Review: Deadly Brew, the Human Toll of Ethanol
I saw the Bloomberg documentary Deadly Brew, the Human Toll of Ethanol, which aired last Thursday and I have to agree with some of the criticisms that UNICA levels at the film. The documentary, which focused on the working conditions of cane cutters in Brazil, gave both sides but seemed to favor the workers a little more than the owners. As you can see in the video above, they do that close up thing to one of the owners, a technique that makes anyone look evil. In the end, whatever they got wrong or one-sided, I am not too concerned with labor conditions of Brazilian ethanol worker. Let me explain.
The documentary starts out by saying most sugar cane in Brazil is cut by hand. At the end however, the documentary says industry projects that will change very soon, up to 80 percent replaced by machines and the remaining 20 percent will run the machines. So, even if there is a problem, cutting by hand is going away. The documentary also mentions there are laws in place, enforcement groups, fines and even unions. The laws are ignored, says the documentary, enforcement lax, fines too low and unions (while numerous) weak on the national level. I don't mean to seem flippant but that's about as good as it gets in the world.
For countries like China, which wants to be a major ethanol exporter, you won't have to use the term virtual slavery when talking about working conditions: It will be slavery! If this were a perfect world, I would agree with EU's interest in trying to change the working conditions around the world. In reality, the best I hope for is some kind of label on the country of origin for ethanol in hopes of shining a light on the problem. We don't know where our food comes from, so I won't hold my breath. What do you think readers: am I wrong to think weak unions and low fines is not a major problem?
Related:
[Source: Bloomberg]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
James Bowe 11:12AM (1/29/2008)
If the unions and protective laws exist on paper only, do they really exist? Brazil has some protections in place to keep the Amazon from being destroyed too, but they don't have the manpower to enforce it, and look how that's going. Simply saying the workers are unionized means nothing unless the union is powerful enough to enact change. First off, they need 1 powerful union, not several weak ones. Even then, if all the workers went on strike, would the ethanol industry even notice? What's Brazil's unemployment rate? How long would it take for each and every job to be filled by someone else?
Reply
Lascelles Linton 3:34PM (1/29/2008)
James Bowe, The doc specifically said many unions. The doc did not say but I would guess the unions lack power because they jobs are going away. I also read the jobs are very high paying and unemployment high so the people are willing to put up with abuses. I am not saying there is no room for change, I am just saying on the international level, there are probably worse things to worry about like the Amazon when it comes to ethanol.
Reply
Marcel G 5:37PM (1/30/2008)
I think you are off base to think that weak unions and low fines are not so much of a problem, and I say this because people who don't care about workers or about the rule of law also don't usually care about the environment.
Yes, those jobs may very well find their way downward in the race to the lowest rungs of the world's cheapest and most exploitive places to do business, but that's a result of free trade deals that reduce labour and environmental protections to a footnote. Those deals also it very difficult for most countries to implement any kind of internal labour or environmental protections that might infringe on a foreign corporation's ability to make profits.
It doesn't have to be a perfect world for it to be worth it for the EU to try to influence labour (and environmental) conditions around the world, and a powerful way that they can influence that is with restrictions on how they import goods and commodities.
Also, don't fall victim to the fallacy that every news story or documentary is somehow balanced only if it has an equal view of two sides of a conflict. For example, there is no meaningful debate about global warming (and there is no common ground to compromise to) because all of the credible experts are on the same side. In this case, there are the exploiters and there are the exploited, so if you can actually find someone who can make a solid case for the moral and environmental benefits of exploiting people and the land, then you might end up with a more balanced result.
Reply
Rose 6:35AM (2/07/2008)
You don't have to use the term "virtual" slavery here either. Among other possible appropriate terms, you can in fact use the term "slave labour." This was the term the Brazilian government used in reference to the nearly 3,000 sugar cane workers liberated last year.
Sugar cane workers are experiencing incredible suffering in trying to make a living for themselves and their families and I find it difficult to hear somebody say that they are "not too worried."
There are a number of reasons for the limited success of unions. For example, there is the incredible degree of land and income inequality in Brazil.
Reply