The New Yorker Magazine Performs A Disservice For The American People

The New Yorker magazine still compares the 44th Presidency with the 43rd Presidency - President Obama needs to be able to be compared with his record. President George W. Bush and President-elect Barack Obama meet in the Oval Office of the White House Monday, November 10, 2008. Image Credit: Wikipedia

The New Yorker Magazine Performs A Disservice For The American People

THE NEW YORKER ENDORSES OBAMA in a four-page editorial, "The Choice," by "The Editors," taking up the full "The Talk of the Town" space:

"Obama ... did not always prove particularly adept at, or engaged by, the arts of retail persuasion, and his dream of bipartisanship collided with the reality of obstructionism. Perhaps inevitably, the President has disappointed some of his most ardent supporters. Part of their disappointment is a reflection of the fantastical expectations that attached to him. ... But the reelection of a President who has been progressive, competent, rational, decent, and, at times, visionary, is a serious matter. The President has achieved a run of ambitious legislative, social, and foreign-policy successes that relieved a large measure of the human suffering and national shame inflicted by the Bush Administration. Obama has renewed the honor of the office he holds. ...

"The Romney-Ryan ticket represents a constricted and backward-looking vision of America: the privatization of public good. ... The reelection of Barack Obama is a matter of great urgency. Not only are we in broad agreement with his policy directions; we also see in him what is absent in Mitt Romney - a first-rate political temperament and a deep sense of fairness and integrity. A two-term Obama Administration will leave an enduringly positive imprint on political life. It will bolster the idea of good governance and a social vision that tempers individualism with a concern for community. Every Presidential election involves a contest over the idea of America. Obama's America - one that progresses, however falteringly, toward social justice, tolerance, and equality - represents the future that this country deserves."

Ignored in the four-page editorial, "The Choice," by "The Editors are the economic facts created by Obama Administration policies through the last four years:

The highlight of presidential townhall style debate was Romney’s thorough, two-minute dismantling of the Obama record on the economy after Obama gave a tepid defense of his awful record. Never has the case against Obama been made so eloquently:

I think you know that these last four years haven't been so good as the president just described and that you don't feel like you’re confident that the next four years are going to be much better either. I can tell you that if you were to elect President Obama, you know what you're going to get. You're going to get a repeat of the last four years. We just can't afford four more years like the last four years.

He [President Obama] said that by now we'd have unemployment at 5.4 percent. The difference between where it is and 5.4 percent is 9 million Americans without work. I wasn't the one that said 5.4 percent. This was the president's plan. Didn't get there.

He [President Obama] said he would have by now put forward a plan to reform Medicare and Social Security, because he pointed out they're on the road to bankruptcy. He would reform them. He'd get that done. He hasn't even made a proposal on either one.

He [President Obama] said in his first year he'd put out an immigration plan that would deal with our immigration challenges. Didn't even file it.

This is a president [President Obama] who has not been able to do what he said he'd do. He said that he'd cut in half the deficit. He hasn't done that either. In fact, he doubled it. He said that by now middle-income families would have a reduction in their health insurance premiums by $2,500 a year. It's gone up by $2,500 a year. And if Obamacare is passed, or implemented -- it's already been passed -- if it's implemented fully, it'll be another $2,500 on top.

The middle class is getting crushed under the policies of a president [President Obama] who has not understood what it takes to get the economy working again. He keeps saying, "Look, I've created 5 million jobs." That's after losing 5 million jobs. The entire record is such that the unemployment has not been reduced in this country. The unemployment, the number of people who are still looking for work, is still 23 million Americans. There are more people in poverty, one out of six people in poverty.

How about food stamps? When he [President Obama] took office, 32 million people were on food stamps. Today, 47 million people are on food stamps. How about the growth of the economy? It's growing more slowly this year than last year, and more slowly last year than the year before.

The president [President Obama] wants to do well. I understand. But the policies he's put in place from Obamacare to Dodd-Frank to his tax policies to his regulatory policies, these policies combined have not let this economy take off and grow like it could have.

You might say, "Well, you got an example of one that worked better?" Yeah, in the Reagan recession where unemployment hit 10.8 percent, between that period -- the end of that recession and the equivalent of time to today, Ronald Reagan's recovery created twice as many jobs as this president's recovery. Five million jobs doesn't even keep up with our population growth. And the only reason the unemployment rate seems a little lower today is because of all the people that have dropped out of the workforce.

The president [President Obama] has tried, but his policies haven't worked. He's great as a -- as a -- as a speaker and describing his plans and his vision. That's wonderful, except we have a record to look at. And that record shows he just hasn't been able to cut the deficit, to put in place reforms for Medicare and Social Security to preserve them, to get us the rising incomes we need. Median income is down $4,300 a family and 23 million Americans out of work. That's what this election is about. It's about who can get the middle class in this country a bright and prosperous future and assure our kids the kind of hope and optimism they deserve.
[ht: Breitbart]

One has to ask themselves, after looking at all of the facts (and there are many more that point to an overall degradation of the American economy due to the policies of the Obama Administration - Bond rating downgraded by two ratings agencies for example) how could the New Yorker actually say "that relieved a large measure of the human suffering" when this economy and its prospects for the future using the same policies will only make everyone's life more difficult?

This opinion and endorsement by The New Yorker magazine performs a disservice for the American people.



** Article first published as New Yorker Magazine Performs Disservice for the American People on Technorati **

“W” And The Shoe – Great On His Feet

Journalist Muntadhar al-Zeidi, who was kidnapped by Shiite militants last year, was being held by Iraqi security Monday and interrogated about whether anybody paid him to throw his shoes at Bush during a press conference the previous day in Baghdad, said an Iraqi official. Showing the sole of your shoe to someone in the Arab world is a sign of extreme disrespect, and throwing your shoes is even worse. Image Credit: Newsday

“W” And The Shoe – Great On His Feet

One thing everyone could count on from George, that he was always best on his feet.

He starts the importance of his presidency standing in the rubble of the World Trade Center Towers with his arm draped around the shoulders of an old time firefighter, stating, “I can hear you. The rest of the world hears you. And the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon.”

George W. Bush ends his presidency ducking a couple of shoes hurled at him by a reporter in Iraq (a cultural sign of disrespect), turning the situation into a lesson in democracy by first stating “I’m OK,” “All I can report is it is a size 10,” and then later to reporters on how he understood the act, "It's like going to a political rally and have people yell at you. It's a way for people to draw attention," Bush said. "I don't know what the guy's cause was. I didn't feel the least bit threatened by it."

Lesson - In a democracy it is always OK to express a difference of opinion (even though the reporter that threw the shoes, who was escorted out by Iraqi officials, was promptly beaten).

How will history treat George Bush?

I have a suspicion it’s going to be better then a lot of people now suspect - or are willing to admit.

If only he could have pulled out a veto pen and used it as easily and with the athletic deft he showed he could dodge a shoe! …

… if he had, the way history will treat “W” would have been not only favorable, but great.

“General WMD” Powell Endorses “Senator Speech” Obama

Colin Powell hailed the Sen. Obama as a "transformational figure" and expressed disappointment in the negative tone of Sen. John McCain's campaign, as well as his choice of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as running mate. Image Credit: Meet The Press – NBC

“General WMD” Powell Endorses “Senator Speech” Obama

Nobody can make this stuff up!

At this very moment with a little more than two weeks before the election, Senator Barack Obama had spent a total of 143 days on the floor of the United States Senate before declaring his intention to become the candidate nominee of the Democrat Party for the office of President of the United States. During the primary process before he was able to secure his political party’s nomination, he had to compete against Senator Hillary Clinton who characterized her opponent as a person who’s only accomplishment was a speech given stating a position as being against the war in Iraq.

Colin Powell is a Free Enterprise citizen making money from speeches he gives on behalf of his long list of accomplishments which include directing and winning the first Gulf War (an action opposed by then Senator and current Vice-Presidential candidate, Joe Biden) under George Bush, President #41, and being the Secretary of State and selling the invasion of Iraq by the United States to the United Nations for George Bush, President #43.

Step back in time with me for a moment and have your brain fire off in a synapse cluster.

After September 11, 2001, our Government was looking to respond and hunt down the forces that were aligned to attack the United States and thereby the free world.

In the run up to our impending invasion of Iraq, Barack Obama and Colin Powell were leading distinctly different lives.

This excerpted and edited from The White House website -

U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell Addresses the U.N. Security Council
This transcript includes the slides that were displayed during the remarks. They are placed in the text approximately where they were displayed in the address. To view the slides, click on the graphic (a pop-up window will appear).
February 5, 2003

For more than 20 years, by word and by deed Saddam Hussein has pursued his ambition to dominate Iraq and the broader Middle East using the only means he knows, intimidation, coercion and annihilation of all those who might stand in his way. For Saddam Hussein, possession of the world's most deadly weapons is the ultimate trump card, the one he most hold to fulfill his ambition.

We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction; he's determined to make more. Given Saddam Hussein's history of aggression, given what we know of his grandiose plans, given what we know of his terrorist associations and given his determination to exact revenge on those who oppose him, should we take the risk that he will not some day use these weapons at a time and the place and in the manner of his choosing at a time when the world is in a much weaker position to respond?

The United States will not and cannot run that risk to the American people. Leaving Saddam Hussein in possession of weapons of mass destruction for a few more months or years is not an option, not in a post-September 11th world.
Reference Here>>

Colin Powell said this with having all of his “skin-in-the-game” as Secretary Of State of the United States and delivered his presentation in front of the world representatives gathered at the United Nations.

At this very time of Colin Powell’s presentation to the United Nations, Barack Obama was gearing up his (eventually unopposed) run for the office of United States Senator from the state of Illinois.

This edited and excerpted from The Black Commentator -

The Black Commentator
Issue Number 45 - June 5, 2003

Barack Obama, [an ACORN community organizer,] a constitutional law professor and state senator from the south side of Chicago, is a leading candidate for the US Senate in the March 2004 Illinois Democratic primary. It's an open seat with no incumbent. In a crowded field that includes three well-known and better-funded opponents, Obama is definitely a contender. But who is Barack Obama?
----
At an antiwar meeting last October, 2002, Obama was certainly pitching to that Democratic base in the progressive and African American community:

"I don't oppose all wars ... What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.
----
"That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics .... "
Reference Here>>

Barack Obama said this without having any “skin-in-the-game” to a small crowd of like minded people gathered at an antiwar meeting in Chicago, Illinois.

This weekend with a little more than two weeks left before the election, Free Market citizen and professed Republican (speaking fees estimated at $100,000 per appearance), Colin Powell announced his endorsement for Barack Obama.

This edited and excerpted from Meet The Press, October 19, 2008 –

'Meet the Press' transcript for Oct. 19, 2008
Former Secretary of State Gen. Colin Powell (Ret.), Chuck Todd, David Brooks, Jon Meacham, Andrea Mitchell, Joe Scarborough

[Colin Powell]

I know both of these individuals very well now. I've known John for 25 years as your setup said. And I've gotten to know Mr. Obama quite well over the past two years. Both of them are distinguished Americans who are patriotic, who are dedicated to the welfare of our country. Either one of them, I think, would be a good president. I have said to Mr. McCain that I admire all he has done. I have some concerns about the direction that the party has taken in recent years. It has moved more to the right than I would like to see it, but that's a choice the party makes. And I've said to Mr. Obama, "You have to pass a test of do you have enough experience, and do you bring the judgment to the table that would give us confidence that you would be a good president."
----
So, when I look at all of this and I think back to my Army career, we've got two individuals, either one of them could be a good president. But which is the president that we need now? Which is the individual that serves the needs of the nation for the next period of time? And I come to the conclusion that because of his ability to inspire, because of the inclusive nature of his campaign, because he is reaching out all across America, because of who he is and his rhetorical abilities--and we have to take that into account--as well as his substance--he has both style and substance--he has met the standard of being a successful president, being an exceptional president. I think he is a transformational figure. He is a new generation coming into the world--onto the world stage, onto the American stage, and for that reason I'll be voting for Senator Barack Obama.
Reference Here>>

So there you have it, former Secretary of State Gen. Colin Powell endorses junior Senator fom Illinois, Barack Obama for President of the United States. He does so by sighting Style and Substance and not one word about his life accomplishments, and possible philosophical ideals that would be good for all of America to embrace.

OUCH!

This is a Republican who sold the world on the fact that Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD’s) and was heralded for his prowess as a successful chief warrior when our country was called on by the world to move the invasion army of Iraq out of Kuwait in the first Gulf War.

This is also a Republican who opposes the right to life for the unborn, opposes the appointments to the Supreme Court of the United States; Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito. Does he also disapprove of his appointments to being a Four-Star General in the Army (President Ronald Reagan, #40), Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the Military (President George H.W. Bush, #41), and Secretary of State of the United States (President George W. Bush, #43)?

With a Republican like this ... who needs Democrats?

We can only imagine what type of position a Colin Powell has negotiated for himself in a Barack Obama administration. Oh, and do not forget ... this endorsement isn't about race.

Mark-To-Market / It’s Time To Gore Sarbanes-Oxley Now

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). [Fox News interview YouTube video links at post end] Image Credit: episcopalifem.wordpress.com

Mark-To-Market / It’s Time To Gore Sarbanes-Oxley Now

In the wake of the ENRON Corporation accounting fiasco, congress rushed in with the passage of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 to show that they were paying attention to the outrage seen in the voting public to lying from corporate executives.

Definition from Wikipedia:

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Pub.L. 107-204, 116 Stat. 745, enacted 2002-07-30), also known as the Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act of 2002, enacted on July 30, 2002 was put forward by Congress in response to a number of major corporate and accounting scandals including those affecting Enron, Tyco International, Adelphia, Peregrine Systems and WorldCom. Named after sponsors Senator Paul Sarbanes (D-MD) and Representative Michael G. Oxley (R-OH), the Act was approved by the House by a vote of 334-90 and by the Senate 99-0. President George W. Bush signed it into law, stating it included "the most far-reaching reforms of American business practices since the time of Franklin D. Roosevelt."

Tucked into this bill was an accounting practice that is known by the term “Mark-To-Market”. “Mark-To-Market” was designed to have assets of a corporation be valued on a market valuation basis. Simply put … the assets of a corporation would be valued not on the time and intrinsic value of the assets held, but on the confidence level of those assets as shown in the stock market price of the company marked at a particular point in time.

Several recognized leaders have begun to ask the Bush Administration to act against this practice and change it so that the value of corporate assets would be calculated based upon an average taken over a three month period backwards from the time the assessment is required when businesses are applying for swing loans upon which a company takes advantage of an opportunity to expand (leveraging assets).

Newt Gingrich, Donald Trump, and Steven Forbes are three of the recognized names calling for this free market change upon which about 70% of our economy’s liquidity crisis can be solved. By making the Executive Order TODAY to suspend the “Mark-To-Market” accounting practice of corporate valuation mandated by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, corporations would be able to show assets valued at a more realistic rate thus banks would have the confidence to lend them money and our economy would gain some liquidity without taxpayer money.

This excerpted and edited from Forbes Magazine -

Suspend Mark-To-Market Now!
Newt Gingrich 09.29.08, 6:05 PM ET

Today, Congress voted against passing the bailout package for Wall Street. The stock market reacted immediately, falling almost 800 points. It is clear that something needs to be done, and in the coming days, a new package must be constructed that has the support of the American people that both deals with the liquidity crisis and sets the stage for long-term economic growth.
----
Today the Treasury secretary released the following statement: "I and my colleagues at the Fed and the SEC continue to address the market challenges we are facing on a daily basis. I am committed to continuing to work with my fellow regulators to use all the tools available to protect our financial system and our economy."

While Congress and the White House consider next steps, the Treasury and its fellow regulators should follow their own counsel and take without delay the one regulatory action within their discretion that can help immediately to calm markets and dramatically reduce the taxpayer risk in any necessary government intervention: suspend mark-to-market.

Chief economist Brian S. Wesbury and his colleague Bob Stein at First Trust Portfolios of Chicago estimate the impact of the "mark-to-market" accounting rule on the current crisis as follows:

"It is true that the root of this crisis is bad mortgage loans, but probably 70% of the real crisis that we face today is caused by mark-to-market accounting in an illiquid market. What's most fascinating is that the Treasury is selling its plan as a way to put a bottom in mortgage pool prices, tipping its hat to the problem of mark-to-market accounting without acknowledging it. It is a real shame that there is so little discussion of this reality." (Emphasis added.)
----
"Mark-to-Market" Accounting and the Origins of the Financial Crisis: Mark-to-market accounting (also known as "fair value" accounting) means that companies must value the assets on their balance sheets based on the latest market indicators of the price that those assets could be sold for immediately. Under such a rule, declining housing prices don't just reduce the value of defaulting mortgages. They reduce the value of all mortgages and all mortgage-related securities because the housing collateral protecting them is worth less.

Moreover, when a company in financial distress begins fire sales of its assets to raise capital to meet regulatory requirements, the market-bottom prices it sells out for become the new standard for the valuation of all similar securities held by other companies under mark-to-market. This has begun a downward death spiral for financial companies large and small.

More foreclosures and home auctions continue to depress housing prices, further reducing the value of all mortgage-related securities. As capital values decline, firms must scramble to maintain the capital required by regulation. When they try to sell assets to raise that capital, the market values of those assets are driven down further. Under mark-to-market, the company must then mark down the value of all of its assets even more.

The credit agencies see declining capital margins, so they downgrade the company's credit ratings. That makes borrowing to meet capital requirements more difficult. Declining capital and credit ratings cause the company's stock prices to decline.

Panic sets in, and no one wants to buy mortgage-related securities, which drives their value under mark-to-market regulations down toward zero. Balance sheets under mark-to-market suddenly start to show insolvency. This downward spiral shuts down lending to these companies, so they lose all liquidity (cash on hand) needed to keep company operations going. Stockholders--realizing that they will be wiped out if the companies go into bankruptcy or get taken over by the government--start panic selling, even when they know the underlying business of the company is fine.

The end result for the company is stock prices driven toward zero and bankruptcy or government takeover. The criminal liabilities imposed under Sarbanes-Oxley have driven accountants to stricter and stricter accounting evaluations and interpretations and have prevented leading executives from resisting them.
----
Reform or Bust: Because existing rules requiring mark-to-market accounting are causing such turmoil on Wall Street, mark-to-market accounting should be suspended immediately so as to relieve the stress on banks and corporations. In the interim, we can use the economic value approach based on a discounted cash flow analysis of anticipated-income streams, as we did for decades before the new mark-to-market began to take hold. We can take the time to evaluate mark-to-market all over again. Perhaps a three-year rolling average to determine mark-to-market prices would be a workable permanent system.
----
For companies like Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers (nyse: LEH - news - people ) and American International Group (nyse: AIG - news - people ), suspending mark-to-market rules will come too late. But for the remaining vulnerable banks and corporations, doing away with the current mark-to-market accounting rules will safeguard against destructive pricing volatility, needless bankruptcies, job loss and huge taxpayer bailouts.

Suspending Mark-to-Market Only the First Step to Economic Recovery: In the wake of today's vote, suspending mark-to-market is an extremely important first step to take, but it is only a first step.
----
Congress should look at the impact of the Irish 12% corporate income tax on attracting investment and jobs to Ireland and consider a dramatic cut in the U.S. corporate income tax (the highest in the world when combined with state taxes) as a step toward attracting high-value productive and desirable jobs back to the United States.

The Congress should look at the Chinese and Singapore growth patterns and match them by zeroing out the capital gains tax to induce massive flows of private capital to rebuild the market and minimize the need for a taxpayer-funded bailout.

The Congress should repeal Sarbanes-Oxley, which failed to warn of every single bankruptcy but provides a $3-million-a-year accounting and regulatory expense for every small company wishing to go public.

This is the kind of pro-growth, pro-entrepreneur program that would accelerate the American recovery and lead to the next economic period of real growth.
Reference Here>>

It’s time to gore Sarbanes-Oxley now!

Newt Gingrich lays out the problem and the solutions to this liquidity crisis in three parts - in order HERE, HERE, and HERE.

Brazil On Collision Course: Ethanol & Environment

Deforestation in Brazil: This image of the southern Amazon uses satellite data from the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) on the Terra satellite collected in 2000 and 2001 to classify the terrain into three separate land surface categories: forest (red), herbaceous (non-woody) vegetation like grasses (green), and bare ground (blue). The Amazon’s numerous rivers appear white. Image Credit: Mongabay.com

Brazil On Collision Course: Ethanol & Environment

Ethanol production, "the renewable fuel resource", requires fiber (lots of fibre) and water (lots of water) to become the bio-replacement fuel of the future. If Brazil has its way, it plans to expand its capacity to produce Ethanol by 12 times over the next eighteen years and eclipse all other nations ability to supply the world demand for energy based on something other than petroleum.

This expansion is expected to place additional stresses on the ecosystems that surround the populated portions of Brazil. The decades old practice of slash & burn clear-cutting of the forests may now come full circle to slash & convert putting any vegetation on the production line for Ethanol.

Wither the land is cleared for sugarcane or just being cleared for the fibre due to advances in technology to convert more types of fibre ... rain forests are at a greater risk over the next 20 years.

Excerpts from Tierramérica via Inter Press Service News Agency -

Brazil Aims to Dominate World Ethanol Market
Mario Osava - 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.)

RIO DE JANEIRO, Mar 31 (Tierramérica) - Brazil is working towards producing enough ethanol to substitute 10 percent of the gasoline consumed worldwide within 18 years. That would mean increasing its current production of 17.3 billion litres a year by a factor of 12, without sacrificing forests, protected areas or food cultivation.

The government called on a group of experts to study the possibilities and impacts of a sharp increase in fuel alcohol production from sugarcane.

The group led by the Interdisciplinary Group for Energy Planning of Campinas University, and coordinated by physicist Rogério Cerqueira Leite, concluded that Brazil could produce 205 billion litres of ethanol by 2025. A comparable volume will be produced by the rest of the world, predict experts.
----
Increased ethanol production is essential. The experts' report says there will be a 40-percent hike in output per hectare of sugarcane through a new technology based on hydrolysis. The United States and Brazil agreed to cooperate in developing this approach during the Mar. 8-9 visit by President George W. Bush in Sao Paulo.

Potentially, hydrolysis, which can take advantage of any cellulose material, could double productivity, but the goal was set at 40 percent based on known technologies and because part of the sugarcane waste (pulp and straw) is used in generating electricity, not ethanol, explained Carlos Rossell, a researcher with the group.

Rainforest cleared for maize - Location: Puerto Maldanado - Image Credit: Mongabay.com

This technology involves some complicated challenges, such as breaking down very tough plant structures, which will require a great deal of effort to make it viable on an industrial scale, Rossell told Tierramérica.

U.S. and European scientists are farther along in this research and benefit from much bigger investments, but Brazil has the advantage of the immediate availability of the sugarcane, ready to be processed. The others will have to go into the fields to bring in the stalks and other bio-material, mostly from maize, with additional costs, he said.

For the same reason, the expertise that can come from the United States, whose ethanol production is based on corn, doesn't resolve the Brazilian problem. The raw materials are different, the researcher said.
----
For now, the United States produces a little more ethanol than Brazil does, but production costs are 40 percent higher, according to industry leaders in Brazil. The U.S. tariff barrier of 54 cents on the dollar per gallon (3.8 litres) did not prevent the northern giant from importing 1.6 billion litres of Brazilian fuel alcohol last year, when increased demand drove up maize prices.

In addition to destabilising the international market, increasing maize prices and soybean prices (the former's replacement for animal feed), U.S. ethanol is hardly environmentally efficient.

Each unit of energy used in U.S. ethanol production generates just 1.3 to 1.8 units of renewable energy, while sugarcane reaches a minimum of 8.3 units. As such, U.S.-produced ethanol does little to curb emissions that cause climate change, which, along with high-priced petroleum are the main reasons biofuels are being promoted.

In Brazil, ethanol also faces limitations. Peasant farmer movements and many social activists condemn the growth of agro-energy that hurts food production. Environmentalists fear further expansion of the farm frontier into Amazon forests, especially as land prices increase.

Fuel alcohol production has "negative environmental, social and economic impacts for the communities," it generates few jobs, and "consumes a lot of natural resources -- each litre of ethanol requires 30 litres of water," criticises Temístocles Marcelos, environmental policy director at the labour union CUT.

Virtually all forest clearing, by small farmer and plantation owner alike, is done by fire. Though these fires are intended to burn only limited areas, they frequently escape agricultural plots and pastures and char pristine rainforest. Image Credit: Mongabay.com
----
The experts' study, however, points to the creation of five million new jobs if the ambitious production plan is implemented.
----
In Sao Paulo state, home to more than half of Brazil's ethanol production, 60 percent of the sugarcane fields are burned in order to facilitate cutting, polluting the air and causing a number of illnesses. The sugarcane industrialists are also accused of subjecting their workers to unhealthy and exhausting work conditions, which, according to reports, have also led to death.
----
The burns are also legal, and are to be abolished by 2020, he said. The solution would be accelerated if cellulose ethanol production were further advanced, because it uses sugarcane leaves.

Furthermore, ethanol benefits all of humanity by reducing carbon dioxide emissions. Its incorporation into Brazil's national energy matrix and its international marketing -- which should be unrelated to that of petroleum -- "depends only on political will," said Ribeiro.
Read All>>