A simple calculation points out bio-fuel’s bleak potential as an alternative fuel. To fill the roughly 100-litre tank of an SUV, an ethanol producer has to process about a quarter of a ton of wheat. This is enough to feed one person for a year. So are the cars of the rich ultimately consuming the food of the poor? The stage is clear for a conflict between 800 million car owners and the two billion people who represent the poorest of the poor worldwide.
   The poor are the first to feel the painful effects of turbulence in agricultural markets. Some spend up to 80 per cent of their disposable income on food. When grain ends up in fuel tanks instead of on plates, food prices increase, as does the cost of animal feed. Higher feed costs make it more expensive to raise livestock, which translates directly into higher prices for meat. The price of oil ultimately determines how much meat costs at the markets. The Americans, in particular, have high hopes for bio-fuel making them less dependent on oil-producing countries in the Persian Gulf region. It is important to know that two Latin American leaders have issued warnings about the effects of bio-fuel production on food supplies, but we know, some heavy-weight Americans investing in another most important Latin American country, Brazil, in the form of US dollars to produce bio-fuel, and the names include billionaire investor George Soros, former World Bank president James Wolfensohn and AOL founder Steve Case. All of them are in Brazil hoping to turn a handsome profit as well as to earn a face in the role of environmental activist. But the professional world has long harboured doubts over whether bio-fuel is as environmentally friendly as some believe.
   In fact, there are now many critics of the bio-fuel industry in the world, including the OECD, consumer organisations like Foodwatch, and even major food corporations like Nestlé. Their judgment on bio-fuel is devastating. According to the OECD, expanded bio-fuel production will lead to ‘untenable strains’ on the commodities markets ‘without yielding significant benefits for the environment.’ Foodwatch is convinced that the strategy, while benefiting farmers, will do nothing to protect the climate. Nestlé CEO Peter Brabeck-Lemathe bluntly characterises bio-fuel production as ‘environmental lunacy’.
   The environmental outcome is certainly poor. Much of the bio-fuel the farmers produce is counterbalance by the amount of energy that goes into producing the plants in the first place. They consume fossil fuels to harvest plants, for shipping, for storage and drying, not to mention the energy required to produce pesticides and fertilisers. The economic possibilities are also limited. Even if the US’s entire corn crop were converted into fuel, it would satisfy only about 12 per cent of the demand for gasoline. So, the question remains — cars or the people?
   Sirajul Islam
   Gulshan, Dhaka

The people of Bangladesh have been suffering from lack of electricity for the last few years. Power distribution lines have been expanded to cover more consumers but production of electricity did not increase. The main reason behind this is corruption.
   Power sector was under government control. Recently, large-scale investment from private sector was encouraged. But it did not solve the problem for various reasons.
   In the context of our country, this problem can easily be solved by micro enterprise or micro investment. For the success of that strategy, all types of taxes on the import and sale of generators below the capacity of 10 mega watts must be fixed at zero per cent. Banks should allow loans without mortgage for purchasing generators below 10 mw. This will create employment for the youth. They will be able to invest in small area-wise power production and distribution business. Low-priced electricity will strongly assist the boost-up of cottage industry in the rural areas. Owners of these micro power plants will need employees for maintenance. In a small area, each household will be their customer and they will negotiate the price. The city corporation or the municipality will ensure the standard of service by regular inspection.
   This way the sufferings of the people from power shortage will decrease significantly. These investors should be exempted from income tax and vat for the first five years. This will certainly solve the power crisis.
   Md Abdus Salam
   Mohammadpur, Dhaka

Professor Imtiaz Ahmed of Dhaka University highlighted a very important point regarding the current power crisis during a radio programme with the BBC Bangla Serivce. He felt that the media, instead of regularly criticising the government for not being able to solve the power crisis, should also suggest some useful measures which could be taken up by the government as well as the private sector to overcome the power shortage. That is, instead of continuing on with the blame game, the media could suggest steps such as asking the large private sector enterprises to take collective initiatives to solve the problem. He said, for instance, the BGMEA could collectively take some initiatives to solve the power problem. I feel that even the NGOs can play a vital role.
   Secondly, regarding the current split in the BNP, he said that this division might not persist for long since the ideology of both the groups remains the same. And he also said that when election would be near, then the two factions might automatically unite because they know that to win against a big rival like the Awami League, they would need to unite.
   Wasif Wahed
   Old DOHS, Dhaka

There seems something rotten in Bangladesh’s corridor of power under a unique caretaker government. This government initiated a few reforms programme like bringing corrupt people and the criminals to justice. That was good but they did everything the wrong way and the outcome does not look good. Their actions were poor and it is for sure that they would not succeed to bring any good to the country or anybody.
   The women development policy, however good it is for the women or the country, should not have been initiated by the government at this stage when it failed to solve other problems it had earlier undertaken or got any closer to solving the most important of all the problems — the political uncertainty.
   Why did the government need to appoint a committee headed by a Khatib to evaluate anything, whether it was women development policy or rice import? We know the intellectual capabilities of these people and bringing them to such a serious matter was inviting deliberately some problems.
   So far as the clerics are concerned they hardly understand what they are talking about. It was quite amazing when the acting Khatib of Baitul Mukarram National Mosque and head of the review committee on National Women Development Policy, while objecting equal rights to women, said, ‘A woman cannot enjoy rights equal to a man’s because a woman is not equal to a man by birth’ and at the same time he questioned, ‘Can there be two prime ministers — one male and one female — in a country at the same time?’
   Where are the truth and the co-relation? And what sorts of arguments are these? ‘A woman is not equal to a man by birth’ is very correct and physically nobody on earth is equal to any other man or woman is the basic law of nature. Does the Khatib know it?
   Khatib’s statement is very offensive and it is unfortunate that a religious leader could publicly pass such remarks on such serious social issue. Does he know that it is not only men and women that are different; each individual on earth is unique and different, all creatures and plants are also quite distinctive and unlike to each other? Would that be an argument for the Khatib now that everybody should be treated differently?
   Tayeb Husain
   On e-mail

This refers to Gopal Sengupta’s letter (April 23) in which he has supported British home secretary’s remark in which she was reported to have said that the ‘terrorists in Bangladesh and those in UK had links’.
   I am not a supporter of any political party in Bangladesh and the Jamaat or, for that matter, any religion-based party is the last organisation on earth with which I will ever sympathise. Nevertheless, I think Sengupta’s arguments in defence of the British home secretary lack rationality, logic and common sense.
   The religious groups that protested in Baitul Mukarram National Mosque area were against the government’s plan to give women equal rights and the madrassa students went on a rampage and stormed Hathazari police station in Chittagong over rumours that an imam had been killed earlier in the day in clashes between the police and the religious militants in Dhaka. Both the events were domestic. The causes and actions certainly do not prove that these groups have link with anybody in UK. Or, does it? Where did Sengupta find evidence of this link?
   An expatriate
   On e-mail