Public Comment

Let us first set aside the potential ad hominem attacks against BP Amoco PLC. So what if it is the corporation that pleaded with Washington and London to remove the democratically elected prime minister of Iran from office which resulted in a violent coup d’etat in 1953 because of concerns over control of Iran’s oil resources? So what if it is the corporation that deliberately failed to adequately maintain its Alaskan pipeline so it could drive up the price of oil, and which, upon discovering the whistle blower, hired a CIA operative to break into the employee’s office? So what if it is the corporation who, along with oil giants ExxonMobil and Shell, heavily influenced the new Iraq Oil and Gas Law which would give Big Oil a 75 percent concession to Iraq’s oil resources in a so-called “Production Sharing Agreement”? Yes, let us put BP’s past (as well as its recent past) behind us and look towards the future of renewable energy so that, in the words of Berkeley National Laboratory’s Steve Chu, we can “help save the world.” 

Before wholeheartedly embracing Chu’s messianic vision, it would be wise of us to realize what industrial-scale biofuel and ethanol production would entail. Take a gander at a nation that has already shifted its gasoline consumption to a 40 percent reliance on ethanol—Brazil. Since 1973 the South American nation has intensively cultivated sugarcane for the production of ethanol, and since then Brazil has witnessed some dire results: massive deforestation, increased air and water pollution, and loss of life in some of the world’s most biologically diverse regions. A preeminent Brazilian environmentalist, Fabio Feldman, adds: “Some of the cane plantations are the size of European states... In order to harvest you must burn the plantations which creates a serious air pollution problem in the city.”  

But those are Brazil’s problems. What problems does the United States face? First, the United States has only 625,000 square miles of arable farmland. In order to fully supplant fossil fuels with biofuels at our current consumption levels, we would need 1.4 million square miles of land—land we do not have, and land that would be seized from developing countries. Second, we need to also consider that nearly all of the fertilizers and pesticides used in massive agricultural projects are oil-based products. Intensifying agricultural projects using these products does not ameliorate our dependence on oil. And third, according to research done by UC Berkeley scientist Tad Patzek and Cornell University professor David Pimentel, ethanol production from corn and switchgrass would, respectively, require 29 and 45 percent more fossil fuel energy than produced. Biodiesel production from soybean would require 27 percent more.  

However, Berkeley researchers and scientists are assuring us that such negative-return projects will not be the focus of the Energy Biosciences Institute. Instead, those working in the laboratories will study the use of cellulosic plants such as Miscanthus weed. Much of the research with such plants will necessitate the application of genetically modified organisms—a technological field which is in itself shrouded by controversy. 

Finally, what can be said about the corporatization of our public university? The role of the university in the context of the global economic order coincides with the advent of the Cold War. The Eisenhower administration in the 1950s increased funding for “educational” programs in the domain of the sciences and technology and installed additional programs so that it could cement the United States as a dominant power and remain competitive with the Soviet Union in both the global political and economic landscapes. At this juncture of human history we begin to see the role of the university as a key component of ensuring that U.S. students would be fully integrated with this hegemonic scheme. Part of that scheme includes the realization of US citizens as trained, well-disciplined adults who are eager to jump the corporate bandwagon.  

The University of California has since then churned out such “contributions” of “societal good” as the atomic weapon and the “Berkeley Mafia” who were essential in providing Indonesia’s Suharto regime with the game plan for the New Order (It’s quite ironic how the proposal equates the value of the EBI with the development of the atomic bomb). If the University and the State of California were truly committed to higher learning in the purest sense, why then has Governor Schwarzenegger planned to increase student undergraduate fees by 7 percent, graduate fees by 9 percent, and cut academic preparation by $33 million, all while pledging $40 million in California tax-payer dollars to the construction of the EBI? The trend is obvious: profit before education (unless the two coincide). With $500 million over the course of ten years, the University will double its corporate endowments and solidify a semi-unilateral dependency on a single corporate entity. 

If students are at all concerned about the fate of public higher education for our generation and the generations to come, we must challenge proposals that threaten our access to education. We must engage colleagues and faculty who are concerned about this threat. And we must see behind the gossamer veil of the university which purports a progressive solution to energy usage. 

Nathan Murthy is a UC Berkeley student.