What's Happening with Burma?

Just a couple weeks ago, I was so heartened by the buddhist protests that were shaking Burma and calling for a regime change. What happened? All the news that trickles out is basically about the last few remaining activists being arrested. The Web is restricted which means that another portal through which the world could catch up on what is going on through accounts of web-users is now frozen. The military regime has had a lot of experience making sure they have a choke-hold on this nation. Its resources are being slowly siphoned off to fuel international demands (well mostly Chinese) and its people are slowly being made poorer and hungrier even as the military gets richer and displays its wealth more and more ostentatiously (temple gilding, city building and weddings of family are some gaudy displays of wealth that have trickled out even as reports of people looking more needy are being made).

Nothing really happened despite newspaper editorials and the "little person" voices that were raised all over the world in solidarity with the Burmese. The Security Council made its usual ineffectual noises and ended up accomplishing nothing- but that is business as usual for the UNSC. China felt no pressure despite other nations and organizations singling it out as the single largest supporter of the military regime. An email petition arrived in my inbox asking people to sign up to ask China to change its attitude toward the military rulers or else face the consequences of the international consumer/ olympic fan. All this talk of the Olympics and the pressure China feels to look and sound humane in case it hurts tourism is bunkum. Of course, China would be very happy if many foreign tourists arrived to make China a legitimate international venue for world events. But enough people will be going anyway and in addition, there is plenty of audience within China to sell the tickets and make sure that the Olympic events don't look sparsely attended as happens when they are held in the developed world now. So no, the Chinese government is certainly not spending sleepless nights wringing its hands over the pressure(!) it is facing on the Burmese issue.

The Indian government didn't even acknowledge at any point that it had any real role to play in the Burmese revolt (this is typical of the hubris with which Indian politicians have wasted opportunities to help their own nation and another). It started out by going ahead as usual with its plans to hold talks about resource development with Burma. When Indians protested the duplicity of our government, one could almost hear the cogs spinning in the heads of the Indian politicians on how to spin this. They went with the tried and tested approach to dealing with things. Hypocrisy. On the one hand they changed their tune on the international stage by calling for political reform (too little, too late, but what is worse...) while on the other hand they finalized a deal to invest $103 m to develop the port of Sittwe for quite selfish reasons.

The north eastern states of India are beautiful and home to some unique cultures and tribes (not to mention resources as well). These people have been marginalized from the mainstream of India since Independence. No mainstream politician has ever done anything for these states other than make photo-op visits and send in the army to squelch the nascent secession movements that exist in these states (itself a result of long neglect and lack of economic development). Human rights violation are common in these states. Instead of bringing them into the mainstream by allocating resources to help the populace, the Indian government threw money into the army and developed specialized schools of counter-insurgency and guerrilla warfare in the NE states. Decades of military presence in the border regions have however, still not succeeded in killing the insurgency (fueled by high unemployment and feelings of desperation and alienation in the youth of these states). Recent attempts by China to claim some of these far eastern states as part of "One-China" may have also contributed to the Indian government's sudden sense of urgency in reclamation and development efforts that are economic in nature rather than military. This is where Sittwe and Burma come into play.

The port of Sittwe allows the Indian government to transport goods and services into the NE states more easily than the narrow land corridor which restricts such movement presently. It will also cut transportation costs significantly (some claim by upto 50%). In itself, this is not a bad idea. However, India has done itself and Burma a huge disservice by dealing with the devil in its short-sighted policy of "non-interference" and mutual "self-help". India would be served well by having and supporting a democracy in Burma for a few very important reasons. One. Democratically elected leaders are more reliable partners (for trade and policy) than military ones who are answerable to no one. Two. Democracy in Burma would staunch the massive centrifugal forces acting on the population and creating refugees along all Burmese borders. India should remember that it shares a 1000 mile border with Burma. Three. Democracy in Burma would mean economic development and growing prosperity (both non-existent in the Burma we know of now) and if our neighbor does well, it bodes well for us too as its trading partner. Four. Democracy in Burma would alleviate the ethnic insurgent movements that are located in the border regions of the nation and which complement and strengthen the insurgency across the border in India. The rebel bases are located in north western parts of Burma and legitimize cross border guerrilla warfare by demonizing the military rulers and their associates who are represented by the Indian army in NE India. India would do well to reevaluate and reassess its partnership with such a regime and rethink the gains to be had were it to openly stand on the side of democracy, as it should. Supporting the Burmese people will have a positive payoff. It is no longer if, but when the regime will crack.

The Russian politicians are too preoccupied with regaining their position as the other "superpower" to be useful as a sane voice in the international arena. The paranoia and heavy handed governance of the Soviet era is making a come-back but this time hand-in-hand with a nationalism that smacks of 1930s Germany. Russia is no good to anyone, least of all its own impoverished citizens having taken on the worst of capitalism and merging it with a communist-type structure at the top levels of the government. The good things that existed under communism such as an excellent education program in the sciences, sports and arts however, are not to be seen. The Russia of today cannot stand up and speak against some of the atrocities seen around the world because it is either complicit in them or is trying its own brand of atrocities at home.

The USA with its sanctions is at best ineffectual as Burma is a cut-off country that does not rely on foreign trade. If the USA wanted to it could still have influenced the military regime by trying to strong arm those nations that support the Burmese regime but this would take a lot of political will and legitimacy- neither of which the USA has to spare under the current administration. The USA has a nuclear deal in the works with India and it should have held the Indians over the barrel. Similarly, it could have found ways to make the Chinese and Russian cooperate on the issue of Burma. When it needs to, the USA has not been afraid to go it alone or to force the world to see its way. Burma however, is small fish and one with little to offer the USA.

[Free Burma picture from REUTERS by Cheryl Ravelo. China Olympic picture found on multiple internet sites, no source listed. Map of India, China, Burma on BBC. Thanks.]

My Mistake

Since I moved to America in the early 1990s, I have heard it said so often that America is a christian nation. The oft-repeated statement, not only by common citizens but also by others in prominent positions of influence, overrode the geography and civics lessons of my junior school days where I had read about the American constitution and its secular nature. It came back to me only in a slightly embarrassing way.

When I was in England for my post-doc, a bunch of us friends used to go for lunch together and we would end up talking about all kinds of things. The conversation turned to religion and from there on to the separation of church and state. I knew that India was a secular country but I stated that the USA was a christian country. I expected the UK to be secular since it seemed like I heard a message of religious freedom often. As my Scots friend, Craig, had to remind me, in the UK the Monarch is the head of the Church of England. However, the UK still functions more or less like a secular state (since practicing christians are on the decline in the country and there aren't as many foaming-at-the-mouth born-again-christians as in the US). Craig also had to correct me about the fact that he thought the US was a secular country. I couldn't reconcile what he was saying with everything I had experienced since moving to the USA. But he was right. The USA is indeed a secular country but anyone living here at this time in history may get the mistaken impression that we do indeed live in Jesus-land (a little to the right of la-la-land). And I was no exception. Americans can be overtly religious in their convictions. However, this nation's founders were not, as many claim, religious and they certainly did not intend to form a christian nation.

Pan to the present times. Recently, for the first time ever a hindu clergyman was invited to offer the morning prayers at the Senate (why a government institution even needs prayer to get down to its business in a secular country is one question I haven't been able to answer satisfactorily for myself- I will have to wait till I meet my first senator). The prayer generated protests from the galleries and three people had to be removed before the prayer commenced. They felt that the hindu prayer was an abomination to the one true god and as christians and patriots, it was their duty to stop it. This country is being overrun by religious fundamentalists who blur the line between church and state with all kinds of equivocations such as confounding nationalism with religious duties (protecting the country, and more recently the environment too, in the name of Christ), health care issues with those of murder (look at abortion and stem cell research) and education with those of personal belief systems (teaching science is seen as an attack on christianity) . This is a slippery slope and one which takes the country back to a more savage state of development.

Religion should, at best, serve as a personal salve for those who can't get by with belief in self and reality. It cannot and should not be imposed upon others and a state should certainly not take moral lessons on policy and treatment of citizens from any holey book. We have some examples of places where the religio-moral principles from old texts have been used as law. We can see how inhumane such laws are in regions of the world where the sharia is applied. And yet, many in the USA, who would decry the atrocities of another religion continue to prevaricate and hold up an archaic text as their ultimate guide. They also perhaps believe that those who wrote the constitution of this nation held this text in the same regard (which they may well have) and used it as a guide for the document they wrote (which they did not). The constitution of the USA is a document of much sophistication and superior to the bible in that it is a living document, i.e., one that can be amended. It was my mistake to let the loud voices dripping with religion drown out the centrality of this document to the American polity.

The Burmese Revolution

Burma (Myanmar) has been systematically raped and its population terrorized by its military junta*. The military rulers of Burma are not stupid despots. Wait, let me rephrase that- they are despots but not stupid. They are a pretty superstitious bunch for which you would be forgiven to think them stupid. They keep the Burmese borders tightly locked. This has prevented the world from gauging the extent of Burmese suffering other than the few glimpses that are leaked out by some enterprising journalists and escaped dissidents over the years- "out of sight is out of mind" works well when it comes to oppression and misery. Aung San Suu Kyi's presence is also a factor that allows Burma to not fade entirely from the world's sight.

The current uprising by the monks of Burma is not the first uprising against the military rulers. The last such uprising was in 1988. In late 1987 the then general (Ne Win) canceled most denominations of Burmese currency other than the 45 and 90 kyat notes (he believed 9 to be his lucky number and since these denominations were divisible by 9, they were auspicious- go figure!). Overnight, a lot of people carrying currency of all other denomination were now carrying worthless paper and those whose savings were in cash, were almost wiped out.

The economic crisis- which was fast making worse what was a bad situation to begin with- lead to growing unrest and protests, many by students in Rangoon. They called for change and democracy. In March 1988, a student (Phone Maw) was killed in a clash with the military. His death intensified the protests and resulted in monks and ordinary citizens joining the struggle. On the 8th day of the 8th month of the 88th year, hundreds of thousands of Burmese took part in countrywide demonstrations calling for democracy. The mood in Burma at that time has been described as hopeful and euphoric. Monks were turning their bowls upside down and refusing alms from the military. Later that month, Aung San Suu Kyi, who had recently returned to Burma to care for her ailing mother, gave a speech rallying the demonstrators and became the public face of the movement for democracy. General Ne Win, who had resigned from his role as ruler in July, warned the populace that "when the army shoots, it shoots straight". On September 18th of that year the soldiers came out automatic rifles blazing, spraying bullets into masses gathered in protest. Many protesters were trucked away and never seen again. The estimate is that about 3000 people gave their lives in the '88 protests.

The current uprising was brought about by the government (under General Than Shwe) raising the price of petrol and diesel by double and compressed gas by five-fold on the 15th of August, 2007. That is like the U.S. government declaring that gas for private vehicles would cost $6 per gallon instead of $3 and commercial vehicles like buses would have to pay $15 for one unit of whatever fuel they used. The rise in fuel prices hit all sectors of the economy with public transport becoming more expensive (remember this is a country where car ownership isn't quite at western levels) and then rippling into the cost of staples such as rice. On August 19, 400 protesters demonstrated and many were arrested. On September 5, troops used force against peaceful demonstrators in the town of Pakokku. Three monks were hurt. The next day government officials were briefly taken hostage by the monks. They demanded an apology from the government by September 17. It is after that date and the absence of any apology that the monks really started countrywide protests.

Why is this protest any different from the previous one? The last demonstration (8-8-88) started with students and spread to monks. The military got involved and had no qualms in using force to make sure the situation did not get out of hand. Peaceful Buddhist monks are harder to justify attacking with force than students and the lay-public. The current uprising has taken the government somewhat by surprise as it is being lead by monks and instead of staying small and peaceful has swelled in just a few weeks (unlike the last one which took almost a year to reach its height). It may yet get the whole Burmese populace energized and hopefully, be harder to quell. The Buddhist clergy is much revered in Burma. By withholding their blessings from the military and its families, the monks are not only denying themselves precious resources, they are also denying the people associated with the military legitimacy in karma and after-life (a big deal for the Buddhist).
However, moves to suppress the demonstrations began on Monday when the monks called on people to join them for a peaceful protest in Rangoon (prior to this monks had asked the public not to join in because, say some, they knew that it was easier for the military to use force against the public) and Tuesday saw all-day curfews which were defied in many places. Wednesday saw troops using batons and teargas against demonstrating monks. Thursday dawned with news about the overnight raids and arrests at monasteries. As the day progressed the guns have come out and commenced firing and at least nine casualties were reported. At such a time, Burma, its monks and its people need all the support they can get. And where is the rest of the world as this happens to Burma?

The world stands by today much as it stood by in 1988. The Security Council (stumped by China and Russia) continues to make ineffectual gestures and noises. China & Russia, permanent members of the Security Council, believe that this is an internal Burmese affair and thus, has no bearing on international security. China and India are two of the Burmese governments biggest pillars of support. China relies on Burmese natural gas resources. China has been implicated in enough of its own atrocities and supports plenty of despots around the world as long as they provide natural resources to China. Its "non-interference" in internal politics of other nations has resulted in the continuation of the Sudanese genocide. With reference to the current Burmese protests, it has called on "all parties" involved to exercise "restraint". Much as it did, I am sure, in Tienanmen.

India is inconsistent depending on which democratically elected administration sets foreign policy. In fact, the hypocrisy of India's democratically elected government stands (and has often stood) in stark contrast to its intellectuals and even its common citizenry. In a speech a few weeks ago, India's foreign minister Pranab Mukherjee (modeling himself on the speak no evil ape here) said "We have strategic and economic interests to protect in Burma. It is up to the Burmese people to struggle for democracy, it is their issue."

In 1988, however, India openly supported the Burmese pro-democracy movement in the region as well as at the UN. It opened its borders to the in-pouring of Burmese refugees at the time. This started to change as India has gotten more geo-politically aware and realized that it is in a "race" with China in order to develop and be "the power" in the region. In order to extend its own sphere of influence and contain that of China's, India has taken to building "cooperation" as a central tenet of its "Look East Policy".
Starting in the 1990s the Indian government began mollycoddling the Burmese regime. And for what? In the hopes that the military regime will at some point reward them by passing natural gas and oil their way. Another equally reprehensible reason is that India wants the support of the military regime in suppressing insurgencies in Eastern India. The eastern states of India are home to some of the most unique tribal cultures of the world. India has marginalized these states and they remain under-developed. Some of these states have spawned secessionist movements that have lead to insurgencies within Indian borders. The Indian Army has been a constant presence in these states in order to maintain "law and order". Many of these insurgencies are based inside Burma.

Considering that neither the gas nor the support in fighting insurgencies have been forthcoming from Burma, India's support for the regime can only be seen as a geo-political game. Unfortunately for the Indian government, the Burmese protests have brought to light its pathetic support of the oppressive regime. Indians demonstrated this week as their minister for energy was leaving for Burma with signs that read "Deora, don't go for gas, go for democracy" and "India stop supporting Burmese military rule." Even as Indians express solidarity and wish a free society for their brethren to the east, their own government is complicit in the lives lost in Burma. The clamor to see the government do the right thing grows. Now if only the politicians would stop making like the three proverbial monkeys.

Burma needs all the help it can get in order to free itself. And as with Sudan not much, other than words, is forthcoming. The monks are again turning their bowls upside down like in 1988 but in much, much greater numbers. While the mood hasn't yet been described as euphoric, a hopeless people would not fight with the verve the Burmese are showing. They are courting injury, death and worse. Let us not sit on our hands and let this revolution go the way of the one in 1988. This could be the Revolution that frees Burma and the world needs to pay attention and participate positively rather than express helplessness in the face of a few recalcitrant members of the international community. Let us not forget Burma and leave their people to their fate.

[* I don't like using the word junta because it is identical to a Sanskrit/Hindi word. The root Jun (as in jungle) means person. The related word Junta means the public, society or the people. Thus, whenever I hear the word Junta, I don't think of a collusion of a few individuals to oppress others but rather I think of "the people".]
[Photographs courtesy of the BBC.]

Is This Happening in America????

John Kerry's talk on a Florida university campus drew an outspoken response from a student who believed there were certain things Kerry could and should have done about the election he lost, about voter suppression and about impeaching Bush for the war. Yes, the student was loud and his aim was to make some strong political statements and ask some tough questions of Kerry (ok, so he also threw in a question about the skulls and bones). As he correctly points out, Kerry spoke for a long enough time, his few minutes should not be begrudged him.

What completely amazes me is that his refusal to not give up the mike resulted in the police dragging him away bodily without response from Kerry or the other students present- other than to jeer and clap. There were enough people there so that if everyone or even a large proportion had stood up to the police, the police would have been helpless and would not have administered electric shock to the student Andrew Mayer. Even if the students could not have prevented it, I cannot imagine that except for the one female student you hear screaming "You can't do that," not one other person did anything to protest what unfolded on youtube as a horrific and extremely distressing event. Were these students somehow under the impression that this was all a game (a lot of laughter and general bedlam is heard in the background)? How is it that no one got up and overpowered the police when and after force and the taser were used upon Mayer? This is exactly what happens in oppressive states where people stand by when someone else is singled out and targeted by figures of authority.

What is even more disturbing is that John Kerry is on stage throughout this event making ineffectual noises and not preventing the travesty unfolding before his very own eyes. This harms American credibility to protest similar abuses of human rights and suppression of free speech in the world. How can America stand up and point its finger at the police brutality of citizens elsewhere when it condones such violence against its own? Kerry has sunk to a new, unrecoverable low in my opinion. This was not a violent student as one can see on the youtube clip. And Kerry's efforts at humor (he says "I'll answer his question. Unfortunately he is not available to come up here and swear me in as president..." leave one wondering whether he could hear and see what had to be unfolding in front of his eyes. Glasses and hearing aid, John? You were a counterpoint to the authority the police wielded and could really have lead by example.

On youtube and elsewhere, justifications are being provided by UF students for non-action, claiming that Mayer was a known prankster who came into the event sans ticket and cut into the line of questioners. It doesn't matter if he was rude, obnoxious and generally disruptive. None of these are crimes and deserving of the police treatment we are witness to. Not only was Mayer, forcibly removed, taken down and tasered, he was also jailed overnight. The police treatment itself was deserving of a lot more reaction than we see from anyone else present. Why are we turning into sheep that won't do anything when we see someone being tortured and taken down??

Physician Heal Thyself

Last year, I was faced with a myomectomy for a fast-growing fibroid on my uterus. I want to use my experience to present a comparative assessment of two different health care systems. The two systems are the nationalized health care plan of the UK (the NHS) and the privatized health care plan of the USA.

I was in the UK when I started developing symptoms that indicated that something might be going on in my reproductive system. I was registered with a GP in Birmingham city center but I had moved to a different address. I went to the GP and she carried out an external examination and determined that I might need some tests but when she found out that I had moved, she told me that I really had to register with a GP where I lived because otherwise there would be lapses in my care. So off I went to find a GP near my place. A new GP carried out an internal exam and he thought I had fibroids and needed to get an ultrasound and see a GYN specialist. Since the system uses electronic medical records, the new GP could easily access my previous records without undue delay. He made these referrals for me. This was in August 2006. He said I should hear from the specialist and the ultrasound clinic about an appointment. The appointment would likely be 6 weeks away.

I did hear from the clinic in six weeks but only to say that I should call them to set up an appointment. The earliest appointment I could get was in November 2006 for an ultrasound. In the UK you are triaged for specialist appointments based on urgency and it seems there were many other people requiring or already signed up for ultrasounds. My GYN appointment was scheduled for a week before the ultrasound. As it turns out, this was not ideal but the specialist's office was accommodating and saw me, not only at the original appointment but also, a week later in order to interpret the ultrasound and answer my questions about treatment options.

I have written, in an older post, about the fact that I never saw the specialist himself but rather a nice registrar he was training. Not seeing the specialist made me feel like he was not as invested in my care as he should be and this bothered me a bit. Another thing that bothered me was that my specialist was telling me to undergo gonadotropin therapy. I would be on Prostap (known as Lupron in the US) for 3 months and be menopausal so that during and after surgery, I would have less bleeding and not need transfusion.

To begin with, I hated to think about the kinds of severe hormonal changes the therapy would induce in my otherwise healthy body. So while I was still in the UK, I called a couple of physicians in the US to find out what they thought. I was still covered by my husband's health insurance. One of the doctors I called was a female doctor and the other was a male OB-GYN recommended by an acquaintance. Both asked me whether I was anemic. I wasn't. At which, they both said that in a healthy, non-anemic patient they would not recommend the gonadotropin therapy as unshrunken uterine tissues would be easier to operate on for the surgeon and should not unduly hamper the patient's post-op recovery.

Armed with this knowledge, I got back in touch with the UK specialist's registrar to find out what their rationale was for recommending this therapy and if I could avoid the 3 month treatment and get my surgery sooner. The registrar couldn't answer my question but she passed on my question to the surgeon who wrote me a letter explaining that the gonadotropin therapy was standard and not only prevented blood loss but also made the surgery incision smaller and less obtrusive. He also said that if I chose not to undergo Prostap therapy he would still operate on me but it wouldn't change the date of the surgery as he was fully booked for the next 3 months.

At no point, did we discuss costs. Everything would be covered and I would be in a nice university based research hospital which I had visited during my consultations. However, I felt like I wasn't getting personalized attention from the surgeon and also I felt like I shouldn't have to wait 3 months for surgery. The American doctor told me that he could fit me in sooner. I told my employers that I needed medical leave. That was all it took and I went off on paid leave.

In the States, I called both the female and the male doctor. The female doctor couldn't even see me for an initial consultation for a month (waiting periods vary from doctor to doctor in the US as we know) which made my choice easier and I chose the male surgeon. I went to see him and he scheduled me for surgery about 3 weeks from initial consultation. He thought everything would go off just fine, nothing to worry about and no complications. He seemed so magical after the elusive UK surgeon.

I went into surgery and when I came out a few hours later the surgeon told me that everything had gone off well and I should be recovering quite well. I was in good spirits and decided to start walking around as per the advice given me. However, within a few steps, I'd lose all energy and wilt. My blood pressure which was being monitored every few hours, started to creep lower. The next day the same thing kept happening. I would wake up in good spirits every few hours but any movement and I'd start to wilt without energy and my BP kept getting lower till I was about 70/40. It took the doctor till the next day, i.e., 2 days after surgery to hit upon the fact that I was losing blood internally and needed a transfusion. I was put in the position of signing documents when my mental capacities were not at their sharpest. I chose the transfusion as otherwise my recovery would have been even longer and since I was being discharged from the hospital (I was already slated to stay a day longer than the doctor originally planned because of my post-op complication) and going home to be alone (my husband was going to travel the day after I got out), I felt I could use all the boost of a transfusion.

Anyone with any inkling of human physiology and medicine, let alone a trained GYN specialist, should have thought of the eventuality of a complication and the surgeon had 3 weeks before my surgery to do so and think of having me donate my own blood to be held in case I needed it. It also took the doctor well over a day and a half to think of bleeding as the cause of my sinking diastolic pressure. It seemed like once the surgeon had me signed on as a patient, he divested himself of any more special interest in me as a patient. It did not occur to him to spend a little bit of time thinking through a procedure like this and saying to the patient, let's collect some of your blood just in case; let's think about what happens in case there are any complications needing your approval. No sirree, we were signed on for an expensive procedure that was going to put a substantial amount of money in the doctor's pocket but to him I was still one of his "routine" patients.

After the fact, I have thought long and hard about the differences in the system. There were many pressures on me in the American system which I had not expected. Once I had chosen a doctor I had assumed myself to be in good hands and absolved of the need to collect my own medical information. This is not true as not all doctors in the privatized system are invested in patient care as detractors of nationalized systems would have you believe. Further, my doctor not only did not think of the possible medical consequences and complications of abdominal surgery, he also did not bother to pick other specialists who were covered by my health plan. Post-surgery, I started receiving large bills from an out-of-plan anesthesiologist and surgical assistant.

Unlike the nationalized health system, hospital stay is really expensive in the States, and the pressure was on post-surgery to get me out of the hospital. I was given one extra day past my discharge date because of my blood-loss complication. The transfusion was my only option to not go home completely weakened and try to recover alone.

The quality of a health care system is not determined solely by how much money is invested in that system. By that measure, the US ranks number 1 as more is spent and yet more is reaped in the medical system here. And yet, we are not able to provide health care for all. But we tout very loudly that the health care we do provide is top-notch. Well, no, we don't provide top-notch care across the board. As more and more studies are showing, the record is quite spotty and inconsistent. There are some centers of health care which do provide cutting-edge health care better than anywhere else in the world. But overall care and coverage are worse than most developed nations of the world.

I have presented here an objective account of the service and care I received in 2 different systems. In both cases, the surgeons were men who were not showing due diligence and were not invested properly in my care. But in one system, I had to pay for the same level of shoddiness.

Corny Economix

I did not think I'd have to follow up my last blog about Ethanol quite as soon as this. I wrote that biofuels, as they were being manufactured and utilized currently, were ill-conceived and short-sighted. I had thought that in the near to medium future I would be writing once again about the effects of ethanol farming as they became more visible and undeniable. I am compelled to address this issue again in the face of unmistakable dynamics that are already manifesting themselves and affecting various aspects of the economy.

Corn is one of the five major crops for which American farmers receive huge subsidies. This creates perverse incentives all around and is as harmful to poor farmers around the world as to the American farming culture. The recent popularity of ethanol as a fuel has seen an upsurge in corn prices as well as land prices. Since the ethanol fever shows no signs of abating in the near future, more people want to grow corn for which they can receive subsidies from the government and sell it at the rising prices to the ethanol producing facilities (see adjacent picture). This has lead to land grabs in states such as Iowa and Nebraska where land prices are at an all-time high. More and more land is coming under corn production.

This creates multiple unhealthy dynamics. It discourages the small farmer who concentrates on other crops. They don't receive subsidies and have to labor to bring fresh vegetables, fruits and other crops to the market. And this at a time of a growing obesity crisis in this country. We are telling people to eat healthier by incorporating more diverse produce, fresh fruits, vegetables and whole grains in their diet. But we still continue subsidies to big farmers practicing corn mono-culture which is also the mainstay of the processed food industry with its reliance on fructose.

By subsidizing corn the government encourages farmers to produce a lot of it which used to get dumped on other countries at an artificially low price, thereby hurting indigenous farmers globally (this continues for the other subsidized crops). In corn's case, in addition to the creation of fructose, we now have a new internal outlet for all the excess farmers can produce- Ethanol! Subsidies make the big rich mono-culture farms richer. They do not, in general, open up the market to small farmers who are held out of the market because they cannot afford the escalating land prices or because the big farmers, who own most of the land, charge high rents for it.

On the one hand having an additional outlet within the country for all the excess corn, means it won't be dumped on the rest of the world at lower than cost. However, this may make corn everywhere more expensive as demand for corn to make ethanol continues to outstrip supply and may eventually make corn costs too much as food and feed.

A researcher at Berekely, Tom Patzek, has written a technical paper on the corn biofuel and all its implications. He quantifies the sustainability and the renewability of this resource and finds that it falls short.

I wonder if demand for corn as a biofuel source will forcibly change the processed food industry when fructose becomes scarcer. I hope at least one good thing comes of it but I fear even that one good thing won't balance out all the negative outcomes that will result if we continue down this path of converting food sources into fuel. We don't need more subsidized resource-intensive mono-culture farms. The focus should not be on creating alternative fuel sources. The focus should be on reducing consumption of fuel altogether and finding alternative, energy-efficient and cost-effective ways of accomplishing growth and progress with good health.
Copyrights associated with the pictures can be viewed by clicking on each image which will take you to the copyright page.

Fueling a Corny Debate

Americans are joining the green movement in droves nowadays. Some of them because various media sources have brought to their attention that global warming, disputed and ignored by the American administration for a long time, is very much occurring all over the world and the consequences are not remote to the United States. Others have been brought to this awareness through faith groups which have spawned environmental movements asserting that the bible makes them custodians of the earth and all in it. Yet others are following the example of opinion leaders (mostly located in Hollywood) and coming to the conclusion that going green might not only pay but also make them feel better and look good to others.

Of course, as happens with all such movements in a system as highly skewed towards a capitalist mode as this one is, the big industries do their best to cash in. So we have a "green" movement in more ways than one. Rather than curbing expenditure on a simpler greener life, the greening of America takes a uniquely American approach. You buy your way to being more energy conscious. You spend on specialized products (no one has yet addressed what happens to the old energy-non-efficient replaced products in a nation as given to throwing things away as we are). What is even more disturbing is that some of the green replacements are short-sighted and could come back to haunt us. For instance, the new super fuel ethanol.

Ethanol, which is basically alcohol, is a healthier fuel option than petroleum in important ways. It is a renewable resource since ethanol can be man-made unlike petroleum. It burns quite cleanly not releasing as many effluents and pollution as petroleum. Brazil has been at the forefront of developing and using this technology and at the moment almost 50% of all cars there are able to use 100% ethanol or flex-fuel (ethanol-petroleum) as fuel. Combination or hybrid fuels reduce consumption of petroleum and our reliance on petroleum resources.

However, ethanol is produced from organic food sources such as sugar cane, corn and other grains such as sorghum. Ethanol is produced more efficiently using sugar cane than using corn and other grains. Sugar cane doesn't grow everywhere so the source of choice in the US currently is corn. However, it takes a lot of resources that are not energy neutral to grow the quantities of corn required to produce ethanol. Large swathes of land, water, fertilizers (that are generally petroleum based) and pesticides. One may argue that the left over by-product of the process would make feed for cattle and in turn cattle manure could be used as fertilizer thereby reducing some of the energy consumption in producing ethanol. However, this still remains an energy-intensive process.

The problem is twofold. Firstly, as long as petroleum remains expensive and automobile manufacturers focus on short-term fixes that modify current technology only slightly, food grain based ethanol will look attractive in comparison (despite its own high associated costs which are being subsidized by the tax payer, but that's another story). The second problem, which should trouble us even more, is that diverting food crops to other uses and driving their price up when poverty and hunger are still a problem in much of the world is just morally wrong. This solution can come back to bite us.
Copyrights associated with the pictures can be viewed by clicking on each image which will take you to the copyright page.