Biotechnology weapons worse than nukes, say critics

By Ranjit Devraj

New Delhi, India, Jan. 25 (IPS)— Governments concerned about nuclear proliferation should be more worried by the greater potential for mischief that biotechnology holds in military and criminal minds, say members of an international panel of scientists involved in shaping the Biosafety Protocol.

In India for a strategy session ahead of the Second World Social Forum in Porte Alegre, Brazil next week, which will discuss alternatives to globalization, the experts said biotechnology weapon programs now being developed secretly by several governments are insidious.

They are more difficult to detect than programs for developing nuclear weapons, they added.

“Biotechnology weapons come out of test tubes rather than the large conspicuous facilities that are needed for developing and delivering nuclear weapons,” said Christine von Wiezsacker, vice president of Ecoropa, the Green Movement of Europe.

And in the same way that nuclear technology was promoted as having the potential to solve supposed shortages of energy resources, biotechnology is now being touted by its proponents as the answer to mythical food shortages, added Sue Edwards, biology professor at the Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia.

Wiezsacker said there were too many “grey areas” in biotechnology that are being exploited in the name of food security but are actually detrimental to it.

A classic example is “terminator” technology, which renders seeds infertile in subsequent generations so that farmers are forced to return to the transnational corporations (TNCs) to buy seeds rather than use what they have stored, as in traditional farming.

“Terminator technology delivered from the outside could make entire countries dependent on TNCs for their seed requirements,” Wieszacker said.

“This is in fact a war on entire species at the cost of monocultures which are vulnerable to ecological breakdown and are unsustainable,” Edwards said.

Worst of all is the refusal of governments that are backed by the same TNCs to accept the international regulation of little-understood areas of biotechnology, notably genetic engineering, despite its potential for mass destruction, said Prof. Jean Grossholtz, feminist and global campaigner for cultural and biological diversity.

Grossholtz, who teaches at the Holyoke College in Massachusetts in the United States, said the US government was taking advantage of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington and the anthrax scare to restrict the right of citizens to information about its biological defense program.

She said the US government is clearly more interested in defending the interests of TNCs than in protecting citizens from biological warfare, and is now also moving away from commitments under the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC) not to develop or stockpile biological weapons.

In fact, the United States has been accused of sabotaging the fifth convention of the BTWC at Geneva in December, where negotiations were held on for mandatory verification mechanisms for the international inspection of suspected biological weapons research and production facilities.

US majority shuns administration energy plan

By Danielle Knight

Washington, DC, Jan. 26 (IPS)— The US administration and public are at odds over the core elements of energy policy, according to an opinion poll that is fueling debate in Congress.

Most people in the United States prefer to achieve energy security by increasing efficiency and developing alternative energy sources rather than by increasing the supply of oil, the Mellman Group, a prominent Democratic polling firm, has found.

The administration of President George W. Bush, lawmakers from his Republican party, and some labor unions, have cast the president’s energy legislation -- which encourages oil drilling in pristine areas and the construction of coal-fired power plants -- as important to domestic security.

Bush has said his plan would reduce US reliance on Middle East oil. The United States imports 60 percent of its daily oil consumption, up from 47 percent a decade ago.

According to Mellman, however, 71 percent of people polled do not buy the president’s argument. Only one in five voters say increased production is the best way to solve the nation’s energy problems. About 19 percent believe drilling for more oil and gas in the United States would increase energy supply, while 2 percent supported getting more oil from oil-producing allies.

A 63 percent majority of voters also rejected Bush’s argument that drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would enhance national security, oil independence and jobs. A near majority of 47 percent “strongly oppose” drilling in the Arctic. In comparison, 31 percent favor drilling in the refuge and 20 percent “strongly favor” it.

When asked if drilling for oil in the refuge would create more jobs, more than two-thirds (69 percent) say development of alternative energy would lead to more jobs. Only 18 percent polled believe drilling in the Arctic refuge would generate more jobs than investing in cleaner renewable energy.

Contrary to some official union statements about support for drilling in the refuge, 69 percent of households with people belonging to labor unions say they agree more with the alternative energy technologies message than they did with the administration’s pro-drilling argument.

Generally aligned with congressional Democrats, unions are split over their support of Bush’s energy plan and drilling in the refuge. While the International Brotherhood of Teamsters strongly supports drilling, the United Steelworkers of America and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) have aligned themselves with environmentalists who oppose opening up the refuge.

The new poll results are being used to the advantage of Congressional Democrats who oppose Bush’s plan. In early August, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives approved a broad energy bill that would allow some oil drilling in the refuge.

Bush’s measure must still pass through the Senate, where the balance of power between Democrats and Republicans is delicate. Congressional aids expect the bill to be considered by lawmakers in mid-February.

Conservationists have warned that the Bush strategy would exacerbate global warming by encouraging the burning of fossil fuels and consequent release of heat-trapping greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide.

Congressional Democrats believe that industry campaign contributions to Bush shaped administration energy policy in a way that is biased in favor of the fossil fuel industry. The lawmakers have been calling for the release of White House records detailing the development of Bush’s energy policy.

The administration has refused for the past nine months to provide meeting records of the White House energy task force, which was chaired by Vice President Dick Cheney and produced Bush’s energy policy.

Before terrorist attacks last Sept. 11, the US General Accounting Office (GAO) had been poised to sue after Cheney’s office argued it was entitled to keep the name of the energy task force members private. The GAO has said it will decide in coming weeks whether it will take the administration to court.

Lawmakers speculate that the task force probe could merge with congressional investigations into the bankruptcy of Enron, the energy company that was part of the administration’s task force.

Democratic lawmakers, meanwhile, are pressing their own energy proposals that focus on investments in alternative technologies, including fuel cells, and renewable energy sources like wind, biomass, and solar power.

Senate Majority Leader, Tom Daschle, a Democrat, is proposing a bill that would boost efforts to reduce US dependence on oil imports, moving toward conservation and renewable sources and protecting the unique Arctic refuge and other sensitive public lands.

“Senator Daschle’s bill could make dramatic, positive changes in this country’s energy future,” says Rodger Schlickeisen, president of Defenders of Wildlife, a Washington-based environmental group.

On Thursday, Richard Gephardt, the House Democrat leader, called on lawmakers to launch an “Apollo Project,” that would develop “environmentally smart, renewable energy solutions to make our nation energy independent by the end of the decade.”

The goal, argues Gephardt, who was addressing the Democratic Leadership Council, would be to reduce dependence on foreign oil, create growth in the energy sector of the economy, and create new energy sources that protect the environment.

Under the proposed project, the United States would expand its production of alternative fuel-cell vehicles to 2.5 million by 2020. Using tax credits, and spending on research and development, the plan would require that 20 percent of energy consumed in the United States would be derived by alternative and renewable sources of energy.

“It’s easy to get bogged down in the day-to-day details of the current debate that we never lift our eyes and look ahead to the decade -- about how we want our country to look, not just in one year, but in ten years,” said Gephardt.