding for agriculture itself declined markedly from 32% of total lending in 1976-8 to 11.7% in 1997-9.”[9]

During previous waves of food price inflation, the poor often had at least some access to food they grew themselves, or to food that was grown locally and available at locally set prices. Today, in many countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America, that’s just not possible. Global markets now determine local prices — and often the only food available must be imported from far away.

* * *

Food is not just another commodity — it is absolutely essential for human survival. The very least that humanity should expect from any government or social system is that it try to prevent starvation — and above all that it not promote policies that deny food to hungry people.

That’s why Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez was absolutely correct on April 24, to describe the food crisis as “the greatest demonstration of the historical failure of the capitalist model.”

What needs to be done to end this crisis, and to ensure that doesn’t happen again?
Part Two of this article will examine those questions.

Ian Angus is the editor of Climate and Capitalism

---

Footnotes

[1] Kevin Pina. “Mud Cookie Economics in Haiti.” Haiti Action Network, Feb. 10, 2008. http://www.haitiaction.net/News/HIP/2_10_8/2_10_8.html

[2] Tony Karon. “How Hunger Could Topple Regimes.” Time, April 11, 2008. http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1730107,00.html

[3] “The New Face of Hunger.” The Economist, April 19, 2008.

[4] Mark Lynas. “How the Rich Starved the World.” New Statesman, April 17, 2008. http://www.newstatesman.com/200804170025

[5] Dale Allen Pfeiffer. Eating Fossil Fuels. New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island BC, 2006. p. 1

[6] Oxfam International Briefing Paper, April 2005. “Kicking Down the Door.” http://www.oxfam.org/en/files/bp72_rice.pdf

[7] Ibid.

[8] OECD Background Note: Agricultural Policy and Trade Reform. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/52/23/36896656.pdf

[9] Kjell Havnevik, Deborah Bryceson, Lars-Erik Birgegård, Prosper Matondi & Atakilte Beyene. “African Agriculture and the World Bank: Development or Impoverishment?” Links International Journal of Socialist Renewal, http://www.links.org.au/node/328

Chávez Increases Corn Prices, Announces Shift From Oil to Food in Venezuela

James Suggett, April 27th, Venezuelanalysis.com

Mérida, April 26, 2008 (venezuelanalysis.com)-- The president of Venezuela, Hugo Chávez, announced Thursday that the regulated prices of corn and sorghum will be raised by 30% and that a new Socialist Agricultural Development Fund (FONDAS) has been launched to promote national food production.

“The day will arrive when, just like we send petroleum to other countries, we will be able to do the same with corn, because severe hunger continues to grow [worldwide],” the president stated.

Venezuela produced 2.2 million tons of corn last year, which represents a 300% increase in national corn production since 1999, Chávez declared. He recounted that corn production had fallen in the decade prior to his election from 1.2 million tons in 1988 to 980,000 tons in 1998.

Nicolás Constatino, the president of the Venezuelan Corn Flour Industries Association, which has made several appeals for an increase in the regulated price of corn, said the new adjusted price should actually be 25% higher than it is, and that the price of corn flour should now be increased by 29% to maintain equilibrium, if the country is to satisfy its growing internal demand in 2009.

Chávez assured that in addition to increased prices, corn producers will be offered a per-kilo subsidy, low interest rates on credits, and certified seeds with the help of the new 26 hectare (64 acre) “socialist” genetic technology center in Barinas state, from which Thursday’s announcements were made.

Also, Venezuela will continue to receive tractors and other agricultural technology from Argentina and plans are underway to build a tractor factory with assistance from Iran, Chávez mentioned, emphasizing his gratitude toward these nations for their cooperation in Venezuela’s efforts to achieve food security.

The head of state also referred to the United Nations’ call for increased world food production to help alleviate the food crisis that has spurred riots and protests in 33 nations. “The FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) called on all the countries in the world to produce more food, and in this we are already moving forward,” Chávez boasted.

He highlighted that general food production in Venezuela has risen by 2.3% annually during his presidential term, compared to .9% during the decade prior. This is good, but not good enough, because producing enough for national consumption plus exports “is the ideal and we are going to achieve it,” the president said.

However, the president of the National Federation of Cattle Producers (FEDENAGAS), Genaro Méndez, said the government “presents statistics that do not correspond to reality.”

According to Méndez, the dairy industry in the country is at a “standstill,” and beef production decreased by 100,000 tons last year, in contrast to government figures. “I ask that the national government tell the truth to the producers in the country,” Méndez said.

But Vice President Ramón Carrizalez assured in an interview that the government has boosted its research efforts on the entire food supply chain, and now has an accurate assessment of 80% of the national situation.

Carrizalez said this is part of the “permanent” process of “Revision, Rectification, and Re-advance,” the “three Rs” which have characterized the period following the electoral defeat of the constitutional reform proposal last year.

With regard to food, the government “has had to make changes because we realized we were wrong in some things… we did not eliminate the bureaucratic obstacles like we believed… we are permanently self-criticizing and correcting, but what I can for sure guarantee is that we have advanced.”

According to Carrizalez, the government does not want to isolate the private sector, but rather has “been in a process of frank conversations” with private businesses. The private sector has been right in some cases, prompting the government to improve the situation by lifting price controls on certain products and reducing obstacles to imports, Carrizalez recounted.

“There exists a serious private sector that wants to resolve problems, that wants to converse with us. We do not ask that they come politically in our direction, no, what we want is a nationalist attitude. With them, we want to work,” the Vice President told Panorama newspaper.

The government’s goal is to have a 3 month reserve supply of food by the end of this year, Carrizalez said. He insisted that the situation in Venezuela be understood within the context of the global food crisis, which has caused world food reserves to drop to a 30-year low, according to the director of the World Food Program Josette Sheeran.

President Chávez said Thursday that the method for achieving its goals is “socialism,” which is “the future.” He pointed out that the government has nationalized large, idle estates and turned them into Socialist Production Units (UPS) “with their own economic model” based on “social property, which is not private property, it is for everyone.”

Now, it is the workers’ responsibility to transform production from capitalist to socialist, the president said. He called for the creation of a “National Socialist Farmers Front” of agricultural workers, who “should possess a conscience of social duty and exercise this for the collective benefit.”

Reflecting on the future development of Venezuela, Chávez stressed that “we should move away from the oil-based production model. The future of the country is in the land, in the agricultural project, not in petroleum. Food production is the most important.”

ALBA Summit in Venezuela Responds to World Food Crisis and Bolivian Crisis

James Suggett, April 24th, Venezuelanalysis.com

Mérida, April 24, 2008 (venezuelanalysis.com)-- Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez convened an extraordinary meeting of member nations of the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas (ALBA) in Caracas early Wednesday morning to discuss the world food crisis and the political crisis in eastern Bolivia.

At the meeting, Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega, Bolivian President Evo Morales, Cuban Vice President Carlos Lage, and Chávez signed a series of accords to promote mutual agricultural development, create a joint food distribution network, and create a $100 million ALBA food security fund.

“The food crisis is the greatest demonstration of the historical failure of the capitalist model,” President Chávez declared.

Highlighting the most recent report by the United Nations World Food Program which called the food crisis a “silent Tsunami” and demanded an internationally coordinated response, Chávez said, “ALBA announces its willingness to assume responsibility, ALBA responds immediately… here we are.”

Cuban Vice President Carlos Lage commented that the crisis is part of an “unjust international economic order” in which “the logic is profit and not the satisfaction of peoples` needs.”

Lage further denounced the fact that the United States spends $500 billion per year on the Iraq War while the U.N. had to plea last month for $500 million donations in order to meet its emergency food quotas.

Social unrest has burgeoned in over thirty countries following an 80% increase in world food prices over the last three years, according to the World Bank. U.S. President George W. Bush authorized $200 million in global emergency food aid April 14th, while Venezuela, which has faced food shortages recently, sent 364 tons of meat, chicken, ham, milk, lentils, olive oil, and vegetables to its neighbor Haiti, which has experienced violent riots over rising food costs.

President Morales affirmed Wednesday that “it is the responsibility of presidents to act in concert to guarantee the food security of our peoples.”

Morales also criticized the diversion of farmland for the production of biofuels, which is widely recognized to have contributed to rising food prices, in a speech at the inauguration of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues in New York Monday.

“If we do not bring an end to the capitalist system, it will be impossible to save the Earth,” Morales concluded.

The agricultural development agreement signed by ALBA nations Wednesday will focus on rice, corn, oil for human consumption, beans, beef, and milk, and the improvement of watering systems. To avoid price speculation by private intermediaries, the heads of state agreed to create a public food distribution network with regulated prices. To fund these projects, the presidents agreed to create a $100 million fund in the Bank of ALBA, which is still in formation.

The four leaders also signed a joint statement Wednesday, expressing solidarity with Bolivia, where there is a secessionist movement led by elite landowners in the natural resource-rich lowland Bolivian provinces of Santa Cruz, Tarija, Beni, and Pando.

ALBA countries pledged “unrestricted support for the process of sovereign and democratic changes” in Bolivia, and harshly denounced the separatist movement, calling it a “frank violation of the constitution and Bolivian laws.”

The declaration was read publicly by Vice President Lage and advocated open dialogue to solve the crisis in Bolivia. It rejected foreign interference, but at the same time called on the international community to “act quickly and decisively in solidarity with the people and the government of Bolivia to consolidate political, economic, and social stability in the region.”

Chávez made clear his suspicion that the “empire wants to halt South American integration and they have chosen, now, Bolivia as a target [because] they do not want the grand fatherland of Latin America and the Caribbean to be born.”

In February it was revealed that the U.S. Embassy in Bolivia had pressured Peace Corps volunteers and Fulbright scholars to spy on the activity of Cubans and Venezuelans working in Bolivia. A report by Bolivia-based independent journalist Ben Dangl the same month revealed evidence that the U.S. is channeling funds from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) to the secessionist groups.

In New York Monday, Morales said the separatist referendum planned for May 4th was “a bridge point for the Empire here in Bolivia disguised by the euphemism of autonomy.”

Morales also asked for international support to end what he called “slavery” in Bolivia, following recent denunciations by sugar cane laborers on large estates in the Santa Cruz province that over 8,000 children work in the fields without pay.

Chávez, whose administration has redistributed over 2 million hectares (4.94 million acres) of mostly state owned land and some from large estates and increased government financing for agricultural production by 728% over the past three years, proposed Wednesday that Bolivian agricultural development be a priority of ALBA, “with the permission and the pardon of Nicaragua, which is also on the priority list.”

He also said ALBA countries are lucky to have responded so quickly to the present food crisis, but are now “obligated to amplify, make more dynamic and profound” these regional food security initiatives.

ALBA is a fair trade block created by Cuba and Venezuela in 2005 as an alternative to the Free Trade Agreement for the Americas (FTAA) promoted by the U.S. government. Since then, Bolivia, Nicaragua, and Dominica have joined the block.

Hansen, Clock running out on irreversible climate change

Dr James Hansen, April 28, Online Opinion

New York: fifty years ago, Yankee Stadium had about 70,000 seats. It seldom sold out, and almost any kid could afford the cheapest seats. Capacity was reduced to about 57,000 when the stadium was remodeled in the 1970s. Most games sell out now, and prices have gone up.

The new stadium, opening next year, will reduce seating to about 51,800. This intentional contraction is aimed at guaranteeing sellouts, increasing demand, allowing the owners, in short order, to triple prices or more. The owners have learned that scarcity will fatten their wallets. The plan may discriminate against the lower middle class, but as long as the owner is footing the bill without public subsidies, there may be little grounds for complaint.

Now fossil-fuel moguls are intent on hoodwinking the entire planet with an analogous scheme.

The basic trick is oil producers overstating fossil-fuel reserves. Government "energy information" departments parrot industry. Partly because of disinformation, the major efforts needed to develop alternative energies have not been made.

The reality of limited supply forces prices higher. Eventually, sales volume will begin to decline, but fossil-fuel moguls will make more money than ever. They'll continue to assert that there's plenty more oil, gas or coal to be found, aiming to keep the suckers on the hook. Indeed, they may find somewhat more in the deep ocean, under national parks, in polar regions, offshore, and in other environmentally sensitive areas. They don't need much to keep the suckers paying higher and higher prices.

Oil "reserves" suddenly doubled when Organization for the Petroleum Exporting Countries decided that production quotas would be proportional to official reserves. These higher reserves are, at least in part, phantom. Coal "reserves" are based on estimates made many decades ago. Closer study shows that extractable coal reserves are vastly overstated, consistent with present production difficulties and rising prices. The presumed 200-year supply of coal in the United States is a myth, but it serves industry moguls well.

Conventional fossil-fuel supplies are limited, even if we tear up the Earth to extract every last drop of oil and shard of coal. Tearing up the Earth to get at those last drops - Exxon/Mobil proudly advertises that they're drilling the depths of the ocean and searching the most extreme pristine environments - is as insane as the smoker who trudged four miles through a raging storm to buy a pack of Camel cigarettes to feed his nicotine addiction.

It would be possible to find more fossil fuels, and extend our addiction and pollution of the environment, should we be so foolish as to take the path of extracting unconventional fossil fuels such as tar shale and tar sands on a large scale. That choice cannot be left to the discretion of industry moguls. The planet does not belong to them.

Basic facts on reserves must be combined with basic climate facts described in the paper Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim?

Our conclusion is that, if humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to the one on which civilisation developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, CO2 must be reduced from its present 385ppm (parts per million) to, at most, 350ppm. We find that peak CO2 can be kept to about 425ppm, with large estimates for oil and gas reserves, if coal use is phased out by 2030 (except where CO2 is captured and sequestered) and unconventional fossil fuels are not tapped substantially. Peak CO2 can be kept close to 400ppm, if actual reserves are closer to those estimated by "peakists", who believe that the globe is already at peak global oil production, having extracted about half of readily extractable oil resources.

This lower 400ppm peak can be ensured, assuming phase-out of coal emissions by 2030, if a practical limit on reserves is achieved by means of actions that prevent fossil-fuel extraction from public lands, off-shore regions under government control, environmentally pristine regions and extreme environments. The concerned public can influence this matter, but time is short, the industry voice is strong and climate effects have not yet become so obvious to the public as to overwhelm the disinformation from industry moguls.

A near-term moratorium on coal-fired power plants and constraints on oil extraction in extreme environments are essential, because once CO2 is emitted to the air much of it will remain there for centuries. Improved agricultural and forestry practices, mostly reforestation, could draw down atmospheric CO2 by about 50ppm by the end of the century. But a greater drawdown by such more-or-less natural methods seems impractical, making a long-term overshoot of the 350ppm target level, with potentially disastrous consequences, a near certainty if the world stays on its business-as-usual course.

If we choose a different path, which permits the possibility of achieving 350ppm CO2 or lower this century, we can minimise the chance of passing tipping points that spiral out of control, such as disintegration of ice sheets, rapid sea level rise and extermination of countless species. At the same time, we could solve problems that seem intractable, such as acidification of the ocean with consequent loss of coral reefs.

In any event, we must move beyond fossil fuels soon, because a large fraction of CO2 emissions will linger in the atmosphere for many centuries.

The world must move to zero fossil-fuel emissions. This is a fact, a certainty. So why not do it sooner, in time to avert climate crises? At the same time, we halt other pollution that comes from fossil fuels, including mercury pollution, conventional air pollution, problems stemming from mountain-top removal and more.

Breaking an addiction is not easy. But we may be like the smoker who trudged four miles through rain to get a pack of Camels - when he got back to his motel he threw the pack away and never smoked again.

Fossil-fuel addiction is more difficult - one person's epiphany cannot solve the problem. This problem requires global co-operation. We must be on a new path within the next several years, or reducing CO2 levels this century becomes implausible. Developed countries, the source of most excess CO2 in the air today, must lead in developing clean energy and halting emissions. Yet it is hardly a sacrifice: "Green" jobs will be an economic stimulus and a boon to worker well-being.

A major fight is brewing - it might be called war. On the one side, we find the short-term financial interests of the fossil-fuel industry. On the other side: young people and other beings who will inherit the planet. The fight seems uneven. The fossil-fuel industry is launching a disinformation campaign, and they have powerful influence in capitals around the world.

Young people seem pretty puny in comparison to industry moguls, and animals don't talk or vote. The battle may start with local and regional skirmishes, one coal plant at a time. But it could build rapidly - we're running out of time.

Meanwhile, the moguls' dirtiest trick is spewing "green" messages to the public - propaganda, intended to leave the impression they're moving in the right direction. Meanwhile they hire scientific has-beens to dispute evidence and confuse the public.

When will we know that the long-term public interest has overcome the greed? When investors, companies and governments begin to invest en masse in renewable energies, when all aim for zero-carbon emissions.

Carbon trading to hit poor hard

Reid Sexton, April 27, The Age

LOW-INCOME families in areas with poor public transport will be hundreds of dollars a year worse off than hard-up households in the inner city, under the Federal Government's plan to introduce a carbon trading scheme.

The scheme could add more pressure on families already struggling with mortgage stress and rising petrol prices in Melbourne's outer suburbs, where cars are often the only way to get around.

According to a Brotherhood of St Laurence report, poor households in municipalities without public transport will pay up to an additional $1220 a year if the new scheme imposes a levy of $35 a tonne on carbon.

Inner or middle municipalities with good access to public transport will pay between $905 and $1018.

The report, Carbon Use in Poor Victorian Households by Local Government Area, looked at the municipalities with low-income families where carbon emissions were highest — Melton, Brimbank, Yarra Ranges, Cardinia and Whittlesea.

Only Brimbank is identified as having adequate public transport, underlining the link between a far-reaching network and carbon emissions.

Low-income households have less carbon output than the state average — 34.7 tonnes versus 36.5 tonnes annually — but as a proportion of total income they would pay far more under the proposed carbon scheme.

Rural Victoria, where households spend the same on electricity but more on petrol and cars, will be particularly hard hit, with rises of up to $1300 a year.

The findings, the report's authors say, underline the link between poor public transport and car use, and the massive task facing Canberra to ensure the carbon trading scheme doesn't penalise households that are already disadvantaged.

The study supports the findings of a report by Monash University last year, which found that more than 20,000 Melbourne households had incomes of less than $500 a week but used two or more cars because of a lack of public transport.

It found that "forced car ownership" perpetuated social disadvantage by compelling households to spend on cars and car-related products.

Janet Stanley, co-author of the Brotherhood of St Laurence report, said its finding were particularly grim for those in the outer suburbs who would have to continue using cars when carbon trading was introduced.

"It suggests a strong argument for better public transport services around those suburbs," Dr Stanley said.

"These people need to get to work, they need to get to the doctor … these people have no choice but to pay out extra money for mobility.

"It's at a cost to other things in their life. It could be their child can't afford to go on a school camp or they can't afford the school uniform."

Climate Camp

BOLIVIA: ALBA Closes Ranks Around Morales

Humberto Márquez, April 23, IPS

CARACAS, Apr 23 (IPS) - A Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas (ALBA) summit warned Wednesday of the danger of Bolivia "exploding" as a result of the "separatist plan behind the (May 4) autonomy referendum" in the eastern province of Santa Cruz.

Bolivian President Evo Morales received the backing of the alternative trade bloc in a statement signed in Caracas with his counterparts Hugo Chávez of Venezuela and Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua, as well as Cuban Vice President Carlos Lage.

The leaders of Dominica, the fifth ALBA partner, were unable to attend the emergency meeting convened by Chávez.

The statement expressed the presidents’ "staunch rejection of the destabilisation plans that seek to undermine peace and unity in Bolivia" and the "separatist attempt" based on "a referendum that clearly violates Bolivia’s constitution and laws."

Wealthier eastern provinces where Bolivia’s natural gas is concentrated are pressing for greater autonomy and local control over the administration of natural resources and the taxies levied on them.

Bolivia, South America’s poorest country, is basically divided between the western highlands, home to the impoverished indigenous majority, and the much better off eastern provinces, which account for most of the country's natural gas production, industry and gross domestic product (GDP). The population of eastern Bolivia tends to be of more European (Spanish) than indigenous descent.

The ALBA leaders said they would not recognise any attempt by provinces in Bolivia to break off from the federal state and hurt the country’s "territorial integrity." They also demanded that the political crisis in that country be resolved by its citizens, "without foreign meddling of any kind."

The statement was an allusion to alleged involvement in the situation by the U.S. government of George W. Bush.

ALBA called on "the international community and especially that of Latin America and the Caribbean to act in a timely and decisive manner in solidarity with Bolivia."

"They demanded greater attention to the matter by the United Nations, based on statements by the special rapporteur for indigenous peoples, Rodolfo Stavenhagen," María Teresa Romero, an international relations professor at Venezuela’s Central University, told IPS.

The possibility of appealing to the Organisation of American States (OAS) has been left aside because Cuba was expelled from that regional body in the early 1960s.

Stavenhagen said he was "concerned by the intention of the authorities of Santa Cruz to hold a unilateral referendum on regional autonomy, at the margin of" the Bolivian constitution.

The special rapporteur called on regional leaders in eastern Bolivia "not to allow the human rights of the indigenous people of the region of Santa Cruz to be infringed in the name of the legitimate aspiration to regional autonomy."

Santa Cruz and three other of the nine regions into which Bolivia is divided have adopted "autonomy statutes" in open defiance of the government of Morales, the country’s first-ever indigenous president.

In early December, the constituent assembly, which is rewriting the constitution with the aim of giving greater participation in decision-making to the country’s historically neglected indigenous people, met despite a boycott by the rightwing opposition, and the pro-government majority approved a draft constitution.

But the governments of Santa Cruz, Beni, Pando and Tarija complain that they do not feel represented by the draft constitution.

Analysts have warned of the possibility of clashes between pro-autonomy sectors and the social organisations and trade unions that back Morales, as occurred in late November in the city of Sucre, when those opposed to the new constitution staged violent protests.

Romero praised the "prudent silence" kept by some of Bolivia’s neighbours, which she said has helped "prevent the aggravation of the crisis by meddling in such a polarised question as regional autonomy."

Morales said he appreciated the solidarity expressed in Caracas, and said that groups seeking regional autonomy "have always been enemies of us, the social movements," an attitude that he said is "sometimes more hot air and media coverage than anything else."

Chávez convened the emergency summit meeting after Cuba’s ailing former president Fidel Castro warned of the possibility of "another Latin American tragedy caused by the real threat of disintegration of Bolivia," which along with Venezuela and Cuba founded ALBA in 2004 as an alternative to the U.S.-sponsored proposal for a Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), known by its acronym ALCA in Spanish.

"What can we do?" the Venezuelan leader asked on Tuesday night, before explaining that he had come up with the idea of "a special ALBA meeting to try to prevent, from the outside, what many people at this point see as inevitable: an ‘explosion’ in Bolivia."

On Wednesday, he said the destabilisation plan "is also against Brazil and is aimed at destabilising the entire Southern Cone, because if the empire (the United States) destabilises Bolivia, the most likely outcome would be that Bolivia’s natural gas exports to Brazil, Argentina and Chile would come to a halt."

"By targeting Bolivia, the geopolitical heart of South America, the empire and its allies are demonstrating that they don't want the integration of South America."

Chávez wondered if it was merely a coincidence that U.S. Ambassador to Bolivia, Philip Goldberg, served as a diplomat in Bosnia and Kosovo.

"What the empire wants is a Kosovo-isation of Bolivia," he said, referring to the Bush administration’s support for the former Serbian province’s autonomy moves followed by the declaration of independence, which has gained weak international recognition.

The ALBA leaders also signed a new agreement on cooperation in food security in which they complained about the high international food prices and the use of food crops to produce biofuels.

The agreement encourages the members of the alternative trade bloc to adopt measures like the improvement of irrigation systems to boost the production of food products like corn, rice, beans, beef and milk.

Chávez urged that priority be put on Bolivia in the design of new projects aimed at developing the member countries’ potential for food production.

Gaza's sewage 'tsunami'

Jeremy Bowen, April 22, BBC

Thin tree branches, with leaves and twigs intact, were laced around the ends of the hut to insulate it against the hot wind that blows into the sand dunes, rolling away to the border fence and on to Israel.

The baby's mother sat with her legs tucked under her, hiding most of her face behind her black head-scarf. It flapped slightly in the breeze, and she used it to wipe her tears and muffle her sobs.

The woman's name is Aziza Abu Otayek. She wept because she was remembering the death of another baby son, one morning in March last year, just after the older children had gone to school.

Until that day their home was just downhill from a deep pond of sewage, pumped into a depression in the dunes and held there by earth walls because the water authorities in the Gaza Strip had nowhere else to put it.

'Wall of human waste'

On 27 March 2007, the walls gave way.

Aziza heard someone shouting, telling her to run away. She got out of the hut, then went back in because she had forgotten her head covering.

The wall of raw human waste slammed into them. It knocked her down and tore the baby from her arms.

He drowned. They found his body against the wall of the mosque a hundred metres away. He was nine months old.

His grandmother was also drowned.

Aziza worried about her new baby until he was born at the end of last year, because when she was hit by the flood she swallowed some of the sewage and she thought it might have harmed him.

They named the new baby Mohammed, after his dead brother.

While she talked, he gurgled happily, untroubled by the flies that buzzed around his eyes and lips.

Aziza has an older son, a four-year-old called Ramadan. His father said he asks about his dead brother, and when he is cross he says he prefers the first Mohammed to the second one.

But Ramadan seems a cheery little soul, though he has nightmares about the flood.

He looks around the lakes of almost raw sewage that still lie near their home and asks his parents if another wave is going to come.

One might. The pond that killed Ramadan's brother and grandmother is not the only one near their home. The others are much bigger and full of sewage.

Growing population

A Palestinian water engineer called Sadi Ali gave me a tour. He explained that the sewage lakes have grown so big because Gaza's growing population - 1.4 million, half of whom are under 16 - has overwhelmed what were anyway inadequate facilities for dealing with waste water.

Even though, to his great regret, they pump tens of thousands of litres of untreated sewage into the Mediterranean every day, they have to do something with the rest.

Sadi said that the lakes are 11m (36ft) higher than the surrounding land, and only the earth walls around them hold the muck in.

In this single spot alone - and he said other parts of Gaza were as bad - the lakes were so big that if the dykes burst a tsunami of sewage 6m (20ft) or 7m (23ft) high would swamp an area inhabited by 10,000 people.

Conflict with Israel

Sadi Ali worries that a stray bomb or missile could break a dyke.

There is a £40m ($80m) plan, funded by international donors, for a proper sewage treatment system for north Gaza.

Sadi Ali is trying to build it. But it is well behind schedule.

The problem is the same one that dominates every part of life here - the conflict with Israel.

Restrictions imposed by the Israelis - which they say are vital to protect their own people - have slowed down, and sometimes completely stopped the import of raw materials for construction like cement and piping.

Contractors have not been able to move freely. The latest problem is the lack of fuel.

Try building a sewage system in a war.

Gaza has been battered by years of fighting.

When we set up the television camera near the sewage lakes a little barefoot boy, barely more than a toddler, came up and asked if we were going to attack the Israeli positions.

He might have been asking if it was going to rain.

For him, and several hundred thousand other Gazan children, explosions are part of the soundtrack of their lives. The boy must have assumed the camera and its tripod looked like a weapon.

After that we worked faster, in case the Israelis thought the same thing.

VIO: Venezuela and the Environment, Can an Oil Country Go Green?

Venezuela Information Office, April 4

Venezuela is best known for being a major oil producer – the world's fifth-largest, and with reserves of crude larger than those of any other nation outside the Middle East. Few are aware, though, that it also boasts a level of biodiversity that is unmatched in most other parts of the world.

Venezuela, a country of 26 million people that is about twice the size of California, ranks 10th on the global stage for its level of biodiversity. This fact would suggest that the environment ought to form a vital part of the national agenda. However, until Venezuela’s President Hugo Chávez was elected in 1999, no Venezuelan head of state had ever addressed the issue.

Shortly after President Chávez entered the executive office, Venezuela developed a new constitution which includes the country’s very first environmental protection policies. In an entire chapter of the 1999 Constitution dedicated to the environment, sustainable development is established as a national mandate. This goal of creating a model of sustainable development to address the excesses of capitalism is based on the principle that natural resources are essential for development, and must be used in a rational way that maintains the ecological equilibrium.

The 1999 Constitution of Venezuela also recognizes that eliminating poverty and raising the standard of living for all Venezuelans requires a healthy and protected environment. For these reasons, the right of individuals to a clean environment is given the same inalienable status in Venezuela’s constitutional framework as are the right to life, health and education. The constitution also stipulates that environmental protections must be developed in cooperation with local communities and civic groups. The new laws also require environmental education at all levels of schooling in Venezuela.

Now, for the first time, Venezuela is investing in and implementing environmentally-friendly models of growth. One example is the decision made in 2005 by the Chávez administration and Venezuelan oil company PDVSA to eliminate lead-based gasoline. Since then, PDVSA has begun recuperating green areas, reducing emissions, and cleaning up rivers and lakes.

A clear sign of progress came in 2007, when President Chávez proudly announced: “You should all know that the gasoline produced in Venezuela is now ‘green’ gasoline, we don’t use lead anymore.”[1] That same year, a presidential decree banned the opening of new coal mines in the state of Zulia, and expansions of the Guasare and Paso Diablo mines were rejected.[2]

THE GREEN REVOLUTION

With 43 national parks and 36 natural monuments, Venezuela has the largest proportion of protected lands in all of Latin America. Just over 55 percent of its territory is protected. A similar portion of the country -- about half of national lands – is covered by forests and jungles. Venezuela is home about 20,000 species of plants and 5,711 types of animals, including birds, reptiles, mammals, amphibians, and fish.

These very high levels of biodiversity make environmental protection a critical issue. Due to changes in the last decade, environmental policy in Venezuela is now crafted through increased consultation with local communities who help identify environmental challenges and indicate the best use of local natural resources. A number of mechanisms for citizen participation have emerged, such as Water and Energy Committees, Conservation Committees, and farming cooperatives.

Venezuela has also signed 14 international conventions on environmental protection and sustainable development, while taking steps to protect and preserve the country’s domestic natural wealth. 2004,Venezuela ratified the Kyoto Protocol on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and supported special measures applying to developing countries.

Misión Arbol (Tree Mission)

One of the most noteworthy and productive efforts so far, Mision Arbol, is combating deforestation by protecting river basins and promoting the sustainable use of Venezuela’s forests through collaboration with local communities.

Nearly 2,000 reforestation projects have been completed by citizens who have organized themselves into Conservation Committees. According to Misión Arbol statistics, 2,330 of these committees have been established nationwide, resulting in the planting of 33 million forest and fruit plants. In 2006 and 2007 alone, 13,524 hectares of land were reforested.

Misión Energía (Energy Mission)

Most of Venezuela’s population is concentrated in the many cities that dot the northern coastal area of the country, while the interior is taken up by vast, grassy plains and thick jungles. The cities use most of the energy and generate the bulk of pollution. Nonetheless, Venezuela’s “energy revolution” is touching all parts of the country, not just urban areas.[3] New programs creating eco-friendly housing using building materials derived from waste generated during oil production have plans to build 60,000 “petrocasas.” The first such community was inaugurated in the state of Carabobo on March 30, 2008. Initiatives like the “petrocasas” bring economic development to low-income areas while avoiding taking a high toll on the environment.

Though over 70 percent of Venezuela’s electricity comes from hydroelectric plants that produce very little pollution, efforts are still being made to reduce the country’s carbon output. To that end, Venezuela has begun replacing all incandescent light bulbs throughout the nation with energy-saving bulbs that last longer. The program aims to replace 52 million bulbs during its first phase.

President Chávez has also announced plans for a windmill farm to generate electricity on the Caribbean coast and is exploring more uses for cleaner-burning natural gas and ways to reduce the need for oil-fired power plants.[4]

Clean and Potable Water

Access to clean drinking water has also been a major issue for much of Venezuela’s population. However, this problem is beginning to be addressed through the recent construction of aqueducts, dams, pipes, and reservoirs. In 2006, two new aqueducts were built in different areas of the country, 65 miles of pipes were laid to connect water storage areas, and maintenance work was completed on 45 percent of Venezuela’s 85 reservoirs.

Venezuela also initiated a process to help keep its rivers, lakes, and beaches clean through the construction of sewage treatment plants. Among the most ambitious projects is the restoration of the Guaire River, which serves as the main sewage disposal location for the city of Caracas. This long-term project will extend over about a decade, and includes the reforestation of shorelines, relocation of housing settlements, installation of sewage collectors, and construction of treatment plants along the tributaries of the river.

CONCLUSION

Although in the past it was difficult to evaluate Venezuela’s environmental policy due to the fact that oil production dominates the economy, government attitudes on the issue have become clarified in recent years. In fact, they have taken a marked turn. Adherence to international standards and efforts to reduce energy consumption, lessen pollution, and combat deforestation indicate an increased respect for the environment on the part of the Chávez administration. President Chávez has himself made this position clear, saying: “Venezuela is one of the countries that least contaminates the environment, but nevertheless we want to give an example and be at the vanguard.”[5]

The Venezuela Information Office is dedicated to informing the American public about contemporary Venezuela, and receives its funding from the government of Venezuela. Further information is available from the FARA office of the Department of Justice in Washington, DC.

[1] “Venezuela’s Green Agenda,” by Eva Golinger, Venezuelanalysis, February 27, 2007. http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/2244

[2] “The Venezuelan Minister of the Environment prohibits the opening of new coal mines in the state of Zulia,” Environmental Collectives, March 21, 2007.

[3] “Chavez Announces $3 Billion for Venezuela’s ‘Energy Revolution,’ By Chris Carlson, Venezuelanalysis, March 31, 2008. http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/3310

[4] “Chavez Takes Up Energy Conservation,” by Ian James, Associated Press, February 4, 2007.

[5] Ibid.

Evo Morales: To Save the Planet, End Capitalism

Evo's Ten commandments:

1) Putting an end to the capitalist system
2) Renouncing wars
3) A world without imperialism or colonialism
4) Right to water
5) Development of clean energies
6) Respect for Mother Earth
7) Treat basic services as human rights
8) Fighting inequalities
9) Promoting diversity of cultures and economies
10) Living well, not living better at the expense of others

----

Granma, April 22

UNITED NATIONS, April 21.— Bolivian President Evo Morales told the Seventh UN Indigenous Forum on Monday that the first step in saving the planet is to eradicate the capitalist model and force the wealthy industrialized countries to pay their environmental debt.

In a long and much applauded speech, Morales presented ten points he considers crucial to reversing current trends and condemned the concept of war, which he said brings profits for the empires, the transnationals and a group of families, but not for the people.

Morales also spoke about the need to establish relations of coexistence between countries instead of subjugation and said that access to water is a human right.

The indigenous leader said that solutions to the energy crisis need to be sought in the development of clean energy such as geothermal, solar and wind and he rejected the use of food crops for biofuels.

Evo Morales made a call to promote diversity in multination states and concluded: "Or we will follow a life of capitalism and death or the indigenous path of harmony with Mother Earth and life."

LATIN AMERICA: Reconciling Oil and the Environment

Humberto Márquez, April 19, IPS

CARACAS, Apr 19 (Tierramérica) - Years of public scrutiny, ever-newer technologies, more government regulations, notions of corporate responsibility and the market-driven need for greater efficiency are all factors behind improvements in the environmental policies of Latin America's petroleum industry.

"Our line makes it incompatible to exploit the underground riches as long as above ground people are living in poverty," says Juan Bravo, manager of the environmental wing of Venezuela's state-run oil company PDVSA in the Orinoco belt in the southeast.

For decades, oil and natural gas exploitation in Venezuela polluted fields, rivers, lakes and cities, and fostered the growth of poor settlements around the installations where the country’s oil wealth was produced.

But since the industry was nationalised in 1976, no fossil fuel deal has been approved without including projects for social improvement and environmental preservation. In laying a natural gas pipeline between northern Colombia and northern Venezuela, PDVSA spent 15 million of the original 150 million dollar investment on community development programmes in the areas the pipeline crossed.

In the Orinoco belt, an area of around 55,000 square kilometres holding an estimated 1.2 trillion barrels of extra heavy crude, at least one-fifth of which is believed to be recoverable, the PDVSA and some 30 foreign corporate partners pump half a million barrels per day.

"To a large degree, the environmental achievements are due to the new codes of conduct for global energy companies. They don't enter into any deal without seeing the state of the land and without conducting environmental hearings," Venezuelan petroleum engineer Diego González told Tierramérica.
For example, unlike the conventional oil fields in eastern Venezuela, cluttered with thousands of vertical oil pumps, oil is now extracted horizontally: when the drill reaches the level of the petroleum deposit underground, submergible pumps draw out the crude from various points, without altering the surface landscape, González explained.

In Brazil, the state oil giant Petrobras "conducts monitoring projects that evaluate the environment before implementing the drilling or production efforts," particularly in the Atlantic Campos Basin, northeast of Rio de Janeiro, the company said in a written statement to Tierramérica.

The studies "identify restrictions for the location of the units (drills and pipelines) where there are important ecosystems, like deep-water coral reefs, in order to propose alternatives with fewer environmental impacts. Furthermore, all effluents are monitored, such as the water used in production, sanitation effluents, rubble and fluids from drilling," stated Petrobras.

In Ecuador, heavy environmental damage has been caused in the Amazon region by ChevronTexaco over a quarter century, which could mean compensation payouts of seven to 16 billion dollars, the equivalent of the corporation’s annual earnings, according to experts in Ecuador.

The pollution, caused by more than 600 petroleum waste pits, triggered the emergence of a vast ecological movement with international support to fight oil drilling in the Amazon's Ishpingo, Tambococha and Tiputini fields -- in which Brazil's Petrobras is also interested -- in order to protect areas of the National Yasuní Park.

"Cases like Brazil and Ecuador tend towards efforts to avoid oil spills, for which technology is constantly being improved. In part, we owe this to the start of production in the North Sea more than 30 years ago," González told Tierramérica.

In contrast to the large-scale oil exploitations that in Mexico, Venezuela, the Persian Gulf or the former Soviet Union preceded environmental concerns and legislation, those of Britain and Norway in the North Sea started in the 1970s and had to heed strict environmental standards.

In addition, to make petroleum production profitable in that area and to avoid wasting even one barrel, the companies had to develop safe and modern technologies, which regulators in other countries then began to require as well.

Oil spills continue to be a headache for companies like the state-run Petróleos Mexicanos (Pemex), which faces a serious decline in its oil fields and which spends one percent of its 17 billion dollar budget on environmental matters.

Of the 24,000 barrels of oil that Pemex spills on average each year, one-third are the result of illegal tapping of its pipelines, according to the company. Environmental groups identify Pemex as the most heavily polluting company in Mexico, responsible for 57 percent of the country's environmental emergencies.

In the company's code of conduct, the first item is "to respect and improve the environment", and its 155,000 employees are prohibited from "considering production more important than ecological balance."

Venezuela's PDVSA drew up management plans for the 28 blocks into which the 21,000 square kilometres of the currently exploited portion of the Orinoco belt are divided.

New maps and recognition of areas "allow decisions about the best sites and routes for the installations, roads or pipelines, but also for work as a project with each field, beginning with reforestation to capture carbon dioxide (a greenhouse gas), while oil activity continues," said PDVSA's Bravo.

González noted that "the storage of crude no longer brings problems, because each tank or pump station has to have a walled-in space to contain spills equivalent to one-and-a-half times its storage capacity."

But the production of heavy crude in the Orinoco belt to convert it into lighter synthetics "generates new environmental problems because they have a high content of sulphur and metals, which must be stored or transported for sale, but whose markets aren't as easy to reach as the oil markets," he said.

The Orinoco belt's daily output is 600,000 barrels -- one-fifth of Venezuela’s total -- and each day produces 1,600 tonnes of residual sulphur and 14,500 tonnes of petroleum coke.

The coke is an input for the steel industry and is sold within Venezuela, while the sulphur derivatives are exported for use in fertiliser, agrochemicals, vulcanised rubber, dyes, etc. But storage and transport have their own financial and environmental costs.

"If the aspirations of this government are achieved, of producing (in the belt) up to four million barrels of crude a day, it would leave more than 10,000 tonnes of sulphur and almost 100,000 of coke per day," said González.

PDVSA invited companies from Argentina, Brazil, China, India, Iran, Russia, Spain and Uruguay to help certify that 236,000 billion barrels of crude are extractable, which would mean Venezuela holds the largest oil reserves on the planet.

(*Additional reporting by Mario Osava in Brazil, Kintto Lucas in Ecuador and Diego Cevallos in Mexico. Originally published by Latin American newspapers that are part of the Tierramérica network. Tierramérica is a specialised news service produced by IPS with the backing of the United Nations Development Programme and the United Nations Environment Programme.)