|
10 July, 2008
The leaders of different countries began to refer to the possible causes of the problem, that can derive in the global industrial capacity loss, the increase of the poverty and the famines in important regions of the world.  The fact that two phenomens happen simultaneously makes suspicious a common cause. Different hypothesis that tie these phenomens are thought off. The two most diffused enter inside what we could call the reassuring explanations, in the sense that they don’t question the current development pattern, based on the utopia of the limitless growth. Inside these explanations, we find those that recognize the consequences that the biofuels production is generating on the prices of the foods. On the other hand, we find those that center the problem in the speculative capitals that, due to the crisis of the mortgages in United States, have switched to the commodities. These are typical explanations of the neoclassicist economic tradition, that sees only market problems, investment, technology, profitability, prices and competitiveness. For this tradition, in which it is necessary to also include the Marxism, the natural resources are just another variable of the economic process. The economists formed in this school seemed to ignore the principles of the thermodynamic, that puts us relentless limits, and disbelieve of the laws of the nature and of our dependence on the non renewable resources of our planet. Thisexplains that, for example, Robert Solow, Nobel prize of Economy due to his theories about the growth, has assured that, if the case comes, “the world could, indeed, manage without natural resources.” Its hard to imagine life and society in a world without air, without water and without energy. Milton Friedman, also Nobel prize and father of the liberal School of Chicago, sustained in a report, soon after the second oil crisis of 1980: “Let´s suppose that the petroleum was scarce: the price would ascend and people would begin to use other energy sources. In an appropriate system of prices, the market can taken charge of the problem.” But, obviously, Friedman didn’t worry to define which those energy sources are and today, in front of the constant rise of the price of the crude and the technical doubts on the development of alternative energy, the market seems not able to take charge of the problem. Just the opposite, the problem is increased because in the current system of world production of foods the hydrocarbons have a fundamental role, in such a way that energy and foods are united as never in the humanity’s history. It is in this point where we should abandon the soothing hypotheses and begin to assume that the problem is much deeper and of difficult solution, since it is necessary to recognize that our industrial civilization is getting to a point where it stops being sustainable. This populational growth was only possible thanks to the great agricultural transformation, the called Green Revolution, that was developed during the decades of 1950 and 1960. This generated an important biodiversity loss that attempts against the development sustainability: 90% of the food of the world is derived from only 15 cultivations and 8 animal species. In less than thirty years, the world production of grains was increased by 250 percent. This phenomenal increment of the foods was possible thanks to the fossil fuels that provided the necessary energy. The world system alimentary is more and more dependent of the petroleum and of the gas, in forms of fertilizers, pesticides, watering systems and machineries, without counting the transport that allows a global movement of the foods. The energy régime based on fossil fuels has a systemic character: it doesn’t decrease to a technological matter, but rather it constitutes a form of social organization, production way and consumption patterns, lifestyles and mobility, world financial system, globalization and geopolitics. This forces us to think of new development forms, where the inclusion and the social justice are not only a consequence of the growth, but other ways of living in society. In 1970, when the world swimed in petroleum and this was quoted to less than 3 dollars the barrel, Henry Kissinger wrote with his habitual strategic capacity: “The one that controls the petroleum will control the nations; the one that controls the foods will control the people”. And this thought dominated the policies of the industrialized countries of these last thirty years. The invasion of Iraq on the part of George W. Bush and his allies and the agricultural subsidies of Europe and United States are clear examples of this strategy. Today, with the petroleum to more than 130 dollars and with symptoms of shortage, this thought is more current than ever, with the attaché that the one that dominates the petroleum will dominate both the nations and the towns, because the food production depends on the hydrocarbons. It is in this context in which the Argentina should think in its development model, beyond the problems of the situation, while we continue eating petroleum. By Victor Bronstein for La Nación The author is director of the Center of Energy, Politics and Society Studies (Ceepys); professor and investigator of the UBA. Source: La Nación Deje un comentario |
Last articles
|
