Group items tagged

La production nationale de la plupart des aliments de base a baissé de façon brutale. L’Argentine, autrefois qualifiée de "grenier mondial", se retrouve obligée d’importer des denrées alimentaires. Une partie de la population commence même à souffrir de la faim. Les cultures vivrières ne sont pas les seules à avoir été affectées : la production de coton a chuté de 40 % dans la province de Chaco, et de 78 % dans la province de Formosa.

Toutefois, pour permettre à quelques groupes financiers d’obtenir des profits importants, l’Argentine paie le prix fort, en compromettant son avenir à long terme. Chaque année, plus de 200 000 hectares de forêts primaires sont abattues au fur et à mesure de l’avancée de la frontière des terres agricoles. [9] La monoculture intensive s’accompagne du lessivage, de l’érosion et de la dégradation des sols. On estime que la déforestation entraîne l’érosion de 19 à 30 millions de tonnes de sols par an.

Pendant six ans, un petit groupe de consommateurs et d’écologistes brésiliens ont lutté avec ténacité devant les tribunaux pour empêcher les OGM de pénétrer dans leur pays, mais leurs efforts ont été réduits à néant par le passage en fraude de soja RR à travers la frontière avec l’Argentine. Séduits par les promesses extravagantes des commerciaux, des agriculteurs brésiliens ont acheté ces semences illégales à une échelle si importante que l’interdiction officielle appliquée aux OGM s’est retrouvée vide de sens et a été abrogée par le président Lula. Des tactiques similaires ont été utilisées pour disséminer du soja RR au Paraguay et en Bolivie.

La folie du soja RR, qui est en train de transformer le Cône Sud en  "République du soja", comme certains l’ont appelée, n’a permis aucun augmentation de la productivité, malgré toutes les promesses des commerciaux. D’ailleurs, une enquête récente menée par l’Université du Kansas a montré que le soja RR avait un rendement moyen de 6 à 10 % inférieur à celui du soja conventionnel

Encore une technologie miracle, et un nouveau lot de problèmes pour les communautés argentines. Combien de temps cette folie va-t-elle continuer à sévir ?

Late that summer Meeks was told that the EPA was ready to reveal its first findings. On August 11, 2009, eager to finally hear what was in his water, Meeks got in his red 1994 Nissan pickup and drove the five miles to Pavillion’s community center, a corrugated steel building with bare walls and poured-concrete floors at the end of one of the two roads that cut through town. He had been anticipating the meeting for six months. Along with 80-some other residents, some who had driven from as far as Riverton, 26 miles away, Meeks took a seat on one of the wooden benches that were lined up facing a folding table and a projection screen, eager to hear the preliminary findings from the EPA’s first round of water testing. With the room quiet and tense, Luke Chavez, the EPA Superfund investigator, started off tentatively. He was shy and non-committal. But he proceeded to make headlines. Of the 39 water samples his team had taken from a smattering of properties around Pavillion, Chavez said 11 were contaminated with chemicals, including some with strong ties to hydraulic fracturing. The EPA found arsenic, methane gas, diesel-fuel-like compounds and metals including copper and vanadium. Of particular concern were compounds called adamantanes — a natural hydrocarbon found in gas — and an obscure chemical called 2-butoxyethanol phosphate. 2-BEp is a compound closely related to 2-BE, a substance known to be used in hydraulic fracturing solutions, and that is known to cause reproductive problems in animals. It was a chief suspect when Colorado regulators investigated the well explosion in Silt. Meeks’ well contained traces of petroleum hydrocarbons, bisphenol A, the adamantanes, and methane. John Fenton’s water, which tasted good and hadn’t even been suspected to have been contaminated, had methane and bisphenols. And Jeff Locker’s water, even after filtering with a reverse osmosis system, contained arsenic, methane and metals.

It’s really easy to say you should just get out of this situation,” says Deb Thomas, Meeks’ friend and the environmental organizer from Clark. “But they are not young. Everything that they have is wrapped up in that place — not just in their home. They’ve got animals and a life here. It’s pretty hard to leave that.” Meeks didn’t drink the water but used it to bathe and clean his dishes. By January he was complaining of ill effects on his health. He suffered of shortness of breath and described lesions and sores on his arms and legs. At the veterans hospital, he was told he had a respiratory infection and prescribed prednisone and moxifloxacin — but the doctors couldn’t say whether it was the water, the stress, or his persistent medical problems that were to blame. While he suffered, EPA took its biggest step on the fracturing issue in more than six years. In March 2010, EPA administrator Lisa Jackson announced that the EPA would undertake a major national study of risks to water supplies from hydraulic fracturing far bigger than the Pavillion study. This time, scientists would broaden their definition of fracturing beyond the energy industry’s version, and examine every aspect of the process, from the transportation and disposal of the chemicals to the water supplies needed to make the process happen. In New York, Gov. Paterson issued an executive order banning one type of hydraulic fracturing until July 1, 2011, by which time he hoped environmental officials would have thoroughly examined its safety. And in several states — including Wyoming — laws were passed to require drilling companies to disclose the chemicals they pump into the ground. A group of Democratic members of Congress ratcheted up the debate by revealing that fracking companies had continued to inject tens of millions of gallons of diesel fuel and diesel mixtures into the ground as part of the fracturing process long after they promised not to in 2005.