barriomulas.com

A number of publications have recently ran critical articles on bio-fuel. The April 7, 2008 issue of Time referred to the industry as the "clean energy scam." "Ethanol increases global warming, destroyed forests and inflates food prices. So why are we subsidizing it?" states the article. The U.S. ethanol mix - composed of corn - makes up about 30% of the world's ethanol stock (Washington Post) but proves to be a very inefficient set up. For example, it takes 1 unit of fossil fuel energy to create 1.3 units of ethanol energy (National Geographic). Not to mention, U.S. cars can generally only run on fuel mixed with 10% ethanol (American Progress). Inefficient if you ask me. If it were not for the subsidies it would not be a very cost-efficient investment.

I remember when Ethanol began making its mark in the energy industry a few years ago. It was once hailed as a long-term alternative to fossil fuels and was praised as a miracle renewable energy source. From the start I was not sold on the idea: industrial corn production meant the consolidation of land by the few, dependency on pesticides and oil-based fertilizers, and government subsidies. Now the world is suffering a food crisis partially due to the deviation of land from food production to ethanol crop production. The way I look at it, people all around the world are starving so that those in the developed world can drive to the shopping mall in their SUVs.

The problem is not where the fuel comes from. The problem is that we need such large amounts of fuel to begin with. Even if there were infinite amount of oil; even if they could construct cars that ran on water; even if burnt fossil fuels had no adverse effect on the environment; the mere concept of designing out cities and way of life around lengthy drives between work, home, play, and shop is inefficient.  My distaste for monstrous sports utility vehicles have little to do with oil and all to do with their inefficiency, false security, and luxury factor. We are trying to find a solution for a problem when it's much easier to just eliminate the problem itself. We should stop bulldozing acres of forests for suburbs and shopping malls before we start bulldozing acres of forests for ethanol corn.

The environment has an impressive ability to manage itself without the need of humans, government work crews, or intervention. The invisible hand of nature will carve the most efficient waterways, provide sufficient food for the its wild life, and maintain a balance that will last for eternity. Even our "improved vision of nature" as referred to by "The World Without Us" author Alan Weisman (p. 30), would quickly revert back to wild forest if it was not for de-weeders, sprinkler systems, mulch, and fertilizer. Man-made systems cannot compete with the efficiency of nature nor can our fertilizers and pesticides compete with nature's cycle of organic mass decay.

Weisman and Daniel Quinn have both noted how mankind was not much different from animals when we were hunter-gatherers (p. 84). But farming exhausted land and rivers, cement increased storm water, and  the monolithic buildings of or metropolises blocked sun from evaporating water. "In a rural landscape rushing to meet the dietary demands of a rapidly growing urban industrial society," notes Weisman, "farmers no longer had the luxury of raising enough dairy cows and pigs to produce the requisite tons of organic manure", thus historically obligating us to use oil-based fertilizers and pesticides such as DDT (p. 153). (Note that I have yet to make any claims that anti-environmentalists could refute. All of the above are accepted facts of life, acknowledged by thinkers from all across the board.)

Any student of biology (a conservative science, I must add) can quickly assure you of the delicacy of nature. Just like in culture and economics, the efficient cycle of ecology can be off set for the simplest of interventions. The eradication of one species, for example, can lead to the over-population of its prey and eradication of its predators. The stability of the plant life population itself depends on many of these animals. For example, an increase in the population of squirrels can lead to the death of a forest as acorns are swooped before sprouting. Pave a road through the center of a forest and the gene pool of the forest's inhabitants is cut in half, thus negatively effecting its population (pp. 13, 46, 47). "We don't actually have to shoot songbirds to remove them from the sky," states Weisman, "Take away enough of their home or sustenance, and they fall dead on their own" (p. 67). "The balance between ecology and society is exquisitely delicate," stated anthropologist Arthur Demarest (p. 229).

Taking into consideration nature's delicacy, one must also acknowledge the widespread effect that society has had on nature. "Typical human activity," notes Weisman's book, "is more devastating to biodiversity and abundance of local flora and fauna than the worst nuclear power plant disaster." (p. 217) Though 3% of the earth's surface is covered by cities, 12% of the land is cultivated. If one were to included grazing land, almost 1/3 of our land is used to feed us (p. 146). Some developers believe that there is enough land to spare - including one woman who I heard speak during a public hearing who stated that if all of Puerto Rico's landmass was to be divided among its populace that each family would have a few acres to a name. That 2/3 land, I stress, is what provides us with water, clean air, erosion control, and biodiversity. Water doesn't just flow from holes in the ground; they are nurtured by a large system of natural filters.

The earth's former equilibrium, notes Weisman, "depended on a sizable amount of carbon locked away beneath Earth's crust, most of which we've relocated into the atmosphere." (p. 19) Even if one believes that burnt fossil fuels have little or no effect on the atmosphere, one cannot deny that they did represent one of the phases of a lengthy natural earth cycle.

We have carried out plenty of activities without knowing their effects for possibly centuries. Plastics, for example, have not been around long enough for us to understand how they effect the environment (p. 116). Recall that until recently we were aware of the effects of cigarettes and DDT on human health. Mankind has only spent a minuscule fraction of his entire history acknowledging that the world is round. We still do not know all of the effects that a newly built road will have on its environment and its wildlife.

A fascinating aspect of nature is its ability to regenerate. I have seen neighbors and family members of my rural Puerto Rico town struggling for weeks to clear a field with a machete. A few weeks of idleness will return the land to its originally shabby state. "Within just two decades," notes Weisman, "farmland gives way to woodland" (p. 14). "During Nicaragua's Contra War... exhausted lobster beds and sands of Caribbean pine impressively rebounded. That took less than a decade." (p. 183) Sea turtle nesting has also been sighted in the areas of Cyprus abandoned during violent conflict a few decades ago. Weisman's book shows how after a few mere centuries there would be few areas that would still show mankind's mark on the planet.

Nature's efficiency is something than can be studied and mimicked in order to make our current systems as efficient as possible. Wendell Berry states that "The things that are wrong with agriculture now all come from the human willingness to manipulate nature." A new vision is needed where "the farm will be an imitation of a prairie, not a factory." Early Maya "mimicked the rain forest... Rows of corn and beans would shelter a round cover of melons and squash; fruit trees, in turn, shielded them, and protective patches of the forest itself would be left among fields." (p. 227)

This regenerative capacity is quite impressive. The above examples were all unintentional; imagine the potentials if similar efforts were carried out today intentionally. I myself am not what one would consider a traditional environmentalists: I see no problem with us using up resources and cutting into the land only as long as its done at the same pace as nature's regeneration. If we are consuming more of a species or plant than nature can restock then we are consuming too much of it. The immediate pleasures of over-consumption to the point of exhaustion is not worth the deprivation of future generations to enjoy the same thing. I can see us reaping the benefits of nature in a much more abundance and efficient manner if we move with it instead of against it.

I am not too fond of monopolies - be they private or public. Even public corporations - if possible - should permit competition. In cases where there exists natural monopolies, then of course I prefer public over private ownership. Nathaniel Branden in "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" argues that there are no such thing as "natural" monopolies. "Nickel of Canada produces more than two-thirds of the world's nickel - yet it does not charge monopoly prices. It prices its product as though it had a great many competitors. Nickel (in the form of alloy and stainless steels) is competing with aluminum and a variety of other materials... when the price of bituminous coal rose... this was instrumental in bringing about a large-scale conversion to the use of oil and gas in many industries."

Though Branden made a good point, such industries often tap into something that I find difficult to lump together with other forms of private property: subterranean natural resources. Some of these resources are found under huge bodies of water. And despite Verna E. F. Harrison's statement in "Free Enterprise" that "A vast amount of today's wealth was created, not stolen by conquest or fraud", the capitalization of natural resources is one of the instances where I'll agree with Proudhon's "property is theft".

The planned Trump International Golf Club in Rio Grande has recently received heat for being construction on natural land, lacking permits, and occupying public lands (in Puerto Rico, all coastal land is public land.) This is not a rare occurrence, for the Costa Serena and Paseo Caribe projects in Loiza and San Juan share similar concerns. Development patterns such as this has plagued Puerto Rico in previous years often rising concern among certain sectors over their questionable acquisition and permitting permits, their closing off of public beaches, and negative effects that they can have on the environment or sites of historic interest. Costa Serena was a long battle, Paseo Caribe is reaching its peak as you read this, and Trump International Golf Club is surly the next showdown site.

Such conflicts will continue for as long as the state seeks such a form of development. Some criticize such an "attack" on private investors and signal the possible "negative" effects that damaged confidence will have on foreign investors. The truth is, is that such companies are far from vestiges of capitalist economics and entrepreneurship. Subsidies and loans are often offered by government agencies and public lands are put at the disposition of private mega developers. Not to mention, once the project is built, the Puerto Rico Tourism Department will continue to serve it with more subsidies and free promotion.

Meanwhile, these foreign businessmen pull in filthy profits, all of which are sent off to far away lands. Very little of that stays here. We give them the land and the money to build mega-hotels in exchange for private beaches and shitty wages half the size of their stateside counterparts. After paying the minimum wage of workers of construction workers (those that are Puerto Rican), the incentive-ridden taxes, and the low wages of hotel employees all of those riches and profits built off a foundation of state subsidies are exported to the exterior. I would seriously consider endorsing such mega-hotel projects if the state were to receive a share of the enterprise.

Puerto Rico's Isla Verde tourist district was often referred to my friends as "Vice City" due to its similarities to the video game. Miami-like condos line the beach while Wendy's and Pizza Hut localities spot the avenue. One has to walk a while just to find a place that serves Puerto Rican food. Isla Verde is far from pleasant in comparison to Old San Juan and was much like Loiza prior to adopting its current form. Loiza, the home of a long strip of small mom-and-pop pubs, pool halls, restaurants, and food stands was until recently targeted by developers to become a practical extension of Isla Verde. Proponents of the project hailed the "economic benefit" that the community would have received, but the reality is much different. A glance at Isla Verde's hotel workforce demonstrates white faces with bilingual tongues lacking any trace of Spanish accent - far from the characteristics of the Piñones population.

Many people criticize opposition to such models of construction as "anti-development" and contrary to the economic well-being of our country. Truthfully, the Puerto Rican state spends more than it receives on tourism. The mom-and-pop paradores and food stands of Loiza do much more to foment small and medium business, entrepreneurship, and community development than does Hilton and Wyndham. Despite the numerous programs, incentives, and subsidies, Americans fly in on an American airline, rent an American car, stay in an American hotel, and eat at American restaurants. We'll take the crumbs.

Two quick reforms for the public energy industry:

1) A solar panel-driven water heater can lower your bill from 1/3 to ½ of its present cost (at least in Puerto Rico.) Theoretically speaking, one can say that if all Puerto Rican households were to have solar panel water heaters, the country would be 1/3 to ½ less dependent on foreign petroleum. (Not to mention, solar power is free.) Why not obligate each household to install a solar panel (if the state can obligate you to install a water counter, I don't see why it couldn't obligate you to install a panel on your roof), continue to charge the citizen the same for the period of a year in order to pay off the investment, and then after the product is paid off, the citizen's bill drastically lowers.

2) A quick calculation should be carried out to establish the basic amount of electricity that a simple family "needs" to survive (such as refrigeration and cooking). This "needs" range should be free to the citizen while energy usage that passes this mark - called the "luxury range" - is charged. The free "need" range can be subsidized by the "luxury range". Thus, those who use more electricity than they need are technically paying for those who use only the energy they need for basic necessities. As people begin to save electricity the cost of luxurious energy usage would become more and more expensive, thus pushing people to continue saving.