Page 1 of 1

U.S. signs controversial biofuels pact with Brazil

PostPosted: Fri Mar 09, 2007 3:39 pm
by johnjohn0701
SAO PAULO, Brazil (AP) -- At a mega fuel depot for tanker trucks, President Bush heralded an ethanol agreement with Brazil on Friday as way to boost alternative fuels production across the Americas.

Demonstrators upset with Bush's visit here worry that the president and his biofuels buddy, Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, really have visions of an OPEC-like cartel on ethanol.

But Bush and Silva said increasing alternative fuel use will lead to more jobs, a cleaner environment and greater independence from the whims of the oil market.

"It makes sense for us to collaborate for the good of mankind," Bush said at Silva's side, after touring the depot, a maze of tanks and pipelines on the outskirts of the city. "We see the bright and real potential for our citizens being able to use alternative sources of energy that will promote the common good."

The agreement itself was signed Friday morning by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her Brazilian counterpart, White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe announced.

Bush's focus on energy during the first stop on his eighth trip to Latin America comes as the president's nemesis in the region, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, is using his vast oil wealth to court allies. Bush's trip also includes visits to Uruguay, Colombia, Guatemala and Mexico. (President's itinerary)

At the fuel depot, Bush, sporting a white hard hat, fingered sunflower seeds and stalks of sugar cane and sniffed beakers of clear ethanol and yellowish biodiesel. For decades, Brazil has been making ethanol with sugar cane and nearly eight in 10 new cars already run on the fuel.

Biodiesel is a newer endeavor, and Silva said that by 2010, 5 percent of Brazilian biodiesel will come from abundant plants, such as African palm, cottonseed, sunflower and castor beans, grown by smaller farmers.

"It will help create jobs and income in the poorest regions of our country, especially in the northeastern semi-arid region, where many of these crops are actually native," Silva said at the facility, which his operated by a subsidiary of the state-owned Petrobras.

One roadblock in the Bush-Silva ethanol talks is a 54-cent tariff the United States has imposed on every gallon of ethanol imported from Brazil. Bush says it's not up for discussion.

The president did not see any of the protesters that have marred his visit during his hourlong motorcade to the depot. But about a half mile from where he spoke, a large white balloon hung in the sky emblazoned with blue letters that said "Bush Out" in both English and Portuguese. The "s" in Bush was replaced by a swastika. (Watch anti-Bush protests in Colombia )

Anti-American sentiment runs high in Brazil, especially over the war in Iraq. Bush missed the demonstrations earlier in the day protesting his visit.

Riot police fired tear gas and beat some protesters with batons Thursday after more than 6,000 people held a largely peaceful march through the financial district of Sao Paulo. About 4,000 agents, including Brazilian troops and FBI and U.S. Secret Service officers, are working to secure Bush's stay in the city that lasts about 24 hours.

Authorities did not disclose the number of injuries in Thursday's demonstrations, but Brazilian news media said at least 18 people were hurt and news photographs showed injured people being carried away.

Undeterred by protests, Bush says he's on a goodwill tour to talk about making sure the benefits of democracy -- in the form of better housing, health care and education -- are available to all Latin Americans, not just the wealthy. (Watch Bush credit Americans for generous aid "in our neighborhood" )

But Bush's trip was widely viewed locally as a way for the president to counter the influence of Chavez, the populist ally of Cuba's Fidel Castro, who has led a leftward political shift in Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia and Nicaragua.

To taunt Bush, the Venezuelan leader spoke at an "anti-imperialist" rally in a soccer stadium on Saturday in Buenos Aires, Argentina, about 65 kilometers (40 miles) across the Plate River from Montevideo, where Bush will meet Uruguay's president, Tabare Vazquez. (Full story)

"I believe the chief objective of the Bush trip is to try to scrub clean the face of the (U.S.) empire in Latin America. But it's too late," Chavez said before the rally in an interview with Argentine state television Channel 7. "It seems he's just now discovered that poverty exists in the region."

In Sao Paolo, protesters carrying stalks of sugar cane spoke against the ethanol agreement. They warned that increased ethanol production could lead to social unrest because most operations are run by wealthy families or corporations that reap the profits, while the poor are left to cut the cane with machetes.

"Bush and his pals are trying to control the production of ethanol in Brazil, and that has to be stopped," said Suzanne Pereira dos Santos of Brazil's Landless Workers Movement.

Bush said he wants to work with Brazil, a pioneer in ethanol production, to push the development of alternative fuels in Central America and the Caribbean. He and Silva also want to see standards set in the growing industry to help turn ethanol into an internationally traded commodity.

In January, Bush called on Congress to require the annual use of 35 billion gallons (132 billion liters) of ethanol and other alternative fuels such as biodiesel by 2017, a fivefold increase over current requirements. To help meet the goal, the president also is pushing research into making ethanol from material such as wood chips and switchgrass.

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed

PostPosted: Fri Mar 09, 2007 3:41 pm
by Anarkistsdream
America should have switched to biodesil 20 years ago when Brazil started to transfer over...

Now, they only need us for our corn... And we only need them for the cocaine...

Terrible, really.

PostPosted: Fri Mar 09, 2007 4:02 pm
by Backglass
If your poll is "Like Bush" Yes/No, why the big cut-n-paste about brasilian biofuels?

I hate bush...but am for alternative energy sources.

PostPosted: Fri Mar 09, 2007 5:42 pm
by flashleg8
Backglass wrote:If your poll is "Like Bush" Yes/No, why the big cut-n-paste about brasilian biofuels?

I hate bush...but am for alternative energy sources.


Seconded.

Although I loved the bit about "Bush's nemesis"

Viva Chavez!

PostPosted: Fri Mar 09, 2007 7:39 pm
by btownmeggy
Poorly written article.

This is a SCARCELY controversial issue.

Also, Re: whoever, corn makes very low quality ethanol, which is why the sugar cane ethanol agreement with Brazil is important. Imagine what we could do if we lifted the embargo with Cuba.

PostPosted: Fri Mar 09, 2007 8:17 pm
by s.xkitten
here you go children...an official countdown for how much longer bush is in office...its a Mozilla Firefox extension

https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/3792/

PostPosted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 11:56 am
by 2dimes
Cool, that's great and it makes sense of that giant Bush family land purchase in South America.

The size in area of that purchase is probably quite a bit larger than Cuba.

PostPosted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 12:11 pm
by Mjolnirs
You do realize that is common practice for the title of a thread, the content of a thread and the poll in the thread to be on the same subject?

PostPosted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 12:14 pm
by 2dimes
Not so much here.

PostPosted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 1:10 pm
by Marvaddin
I would read that as "Brazil signs controversial biofuels pact with USA", lol.

I really hate Bush, and I think a swastika is very appropriated.

Anyway, Im happy because US fucking government is not awaiting for more natural catastrophes before think a bit about save the planet. However, Im still worried... too much time until any effect can be seen... 2017? Bah!

Ps: do you really produce ethanol from corn??? :lol:

PostPosted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 1:12 pm
by 2dimes
Marvaddin wrote:Ps: do you really produce ethanol from corn??? :lol:
Most of it.

PostPosted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 1:20 pm
by Stopper
The idea of producing fuel from plants, either as a way of reducing fossil fuel usage or avoiding global warming, strikes me as a crock of shite.

The amount of land we'd need to completely replace petrol and other fuels currently in use would probably preclude, er, feeding people.

Nuclear fission is the only way to go, people. (Don't ask me how that could be used to replace fuel in cars. My ideas are generally only half-baked.)

PostPosted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 1:26 pm
by flashleg8
Stopper wrote:The idea of producing fuel from plants, either as a way of reducing fossil fuel usage or avoiding global warming, strikes me as a crock of shite.

The amount of land we'd need to completely replace petrol and other fuels currently in use would probably preclude, er, feeding people.

Nuclear fission is the only way to go, people. (Don't ask me how that could be used to replace fuel in cars. My ideas are generally only half-baked.)


You could generate electricity from your Nuclear power to charge fuel cell cars...

In the UK at least the use of biofuels would be a godsend the struggling agricultural industry. Large amounts of dairy farms can no longer stay economically viable, this land could be changed to growing plant crops for biofuels. Possibly a government subsidy could be used to kick start this drive - but this could be financed from the VAT on existing hydrocarbon fuels.

PostPosted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 1:36 pm
by Stopper
flashleg8 wrote:You could generate electricity from your Nuclear power to charge fuel cell cars...

In the UK at least the use of biofuels would be a godsend the struggling agricultural industry. Large amounts of dairy farms can no longer stay economically viable, this land could be changed to growing plant crops for biofuels. Possibly a government subsidy could be used to kick start this drive - but this could be financed from the VAT on existing hydrocarbon fuels.


I didn't completely forget about your first point, but I was reluctant to mention it because some organisations, including the Bush administration, had in the past been dishonestly pushing hydrogen fuel cells as a solution for global warming/fossil fuel depletion. But they never talked about how the hydrogen would be produced - they often implied that the hydrogen itself was the fuel, rather than a fuel carrier.

As to your second point, whether or not the agricultural industry deserves to survive is a different issue - but my main point is, I don't see how biofuels could ever replace fossil fuels, not least because of the sheer amount of land necessary. I know George Monbiot has written about this, I'll probably look it up. The "drive for biofuels" looks an awful lot like a useless displacement activity.

In fact, it'll prove to be worse than useless if acres of rainforest are depleted for palm oil, and many people in the Third World end up not getting enough food, because the West wants to use their land for school runs.

PostPosted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 8:15 pm
by Mjolnirs
Marvaddin wrote:I really hate Bush, and I think a swastika is very appropriated.

Anyway, Im happy because US fucking government is not awaiting for more natural catastrophes before think a bit about save the planet.

Assuming you meant appropriate, appropriate for what?

Please tell me what natural catastrophes the US government can prevent. I truly did not realize that hurricaines, earthquakes, tornadoes and tsunami were preventable by the US government.

PostPosted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 9:53 pm
by Marvaddin
Swastika is very well placed on Bush name.

The US government cant prevent catastrophes, but many of them, like droughts (well, dunno if its the correct name... I mean a long time with no rain) and so fire and desertification, and floods are being caused by the increase of global temperature, so we cant wait, we need act to stop it as soon as possible. And US government wasnt cooperating until now. Im talking about catastrophes that are caused by humankind.

PostPosted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 12:39 am
by Mjolnirs
Marvaddin wrote:Swastika is very well placed on Bush name.

Why? The swastika as you are thinking is associated with Nazi Germany and Hitler. Hitler wanted to exterminate a race of people and be the sole ruler of Europe and the world if possible. What race of people is Bush trying to exterminate? Where are the concentration camps where people are being rounded up and executed? Do you really think Bush wants to rule the world?

To think these things is just idoitic and outrageous hyperbole.

Marvaddin wrote:The US government cant prevent catastrophes, but many of them, like droughts (well, dunno if its the correct name... I mean a long time with no rain) and so fire and desertification, and floods are being caused by the increase of global temperature, so we cant wait, we need act to stop it as soon as possible. And US government wasnt cooperating until now. Im talking about catastrophes that are caused by humankind.

Sorry, the US has made great strides in the last several decades in cutting emissions and improving the environment. Blaming droughts, forest fires and floods on the US is crazy. We are not the only people in the world using energy and we are nowhere near close to being worst in our governmental control of emissions.

I see where the deforrestation number for the Amazon are finally slowing some. Thanks for doing your part too.

PostPosted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 1:53 am
by areon
To be fair, the West and it's high demands for mahogany wood plus other products just might be impacting the destruction of rainforests some.

PostPosted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 8:14 am
by Mjolnirs
areon wrote:To be fair, the West and it's high demands for mahogany wood plus other products just might be impacting the destruction of rainforests some.

Maybe so, but being that he is from Brazil and that government should be able to control what happens to its own land I thought it worth pointing out seeing as the US is at fault for everything else.

PostPosted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 7:22 pm
by nunz
Stopper wrote:The idea of producing fuel from plants, either as a way of reducing fossil fuel usage or avoiding global warming, strikes me as a crock of shite.

The amount of land we'd need to completely replace petrol and other fuels currently in use would probably preclude, er, feeding people.

Nuclear fission is the only way to go, people. (Don't ask me how that could be used to replace fuel in cars. My ideas are generally only half-baked.)


In NZ if we were to harvest the left over stalks and chaff after the wheat, barley etc was harvested , from just one little town alone (am thinking of Ashburton), we would have enough ethanol to run at leat 50% of our cars for a year.

ethanol doesn't preclude feeding people. In fact the two can go hand in hand.

My lawn mower is getting ready to runon the grass it mows .... now I just need to perfect my brewing technique to make it drinkable as well so I can mow the lawn, feed my mower nad fgeel no pain while doing so :-D

PostPosted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 7:53 pm
by Stopper
nunz wrote:In NZ if we were to harvest the left over stalks and chaff after the wheat, barley etc was harvested , from just one little town alone (am thinking of Ashburton), we would have enough ethanol to run at leat 50% of our cars for a year.

ethanol doesn't preclude feeding people. In fact the two can go hand in hand.

My lawn mower is getting ready to runon the grass it mows .... now I just need to perfect my brewing technique to make it drinkable as well so I can mow the lawn, feed my mower nad fgeel no pain while doing so :-D


In the bolded, do you mean just Ashburton's cars? The thing is, and it is one thing that never ceases to amaze me about NZ, is the sheer amount of people (something like 10%) that still work in agriculture. I don't know, but I bet New Zealand exports more food than it consumes. If so, that suggests that New Zealand has far more land than its people needs, and perhaps biofuels would be plausible, but only within New Zealand itself.

The rest of the world is a different matter - Britain has not fed itself for a hundred years at least, and we simply don't have the land to make food and run cars. It's the same all over Europe, and probably applies on a global scale too. Just because the solution works in one small country, that solution won't save you if it doesn't work for the whole world.

I could pick up stuff backing this up, but it's late at night, and I have to get up early in the morning...

BTW, sometimes I wish I still had a diesel car. A number of people in Wales had been caught a while back using vegetable oil to run their diesel cars and tractors. Chips and environmentalism at the same time. If only...

PostPosted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 11:35 pm
by flashleg8
Stopper wrote:
BTW, sometimes I wish I still had a diesel car. A number of people in Wales had been caught a while back using vegetable oil to run their diesel cars and tractors. Chips and environmentalism at the same time. If only...


I swear my brother runs his van off 50% cooking oil 50% ordinary diesel, it works perfectly fine (stinks like a chip shop when he's driving though!). It's perfectly legal as long as you declare and pay fuel duty on the 50% cooking oil (although that kind of defeats the point a bit so non-one does that :-^ ).
Apparently a blend of 5-10% shows a negligible drop in engine efficiency - 50% is kicking it a bit! But 20-30p per litre compared to 88-99p for diesel....