Akhirnya RUU Pornografi Disahkan
Setelah melalui proses sidang yang panjang yang dijenuhi oleh pro dan kontra, Kamis (30/12) siang, akhirnya RUU Pornografi disahkan. Dua Fraksi, PDS dan Fraksi PDI-P melakukan 'walk-out' sebagai protes atas disahkannya RUU tersebut. Masyarakat menunggu apakah UU ini akan memiliki 'greget' untuk memandu moralitas masyarakat Indonesia.
Untuk memahami isi RUU tersebut, di bawah ini adalah naskah rancangan tersebut.
RANCANGAN UNDANG-UNDANG REPUBLIK INDONESIA TENTANG PORNOGRAFI
BAB I
KETENTUAN UMUM
Pasal 1
Dalam Undang-Undang ini yang dimaksud dengan:
1. Pornografi adalah materi seksualitas yang dibuat oleh manusia dalam bentuk gambar, sketsa, ilustrasi, foto, tulisan, suara, bunyi, gambar bergerak, animasi, kartun, syair, percakapan, gerak tubuh, atau bentuk pesan komunikasi lain melalui berbagai bentuk media komunikasi dan/atau pertunjukan di muka umum, yang dapat membangkitkan hasrat seksual dan/atau melanggar nilai-nilai kesusilaan dalam masyarakat.
2. Jasa pornografi adalah segala jenis layanan pornografi yang disediakan oleh orang perseorangan atau korporasi melalui pertunjukan langsung, televisi kabel, televisi teresterial, radio, telepon, internet, dan komunikasi elektronik lainnya serta surat kabar, majalah, dan barang cetakan lainnya.
3. Setiap orang adalah orang perseorangan atau korporasi, baik yang berbadan hukum maupun yang tidak berbadan hukum.
4. Anak adalah seseorang yang belum berusia 18 (delapan belas) tahun.
5. Pemerintah adalah Pemerintah Pusat yang dipimpin oleh Presiden Republik Indonesia yang memegang kekuasaan pemerintahan negara Republik Indonesia sebagaimana dimaksud dalam Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1945.
6. Pemerintah Daerah adalah Gubernur, Bupati, atau Walikota, dan perangkat daerah sebagai unsur penyelenggara pemerintahan daerah.
Pasal 2
Pengaturan pornografi berasaskan Ketuhanan Yang Maha Esa, penghormatan terhadap harkat dan martabat kemanusiaan, kebhinnekaan, kepastian hukum, nondiskriminasi, dan perlindungan terhadap warga negara.
Pasal 3
Pengaturan pornografi bertujuan:
a. mewujudkan dan memelihara tatanan kehidupan masyarakat yang beretika, berkepribadian luhur, menjunjung tinggi nilai-nilai Ketuhanan Yang Maha Esa, serta menghormati harkat dan martabat kemanusiaan;
b. memberikan pembinaan dan pendidikan terhadap moral dan akhlak masyarakat;
c. memberikan kepastian hukum dan perlindungan bagi warga negara dari pornografi, terutama bagi anak dan perempuan; dan
d.mencegah berkembangnya pornografi dan komersialisasi seks di masyarakat.
BAB II
LARANGAN DAN PEMBATASAN
Pasal 4
(1) Setiap orang dilarang memproduksi, membuat, memperbanyak, menggandakan, menyebarluaskan, menyiarkan, mengimpor, mengekspor, menawarkan, memperjualbelikan, menyewakan, atau menyediakan pornografi yang memuat:
e. persenggamaan, termasuk persenggamaan yang menyimpang;
f. kekerasan seksual;
g. masturbasi atau onani;
h. ketelanjangan atau tampilan yang mengesankan ketelanjangan; atau
i. alat kelamin.
(2) Setiap orang dilarang menyediakan jasa pornografi yang:
a. menyajikan secara eksplisit ketelanjangan atau tampilan yang mengesankan ketelanjangan;
b. menyajikan secara eksplisit alat kelamin;
c. mengeksploitasi atau memamerkan aktivitas seksual; atau
d. menawarkan atau mengiklankan, baik langsung maupun tidak langsung layanan seksual.
Pasal 5
Setiap orang dilarang meminjamkan atau mengunduh pornografi sebagaimana dimaksud dalam Pasal 4 ayat (1).
Pasal 6
Setiap orang dilarang memperdengarkan, mempertontonkan, memanfaatkan, memiliki, atau menyimpan produk pornografi sebagaimana dimaksud dalam Pasal 4 ayat (1), kecuali yang diberi kewenangan oleh perundang-undangan.
Pasal 7
Setiap orang dilarang mendanai atau memfasilitasi perbuatan sebagaimana dimaksud dalam Pasal 4.
Pasal 8
Setiap orang dilarang dengan sengaja atau atas persetujuan dirinya menjadi objek atau model yang mengandung muatan pornografi.
Pasal 9
Setiap orang dilarang menjadikan orang lain sebagai objek atau model yang mengandung muatan pornografi.
Pasal 10
Setiap orang dilarang mempertontonkan diri atau orang lain dalam pertunjukan atau di muka umum yang menggambarkan ketelanjangan, eksploitasi seksual, persenggamaan, atau yang bermuatan pornografi lainnya.
Pasal 11
Setiap orang dilarang melibatkan anak dalam kegiatan dan/atau sebagai objek sebagaimana dimaksud dalam Pasal 4, Pasal 5, Pasal 6, Pasal 8, Pasal 9, atau Pasal 10.
Pasal 12
Setiap orang dilarang mengajak, membujuk, memanfaatkan, membiarkan, menyalahgunakan kekuasaan atau memaksa anak dalam menggunakan produk atau jasa pornografi.
Pasal 13
(1) Pembuatan, penyebarluasan, dan penggunaan pornografi yang memuat selain sebagaimana dimaksud dalam Pasal 4 ayat (1) wajib mendasarkan pada peraturan perundang-undangan.
(2) Pembuatan, penyebarluasan, dan penggunaan pornografi sebagaimana dimaksud pada ayat (1) harus dilakukan di tempat dan dengan cara khusus.
Pasal 14
Pembuatan, penyebarluasan, dan penggunaan materi seksualitas dapat dilakukan untuk kepentingan dan memiliki nilai:
a. seni dan budaya;
b. adat istiadat; dan
c. ritual tradisional.
Pasal 15
Ketentuan mengenai syarat dan tata cara perizinan pembuatan, penyebarluasan, dan penggunaan produk pornografi untuk tujuan dan kepentingan pendidikan dan pelayanan kesehatan dan pelaksanaan ketentuan Pasal 13 diatur dengan Peraturan Pemerintah.
BAB III
PERLINDUNGAN ANAK
Pasal 16
Setiap orang berkewajiban melindungi anak dari pengaruh pornografi dan mencegah akses anak terhadap informasi pornografi.
Pasal 17
1) Pemerintah, lembaga sosial, lembaga pendidikan, lembaga keagamaan, keluarga, dan/atau masyarakat berkewajiban memberikan pembinaan, pendampingan, serta pemulihan sosial, kesehatan fisik dan mental bagi setiap anak yang menjadi korban atau pelaku pornografi.
2) Ketentuan mengenai pembinaan, pendampingan, serta pemulihan sosial, kesehatan fisik dan mental sebagaimana dimaksud pada ayat (1) diatur dengan Peraturan Pemerintah.
BAB IV
PENCEGAHAN
Bagian Kesatu
Peran Pemerintah
Pasal 18
Pemerintah dan Pemerintah Daerah wajib melakukan pencegahan pembuatan, penyebarluasan, dan penggunaan pornografi.
Pasal 19
Untuk melakukan pencegahan sebagaimana dimaksud dalam Pasal 18, Pemerintah berwenang:
a. melakukan pemutusan jaringan pembuatan dan penyebarluasan produk pornografi atau jasa pornografi, termasuk pemblokiran pornografi melalui internet;
b. melakukan pengawasan terhadap pembuatan, penyebarluasan, dan penggunaan pornografi; dan
c.melakukan kerja sama dan koordinasi dengan berbagai pihak, baik dari dalam maupun dari luar negeri, dalam pencegahan pembuatan, penyebarluasan, dan penggunaan pornografi.
Pasal 20
Untuk melakukan upaya pencegahan sebagaimana dimaksud dalam Pasal 18, Pemerintah Daerah berwenang:
a. melakukan pemutusan jaringan pembuatan dan penyebarluasan produk pornografi atau jasa pornografi, termasuk pemblokiran pornografi melalui internet di wilayahnya;
b. melakukan pengawasan terhadap pembuatan, penyebarluasan, dan penggunaan pornografi di wilayahnya;
c. melakukan kerja sama dan koordinasi dengan berbagai pihak dalam pencegahan pembuatan, penyebarluasan, dan penggunaan pornografi di wilayahnya; dan
d. mengembangkan sistem komunikasi, informasi, dan edukasi dalam rangka pencegahan pornografi di wilayahnya.
Bagian Kedua
Peran Serta Masyarakat
Pasal 21
Masyarakat dapat berperan serta dalam melakukan pencegahan terhadap pembuatan, penyebarluasan, dan penggunaan pornografi.
Pasal 22
(1) Peran serta masyarakat sebagaimana dimaksud dalam Pasal 21 dapat dilakukan dengan cara:
a. melaporkan pelanggaran Undang-Undang ini;
b. melakukan gugatan perwakilan ke pengadilan;
c. melakukan sosialisasi peraturan perundang-undangan yang mengatur tentang pornografi; dan
d. melakukan pembinaan kepada masyarakat terhadap bahaya dan dampak pornografi.
(2) Ketentuan sebagaimana dimaksud pada ayat (1) huruf a dan huruf b dilaksanakan secara bertanggung jawab dan sesuai dengan peraturan perundang-undangan.
Pasal 23
Masyarakat yang melaporkan pelanggaran sebagaimana dimaksud dalam Pasal 22 ayat (1) huruf a berhak mendapat perlindungan berdasarkan peraturan perundang-undangan.
BAB V
PENYIDIKAN, PENUNTUTAN, DAN PEMERIKSAAN DI SIDANG PENGADILAN
Pasal 24
Penyidikan, penuntutan, dan pemeriksaan di sidang pengadilan terhadap pelanggaran pornografi dilaksanakan berdasarkan Undang-Undang tentang Hukum Acara Pidana, kecuali ditentukan lain dalam Undang-Undang ini.
Pasal 25
Di samping alat bukti sebagaimana diatur dalam Undang-Undang tentang Hukum Acara Pidana, termasuk juga alat bukti dalam perkara tindak pidana meliputi tetapi tidak terbatas pada:
a. barang yang memuat tulisan atau gambar dalam bentuk cetakan atau bukan cetakan, baik elektronik, optik, atau bentuk penyimpanan data lainnya; dan
b. data yang tersimpan dalam jaringan internet dan saluran komunikasi lainnya.
Pasal 26
(1) Untuk kepentingan penyidikan, penyidik berwenang membuka akses, memeriksa, dan membuat salinan data elektronik yang tersimpan dalam fail komputer, jaringan internet, media optik, serta bentuk penyimpanan data elektronik lainnya.
(2) Untuk kepentingan penyidikan, pemilik data, penyimpan data, atau penyedia jasa layanan elektronik berkewajiban menyerahkan dan/atau membuka data elektronik yang diminta penyidik.
(3) Pemilik data, penyimpan data, atau penyedia jasa layanan elektronik setelah menyerahkan dan/atau membuka data elektronik sebagaimana dimaksud pada ayat (2) berhak menerima tanda terima penyerahan atau berita acara pembukaan data elektronik dari penyidik.
Pasal 27
Penyidik membuat berita acara tentang tindakan sebagaimana dimaksud dalam Pasal 26 dan mengirim turunan berita acara tersebut kepada pemilik data, penyimpan data, atau penyedia jasa layanan komunikasi di tempat data tersebut didapatkan.
Pasal 28
(1) Data elektronik yang ada hubungannya dengan perkara yang sedang diperiksa dilampirkan dalam berkas perkara.
(2) Data elektronik yang ada hubungannya dengan perkara yang sedang diperiksa dapat dimusnahkan atau dihapus.
(3) Penyidik, penuntut umum, dan para pejabat pada semua tingkat pemeriksaan dalam proses peradilan wajib merahasiakan dengan sungguh-sungguh atas kekuatan sumpah jabatan, baik isi maupun informasi data elektronik yang dimusnahkan atau dihapus.
BAB VI
PEMUSNAHAN
Pasal 29
(1) Pemusnahan dilakukan terhadap produk pornografi hasil perampasan.
(2) Pemusnahan produk pornografi sebagaimana dimaksud pada ayat (1) dilakukan oleh penuntut umum dengan membuat berita acara yang sekurang-kurangnya memuat:
a. nama media cetak dan/atau media elektronik yang menyebarluaskan pornografi;
b. nama, jenis, dan jumlah barang yang dimusnahkan;
c. hari, tanggal, bulan, dan tahun pemusnahan; dan
d. keterangan mengenai pemilik atau yang menguasai barang yang dimusnahkan.
BAB VII
KETENTUAN PIDANA
Pasal 30
Setiap orang yang memproduksi, membuat, memperbanyak, menggandakan, menyebar-luaskan, menyiarkan, mengimpor, mengekspor, menawarkan, memperjualbelikan, menyewakan, atau menyediakan pornografi sebagaimana dimaksud dalam Pasal 4 ayat (1) dipidana dengan pidana penjara paling singkat 1 (satu) tahun dan paling lama 12 (dua belas) tahun atau pidana denda paling sedikit Rp500.000.000,00 (lima ratus juta rupiah) dan paling banyak Rp6.000.000.000,00 (enam miliar rupiah).
Pasal 31
Setiap orang yang menyediakan jasa pornografi sebagaimana dimaksud dalam Pasal 4 ayat (2) dipidana dengan pidana penjara paling singkat 6 (enam) bulan dan paling lama 6 (enam) tahun atau pidana denda paling sedikit Rp250.000.000,00 (dua ratus lima puluh juta rupiah) dan paling banyak Rp3.000.000.000,00 (tiga miliar rupiah).
Pasal 32
Setiap orang yang meminjamkan atau mengunduh pornografi sebagaimana dimaksud dalam Pasal 5 dipidana dengan pidana penjara paling lama 4 (empat) tahun atau pidana denda paling banyak Rp2.000.000.000,00 (dua miliar rupiah).
Pasal 33
Setiap orang yang memperdengarkan, mempertontonkan, memanfaatkan, memiliki, atau menyimpan produk pornografi sebagaimana dimaksud dalam Pasal 6 dipidana dengan pidana paling lama 4 (empat) tahun atau pidana denda paling banyak Rp2.000.000.000,00 (dua miliar rupiah).
Pasal 34
Setiap orang yang mendanai atau memfasilitasi perbuatan sebagaimana dimaksud dalam Pasal 7 dipidana dengan pidana penjara paling singkat 2 (dua) tahun dan paling lama 15 (lima belas) tahun atau pidana denda paling sedikit Rp1.000.000.000,00 (satu miliar rupiah) dan paling banyak Rp7.500.000.000,00 (tujuh miliar lima ratus juta rupiah).
Pasal 35
Setiap orang yang dengan sengaja atau atas persetujuan dirinya menjadi objek atau model yang mengandung muatan pornografi sebagaimana dimaksud dalam Pasal 8 dipidana dengan pidana penjara paling lama 10 (sepuluh) tahun atau pidana denda paling banyak Rp5.000.000.000,00 (lima miliar rupiah).
Pasal 36
Setiap orang yang menjadikan orang lain sebagai objek atau model yang mengandung muatan pornografi sebagaimana dimaksud dalam Pasal 9 dipidana dengan pidana penjara paling singkat 1 (satu) tahun dan paling lama 12 (dua belas) tahun atau pidana denda paling sedikit Rp500.000.000,00 (lima ratus juta rupiah) dan paling banyak Rp6.000.000.000,00 (enam miliar rupiah).
Pasal 37
Setiap orang yang mempertontonkan diri atau orang lain dalam pertunjukan atau di muka umum yang menggambarkan ketelanjangan, eksploitasi seksual, persenggamaan, atau yang bermuatan pornografi lainnya sebagaimana dimaksud dalam Pasal 10 dipidana dengan pidana penjara paling lama 10 (sepuluh) tahun atau pidana denda paling banyak Rp5.000.000.000,00 (lima miliar rupiah).
Pasal 38
Setiap orang yang melibatkan anak dalam kegiatan dan/atau sebagai obyek sebagaimana dimaksud dalam Pasal 11 dipidana dengan pidana yang sama dengan pidana sebagaimana dimaksud dalam Pasal 30, Pasal 31, Pasal 32, Pasal 33, Pasal 35, Pasal 36, dan Pasal 37, ditambah 1/3 (sepertiga) dari maksimum ancaman pidananya.
Pasal 39
Setiap orang yang mengajak, membujuk, memanfaatkan, membiarkan, menyalahgunakan kekuasaan atau memaksa anak dalam menggunakan produk atau jasa pornografi sebagaimana dimaksud dalam Pasal 12 dipidana dengan pidana penjara paling singkat 6 (enam) bulan dan paling lama 6 (enam) tahun atau pidana denda paling sedikit Rp250.000.000,00 (dua ratus lima puluh juta rupiah) dan paling banyak Rp3.000.000.000,00 (tiga miliar rupiah).
Pasal 40
(1) Dalam hal tindak pidana pornografi dilakukan oleh atau atas nama suatu korporasi, tuntutan dan penjatuhan pidana dapat dilakukan terhadap korporasi dan/atau pengurusnya.
(2) Tindak pidana pornografi dilakukan oleh korporasi apabila tindak pidana tersebut dilakukan oleh orang-orang, baik berdasarkan hubungan kerja maupun berdasarkan hubungan lain, bertindak dalam lingkungan korporasi tersebut, baik sendiri maupun bersama-sama.
(3) Dalam hal tuntutan pidana dilakukan terhadap suatu korporasi, korporasi tersebut diwakili oleh pengurus.
(4) Pengurus yang mewakili korporasi sebagaimana dimaksud pada ayat (3) dapat diwakili oleh orang lain.
(5) Hakim dapat memerintahkan pengurus korporasi agar pengurus korporasi menghadap sendiri di pengadilan dan dapat pula memerintahkan pengurus korporasi supaya pengurus tersebut dibawa ke sidang pengadilan.
(6) Dalam hal tuntutan pidana dilakukan terhadap korporasi, maka panggilan untuk menghadap dan penyerahan surat panggilan tersebut disampaikan kepada pengurus di tempat tinggal pengurus atau di tempat pengurus berkantor.
(7) Pidana pokok yang dapat dijatuhkan terhadap korporasi hanya pidana denda dengan ketentuan maksimum pidana dikalikan 3 (tiga) dari pidana denda yang ditentukan dalam setiap pasal dalam Bab ini.
Pasal 41
Selain pidana pokok sebagaimana dimaksud dalam Pasal 40 ayat (7), korporasi dapat dikenakan pidana tambahan berupa:
a. pembekuan izin usaha;
b. pencabutan izin usaha;
c. perampasan kekayaan hasil tindak pidana; dan/atau
d. pencabutan status badan hukum.
BAB VIII
KETENTUAN PENUTUP
Pasal 42
Pada saat Undang-Undang ini berlaku, dalam waktu paling lama 1 (satu) bulan setiap orang yang memiliki atau menyimpan produk pornografi sebagaimana dimaksud dalam Pasal 4 ayat (1) harus memusnahkan sendiri atau menyerahkan kepada pihak yang berwajib untuk dimusnahkan.
Pasal 43
Pada saat Undang-Undang ini mulai berlaku, semua peraturan perundang-undangan yang mengatur atau berkaitan dengan tindak pidana pornografi dinyatakan tetap berlaku sepanjang tidak bertentangan dengan Undang-Undang ini.
Pasal 44
Undang-Undang ini mulai berlaku pada tanggal diundangkan.
Agar setiap orang mengetahuinya, memerintahkan pengundangan Undang-Undang ini dengan penempatannya dalam Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia.
PENJELASAN:
Pasal 4
Ayat (1)
Huruf a
Yang dimaksud dengan “persenggamaan yang menyimpang” antara lain persenggamaan atau aktivitas seksual lainnya dengan mayat dan binatang, oral seks, anal seks, lesbian, homoseksual.
Huruf b
Yang dimaksud dengan ”kekerasan seksual” antara lain persenggamaan yang didahului dengan tindakan kekerasan (penganiayaan) atau mencabuli dengan paksaan, pemerkosaan.
Huruf d
Yang dimaksud dengan “mengesankan ketelanjangan” adalah penampakan tubuh dengan menunjukkan ketelanjangan yang menggunakan penutup tubuh yang tembus pandang.
Pasal 5
Yang dimaksud dengan “mengunduh” adalah mengalihkan atau mengambil fail (file) dari sistem teknologi informasi dan komunikasi.
Pasal 6
Yang dimaksud dengan “yang diberi kewenangan oleh perundang-undangan” misalnya lembaga yang diberi kewenangan menyensor film, lembaga yang mengawasi penyiaran, lembaga penegak hukum, lembaga pelayanan kesehatan atau terapi kesehatan seksual, dan lembaga pendidikan. Lembaga pendidikan tersebut termasuk pula perpustakaan, laboratorium, dan sarana pendidikan lainnya.
Kegiatan memperdengarkan, mempertontonkan, memanfaatkan, memiliki, atau menyimpan barang pornografi dalam ketentuan ini hanya dapat digunakan di tempat atau lokasi yang disediakan untuk tujuan lembaga dimaksud.
Pasal 10
Yang dimaksud dengan “mempertontonkan diri” adalah perbuatan yang dilakukan atas inisiatif dirinya atau inisiatif orang lain dengan kemauan dan persetujuan dirinya. Yang dimaksud dengan “pornografi lainnya” antara lain kekerasan seksual, masturbasi atau onani.
Pasal 13
Ayat (1)
Yang dimaksud dengan “pembuatan” termasuk memproduksi, membuat, memperbanyak, atau menggandakan.
Yang dimaksud dengan “penyebarluasan” termasuk menyebarluaskan, menyiarkan, mengunduh, mengimpor, mengekspor, menawarkan, memperjualbelikan, menyewakan, meminjamkan, atau menyediakan.
Yang dimaksud dengan “penggunaan” termasuk memperdengarkan, mempertontonkan, memanfaatkan, memiliki atau menyimpan.
Frasa “selain sebagaimana dimaksud dalam Pasal 4 ayat (1)” dalam ketentuan ini misalnya majalah yang memuat model berpakaian bikini, baju renang, pakaian olahraga pantai, yang digunakan sesuai dengan konteksnya.
Ayat (2)
Yang dimaksud dengan “di tempat dan dengan cara khusus” misalnya penempatan yang tidak dapat dijangkau oleh anak-anak atau pengemasan yang tidak menampilkan atau menggambarkan pornografi.
Pasal 14
Yang dimaksud dengan “materi seksualitas” adalah materi yang tidak mengandung unsur yang dapat membangkitkan hasrat seksual dan/atau tidak melanggar kesusilaan dalam masyarakat, misalnya patung telanjang yang menggambarkan lingga dan yoni.
Pasal 16
Ketentuan ini dimaksudkan untuk mencegah sedini mungkin pengaruh pornografi terhadap anak dan ketentuan ini menegaskan kembali terkait dengan perlindungan terhadap anak yang ditentukan dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 23 Tahun 2003 tentang Perlindungan Anak.
Pasal 19
Huruf a
Yang dimaksud dengan “pemblokiran pornografi melalui internet” adalah pemblokiran barang pornografi atau penyediaan jasa pornografi.
Pasal 20
Huruf a
Yang dimaksud dengan “pemblokiran pornografi melalui internet” adalah pemblokiran barang pornografi atau penyediaan jasa pornografi.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Kembali lagi
Sudah satu minggu lebih dua hari aku tinggalkan Ciputat yang penuh kehangatan. Kembali ke Melbourne bukan untuk belajar, tapi untuk menemani Yulia belajar di Universitas Melbourne. Bayangan yang selalu mampir ke dalam benakku adalah bertemu dengan semua kawan-kawan baikku. Pagi temaram dengan hiasan awan pekat di angkasa Melbourne. Tepat pukul 8.00 tanggal 19 Oktober 2008, pesawat Garuda sampai ke bandara Tullamarin setelah menempuh perjalanan kurang lebih enam jam dari Denpasar. Begitu keluar dari perut Garuda, hawa dingin serasa menjalar ke seluruh sudut ruangan. Saat itu penumpang penuh; kebanyakan bule Aussie yang mendambakan hangatnya bumi Bali yang dibalut katulistiwa.
Melbourne menjelang summer tetap saja menampilkan anomali musim. Dingin menusuk masih saja tersisa meski musim dingin sudah beringsut. Namun itu semua tak terasa ketika kulihat wajah-wajah ceria Pak John, Pak Dede, Pak Dadang, Pak Johana, Pak Widodo, Pak Eman, Pak Fery, dan Mas Tanto menyambut kami. Kami berjabat tangan erat dan hangat. Kemesraan dan persahabatan yang tak bisa dibayar dan ditakar dengan apapun. Inilah yang membuat aku rindu dengan tanah orang Aborigin ini. Negeri yang lebih dikenal sebagai benua kanguru.
Satu Ahad di kala fajar masih sembunyi. Eman menelepon untuk mengunjungi Westall untuk kali kesekian. Melbourne masih saja dibalut hawa menusuk di fajar itu. Dan Westall pun masih kokoh memamerkan noktah sejarah panjang masyarakat Indonesian mencari Tuhan.
Melbourne, 28/10/08
Melbourne menjelang summer tetap saja menampilkan anomali musim. Dingin menusuk masih saja tersisa meski musim dingin sudah beringsut. Namun itu semua tak terasa ketika kulihat wajah-wajah ceria Pak John, Pak Dede, Pak Dadang, Pak Johana, Pak Widodo, Pak Eman, Pak Fery, dan Mas Tanto menyambut kami. Kami berjabat tangan erat dan hangat. Kemesraan dan persahabatan yang tak bisa dibayar dan ditakar dengan apapun. Inilah yang membuat aku rindu dengan tanah orang Aborigin ini. Negeri yang lebih dikenal sebagai benua kanguru.
Satu Ahad di kala fajar masih sembunyi. Eman menelepon untuk mengunjungi Westall untuk kali kesekian. Melbourne masih saja dibalut hawa menusuk di fajar itu. Dan Westall pun masih kokoh memamerkan noktah sejarah panjang masyarakat Indonesian mencari Tuhan.
Melbourne, 28/10/08
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
A young woman leads Turkey to examine modernity and devotion
A Muslim couple leaving their wedding in Uskudar, Turkey. Religious traditions are mixed with a modern secularism in Turkey, unlike in many Muslim countries. (Lynsey Addario for The New York Times )
A young woman leads Turkey to examine modernity and devotion
By Sabrina Tavernise Published: October 14, 2008
ISTANBUL: High school hurt for Havva Yilmaz. She tried out several selves. She ran away. Nothing felt right.
"There was no sincerity," she said. "It was shallow."
So at 16, she did something none of her friends had done: She put on an Islamic head scarf.
In most Muslim countries, that would be a nonevent. In Turkey, it was a rebellion. Turkey has built its modern identity on secularism.
Women on billboards do not wear scarves. The scarves are banned in schools and universities. So Yilmaz had to drop out of school. Her parents were angry. Her classmates stopped calling her.
Like many young people at a time of religious revival across the Muslim world, Yilmaz is more observant than her parents. Her mother wears a scarf but cannot read the Koran in Arabic. They do not pray five times a day. The habits were typical for their generation - Turks whose families moved from the countryside during industrialization.
"Before I decided to cover, I knew who I was not," Yilmaz said, sitting in a leafy Ottoman-era courtyard. "After I covered, I finally knew who I was."
While her decision was in some ways a recognizable act of youthful rebellion, in Turkey her personal choices are part of a paradox at the heart of the country's modern identity.
Turkey is run by a party of observant Muslims, but its reigning ideology and law is strictly secular, dating from the authoritarian rule in the 1920s of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, a former army general who pushed Turkey toward the West and cut its roots with the Ottoman East.
For some young people today, freedom means the right to practice Islam, and self-expression means covering their hair.
They are redrawing lines between freedom and devotion, between modernization and tradition, and blurring some prevailing distinctions between East and West.
Yilmaz's embrace of her religious identity has thrust her into politics. She campaigned to allow women to wear scarves on college campuses, a movement that prompted emotional, often agonized, debates across Turkey about where Islam fit into an open society. That question has paralyzed politics twice in the past year and a half and has drawn hundreds of thousands into the streets to protest what they said was a growing religiosity in society and in government - though just how observant Turks are remains in dispute.
By dropping out of the education system, she found her way into Turkey's growing, lively culture of young activists.
In the middle of January, the head scarf became the focus of a heated national outpouring, with Yilmaz one of its most eloquent defenders.
The government of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan pledged to pass a law letting women who wear the scarves into college. Staunchly secular Turks opposed broader freedoms for Islam, in part because they did not trust Erdogan, a popular politician who began his career championing a greater role for Islam in politics and who has since moderated his stance.
Turkey remains a democratic experiment unique in the Muslim world.
The Ottomans dabbled in democracy as early as 1876, creating a Constitution and a Parliament. The country was never colonized by Western powers, as Arabs were.
Turkey gradually developed into a democracy. The fact that young people like Yilmaz are protesting in the first place is one of its distinguishing features.
In many ways, Yilmaz's scarf freed her, but for many other women, it is the other way around. In poor, religiously conservative areas in rural Turkey, girls wear scarves from young ages, and many Turks feel strongly that without state regulation, young women would come under more pressure to cover up.
The head scarf bill, in that respect, could lead to less freedom for women, they argued. Even so, for Yilmaz, the angry reaction against the bill was hard to understand.
"It's frustrating when you watch people," she said, sitting in a chair wearing a tunic, jeans, and Timberland-style boots. "You think, what's the big deal?"
She continued: "When you look at it, we have all the reason to be afraid. We were mocked in the streets, we were insulted, we were expelled from universities. "
With a microphone and a strong sense of justice, Yilmaz marched into a hotel in central Istanbul and, with two friends, both in scarves, made her best case.
"The pain that we've been through as university doors were harshly shut in our faces taught us one thing," she said, speaking to a group of reporters. "Our real problem is with the mentality of prohibition that thinks it has the right to interfere with people's lives."
Yilmaz's heartfelt speech, written with her friends, drew national attention. They were invited on television talk shows. They gave radio and newspaper interviews. Part of their appeal came from their attempt to go beyond religion to include all groups in Turkish society, like ethnic and sectarian minorities.
By March, the month after Parliament passed the final version of the head scarf proposal, the debate had reached a frenzied pitch.
Yilmaz and some friends - some in scarves, some not - agreed to go on a popular television talk show. The questions from the audience were angry.
One girl stood up and, looking directly at a girl in a scarf, said that she did not want her on campus, said Neslihan Akbulut, a friend of Yilmaz, who had helped to compose the head scarf statement. Another said she felt sorry for them because they were oppressed by men. A third fretted that allowing them into universities would lead to further demands about jobs, resulting in an "invasion."
Yilmaz said later: "I thought, are we living in the same country? No, it's impossible."
They did not give up. They spent the day in a drafty café in central Istanbul, wearing boots and coats and going over their position with journalists, one by one.
The girls say that the scarf, contrary to popular belief, was not forced on them by their families. Nor are they paid to wear it. Some women wear it because their mothers did. For others, like Yilmaz, it was a carefully considered choice.
Though it is not among the five pillars of Islam - the duties required for every Muslim, including daily prayer - Yilmaz sees it as a Koranic command.
"Physical contact is something special, something private," she said, describing the thinking behind her covering. "Constant contact takes away from the specialness, the privacy of the thing you share."
The head scarf debate ended abruptly in June, when Turkey's Constitutional Court ruled that the new law allowing women attending universities to wear scarves was unconstitutional, because it violated the nation's principles of secularism.
Yilmaz got the news as a text message from her friend. In her bitter disappointment, she realized how much hope she had held out.
"How can I be a part of a country that does not accept me?" she said.
Still, she has no regrets and is not giving up. "What we did was worth something," she said. "People heard our voices. One day the prohibition is imposed on us. The next day, it could be someone else.
"If we work together, we can fight it.
Source
A young woman leads Turkey to examine modernity and devotion
By Sabrina Tavernise Published: October 14, 2008
ISTANBUL: High school hurt for Havva Yilmaz. She tried out several selves. She ran away. Nothing felt right.
"There was no sincerity," she said. "It was shallow."
So at 16, she did something none of her friends had done: She put on an Islamic head scarf.
In most Muslim countries, that would be a nonevent. In Turkey, it was a rebellion. Turkey has built its modern identity on secularism.
Women on billboards do not wear scarves. The scarves are banned in schools and universities. So Yilmaz had to drop out of school. Her parents were angry. Her classmates stopped calling her.
Like many young people at a time of religious revival across the Muslim world, Yilmaz is more observant than her parents. Her mother wears a scarf but cannot read the Koran in Arabic. They do not pray five times a day. The habits were typical for their generation - Turks whose families moved from the countryside during industrialization.
"Before I decided to cover, I knew who I was not," Yilmaz said, sitting in a leafy Ottoman-era courtyard. "After I covered, I finally knew who I was."
While her decision was in some ways a recognizable act of youthful rebellion, in Turkey her personal choices are part of a paradox at the heart of the country's modern identity.
Turkey is run by a party of observant Muslims, but its reigning ideology and law is strictly secular, dating from the authoritarian rule in the 1920s of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, a former army general who pushed Turkey toward the West and cut its roots with the Ottoman East.
For some young people today, freedom means the right to practice Islam, and self-expression means covering their hair.
They are redrawing lines between freedom and devotion, between modernization and tradition, and blurring some prevailing distinctions between East and West.
Yilmaz's embrace of her religious identity has thrust her into politics. She campaigned to allow women to wear scarves on college campuses, a movement that prompted emotional, often agonized, debates across Turkey about where Islam fit into an open society. That question has paralyzed politics twice in the past year and a half and has drawn hundreds of thousands into the streets to protest what they said was a growing religiosity in society and in government - though just how observant Turks are remains in dispute.
By dropping out of the education system, she found her way into Turkey's growing, lively culture of young activists.
In the middle of January, the head scarf became the focus of a heated national outpouring, with Yilmaz one of its most eloquent defenders.
The government of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan pledged to pass a law letting women who wear the scarves into college. Staunchly secular Turks opposed broader freedoms for Islam, in part because they did not trust Erdogan, a popular politician who began his career championing a greater role for Islam in politics and who has since moderated his stance.
Turkey remains a democratic experiment unique in the Muslim world.
The Ottomans dabbled in democracy as early as 1876, creating a Constitution and a Parliament. The country was never colonized by Western powers, as Arabs were.
Turkey gradually developed into a democracy. The fact that young people like Yilmaz are protesting in the first place is one of its distinguishing features.
In many ways, Yilmaz's scarf freed her, but for many other women, it is the other way around. In poor, religiously conservative areas in rural Turkey, girls wear scarves from young ages, and many Turks feel strongly that without state regulation, young women would come under more pressure to cover up.
The head scarf bill, in that respect, could lead to less freedom for women, they argued. Even so, for Yilmaz, the angry reaction against the bill was hard to understand.
"It's frustrating when you watch people," she said, sitting in a chair wearing a tunic, jeans, and Timberland-style boots. "You think, what's the big deal?"
She continued: "When you look at it, we have all the reason to be afraid. We were mocked in the streets, we were insulted, we were expelled from universities. "
With a microphone and a strong sense of justice, Yilmaz marched into a hotel in central Istanbul and, with two friends, both in scarves, made her best case.
"The pain that we've been through as university doors were harshly shut in our faces taught us one thing," she said, speaking to a group of reporters. "Our real problem is with the mentality of prohibition that thinks it has the right to interfere with people's lives."
Yilmaz's heartfelt speech, written with her friends, drew national attention. They were invited on television talk shows. They gave radio and newspaper interviews. Part of their appeal came from their attempt to go beyond religion to include all groups in Turkish society, like ethnic and sectarian minorities.
By March, the month after Parliament passed the final version of the head scarf proposal, the debate had reached a frenzied pitch.
Yilmaz and some friends - some in scarves, some not - agreed to go on a popular television talk show. The questions from the audience were angry.
One girl stood up and, looking directly at a girl in a scarf, said that she did not want her on campus, said Neslihan Akbulut, a friend of Yilmaz, who had helped to compose the head scarf statement. Another said she felt sorry for them because they were oppressed by men. A third fretted that allowing them into universities would lead to further demands about jobs, resulting in an "invasion."
Yilmaz said later: "I thought, are we living in the same country? No, it's impossible."
They did not give up. They spent the day in a drafty café in central Istanbul, wearing boots and coats and going over their position with journalists, one by one.
The girls say that the scarf, contrary to popular belief, was not forced on them by their families. Nor are they paid to wear it. Some women wear it because their mothers did. For others, like Yilmaz, it was a carefully considered choice.
Though it is not among the five pillars of Islam - the duties required for every Muslim, including daily prayer - Yilmaz sees it as a Koranic command.
"Physical contact is something special, something private," she said, describing the thinking behind her covering. "Constant contact takes away from the specialness, the privacy of the thing you share."
The head scarf debate ended abruptly in June, when Turkey's Constitutional Court ruled that the new law allowing women attending universities to wear scarves was unconstitutional, because it violated the nation's principles of secularism.
Yilmaz got the news as a text message from her friend. In her bitter disappointment, she realized how much hope she had held out.
"How can I be a part of a country that does not accept me?" she said.
Still, she has no regrets and is not giving up. "What we did was worth something," she said. "People heard our voices. One day the prohibition is imposed on us. The next day, it could be someone else.
"If we work together, we can fight it.
Source
Friday, October 10, 2008
The end of Pax Americana?
Monday 6 October 2008 (06 Shawwal 1429)
The end of Pax Americana?
Anwar Kemal | anwarkemal@yahoo. com
Latin America, long regarded as America's backyard, has recently hoisted the flag of defiance to its northern neighbor. In recent weeks, America's ambassadors have been expelled by Venezuela and Bolivia, a move that Brazil has supported. Brazil has also objected to the presence of American warships in the region, warning that his nation would put its own warships on alert in response. Argentina's President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchener said recently with obvious satisfaction that the First World, which had been "painted as a place we should strive to reach, was popping like a bubble." "The times when one economy and one country dominated are gone for good," Russia's President Dmitry Medvedev declared recently at a joint Russian-German seminar in St. Petersburg. After the American banking debacle, he said, the world does not want America as a "megaregulator. " A few weeks earlier, Russia had taught America's protégé President Saakashvili of Georgia a painful lesson when he attempted to retake South Ossetia by force. The United States could do nothing to stop the robust assertion of the Russian version of the Monroe doctrine in the Caucasus.
It may be recalled that the British Empire folded up partly on account of the staggering financial expenditures that it incurred during two world wars. The US financial crisis has erupted with destructive force because for many years America has been living beyond its means. The stalemated wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have no doubt contributed to the US deficit. Instead of raising taxes and restraining expenditures, the Bush administration has been practicing trickle-down economics.
True, the United States is militarily stronger today than it ever was in its 230 years of existence. Its armed forces have overwhelming nuclear and conventional firepower and reach that is unmatched. At the click of a mouse individuals sitting in their offices in Washington, DC can and do destroy targets 10,000 miles away in Iraq, Afghanistan or the tribal areas of Pakistan.
Yet these weapons of war are just as useless in averting financial disaster as the Russian weapons were in preventing Russia's economic meltdown.
Are these warning signs that Pax Americana is coming to an end? Is the financial crisis the cause of the decline of American power, or is it imperial overreach? Joschka Fischer, a former German foreign minister, recently summed it up brilliantly in Die Zeit:
"Due to Guantanamo and torture, America has lost her moral credibility; Thanks to the Iraq War, Iran has achieved regional supremacy in the Middle East; American military power has become overstretched due to a wrong and unnecessary war; Bush inherited a balanced budget from Clinton and has since acquired a huge mountain of debt; China is now America's largest creditor; the dollar's role as the dominant global reserve currency is seriously endangered; the American financial system is threatened with collapse; and the only answer to this crisis, an existential threat to the entire global economy, is nationalization by Washington's Republican government!" To conclude, the ongoing financial crisis which has led to the loss of hundreds of billions of dollars in the values of shares and which threatens the life savings of many millions of Americans could inflict lasting damage on the American economy. It could also lead to devastation consequences for the global economy. Its causes are unmistakably clear: imperial overreach and financial indiscipline.
The US must somehow extricate the country from the unnecessary war in Iraq, and accord priority to promoting a just and lasting settlement in the Middle East. Bringing peace and stability to Afghanistan and supporting Pakistan in its efforts to combat terrorism are also extremely important. Lastly, the US has to balance its books by reverting to the old American values of financial discipline, investment in knowledge, and hard work instead of a get-rich quick approach that had become the norm on Wall Street in recent years. Failing that, the recently approved $700 billion plus bailout package will only provide a temporary respite and not a lasting solution to America's financial woes
The end of Pax Americana?
Anwar Kemal | anwarkemal@yahoo. com
Latin America, long regarded as America's backyard, has recently hoisted the flag of defiance to its northern neighbor. In recent weeks, America's ambassadors have been expelled by Venezuela and Bolivia, a move that Brazil has supported. Brazil has also objected to the presence of American warships in the region, warning that his nation would put its own warships on alert in response. Argentina's President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchener said recently with obvious satisfaction that the First World, which had been "painted as a place we should strive to reach, was popping like a bubble." "The times when one economy and one country dominated are gone for good," Russia's President Dmitry Medvedev declared recently at a joint Russian-German seminar in St. Petersburg. After the American banking debacle, he said, the world does not want America as a "megaregulator. " A few weeks earlier, Russia had taught America's protégé President Saakashvili of Georgia a painful lesson when he attempted to retake South Ossetia by force. The United States could do nothing to stop the robust assertion of the Russian version of the Monroe doctrine in the Caucasus.
It may be recalled that the British Empire folded up partly on account of the staggering financial expenditures that it incurred during two world wars. The US financial crisis has erupted with destructive force because for many years America has been living beyond its means. The stalemated wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have no doubt contributed to the US deficit. Instead of raising taxes and restraining expenditures, the Bush administration has been practicing trickle-down economics.
True, the United States is militarily stronger today than it ever was in its 230 years of existence. Its armed forces have overwhelming nuclear and conventional firepower and reach that is unmatched. At the click of a mouse individuals sitting in their offices in Washington, DC can and do destroy targets 10,000 miles away in Iraq, Afghanistan or the tribal areas of Pakistan.
Yet these weapons of war are just as useless in averting financial disaster as the Russian weapons were in preventing Russia's economic meltdown.
Are these warning signs that Pax Americana is coming to an end? Is the financial crisis the cause of the decline of American power, or is it imperial overreach? Joschka Fischer, a former German foreign minister, recently summed it up brilliantly in Die Zeit:
"Due to Guantanamo and torture, America has lost her moral credibility; Thanks to the Iraq War, Iran has achieved regional supremacy in the Middle East; American military power has become overstretched due to a wrong and unnecessary war; Bush inherited a balanced budget from Clinton and has since acquired a huge mountain of debt; China is now America's largest creditor; the dollar's role as the dominant global reserve currency is seriously endangered; the American financial system is threatened with collapse; and the only answer to this crisis, an existential threat to the entire global economy, is nationalization by Washington's Republican government!" To conclude, the ongoing financial crisis which has led to the loss of hundreds of billions of dollars in the values of shares and which threatens the life savings of many millions of Americans could inflict lasting damage on the American economy. It could also lead to devastation consequences for the global economy. Its causes are unmistakably clear: imperial overreach and financial indiscipline.
The US must somehow extricate the country from the unnecessary war in Iraq, and accord priority to promoting a just and lasting settlement in the Middle East. Bringing peace and stability to Afghanistan and supporting Pakistan in its efforts to combat terrorism are also extremely important. Lastly, the US has to balance its books by reverting to the old American values of financial discipline, investment in knowledge, and hard work instead of a get-rich quick approach that had become the norm on Wall Street in recent years. Failing that, the recently approved $700 billion plus bailout package will only provide a temporary respite and not a lasting solution to America's financial woes
Another inconvenient truth
By Peter Brabeck-Letmathe
Sunday, October 5, 2008
At last, many of the world's political leaders have begun to realize that diverting land and food crops to produce biofuels leads to higher food prices. But an equally important consequence of this policy folly is being largely ignored in the public and political debate: Producing biofuels will further deplete the world's already overtaxed water supply.
This is emblematic of a larger and increasingly dangerous disregard for the world's most valuable, irreplaceable and finite natural resource: fresh water.
Seventy percent of all water withdrawal is already used in agriculture, and while all such activity requires water, growing enough soy or corn to create biofuels is especially water-intensive. For example, to produce just one gallon of diesel fuel up to 9,000 gallons of water are required. Up to 4,000 gallons are needed to produce enough corn for the same amount of ethanol. By way of contrast, producing enough food to meet the caloric needs of one person for one day in, for example, Tunisia or Egypt requires about 666 gallons of water, and twice as much in California (caloric needs and intakes vary widely from region to region due to dietary customs).
If all of the biofuel targets and timelines set by governments across the world are met, we can expect water withdrawals for agriculture to increase by up to one-third. Making a dent in the world's energy problems with biofuels will require much more water than the world can afford to give up. There simply isn't enough; water tables are falling throughout the world. While there are substitutes for oil, there are none for water.
The world is facing a water crisis and, consequently, a food crisis that in terms of severity and potential impact far supersedes the current food crisis or the exhaustion of fossil fuels. Either it never occurred to biofuel advocates to ask about the amount of water needed for biofuel production, or they simply chose to ignore this particular inconvenient truth.
According to a report by the International Water Management Institute, by 2025, about one third of the world's population, perhaps as many as 3 billion people, will face water shortages. From an agricultural standpoint, we may be looking at losses equivalent to the entire grain crops of India and the United States by then. According to some estimates, even without biofuels, we will very likely reach the upper limit of available fresh water for worldwide consumption, more than 2.9 billion cubic miles, by 2050. A growing reliance on biofuels would exacerbate an already difficult challenge.
There was a remarkable lack of careful planning in the drive to convert food to fuel. In Europe and the United States, a developer trying to open a shopping center is subjected to an extensive environmental impact assessment. But when politicians decided to promote biofuels, the decisions were not preceded with a comparably thorough analysis of environmental sustainability.
Regardless of how it happened, policy makers neglected the dwindling supply of a resource essential to life in order to replace fossil fuels and fight global warming. This was not a sensible trade-off. There is no question that we have to reduce our consumption of fossil fuels. But biofuels derived from food crops planted exclusively for that use are clearly the wrong solution. While there are substitutes for oil, there aren't any for water.
This scandal is instructive because it was caused, in part, by the general attitude toward water in both the developed and developing world. Water is still treated as a limitless resource in too many communities, and one reason is that it is has no price. States heavily subsidize water usage so that it is sometimes even free for both farmers and consumers. Because it is not assigned a value in the marketplace, there is no incentive for using it efficiently. If water were not free or heavily subsidized, would biofuels still be produced? I doubt it!
The water problem can be solved. It requires much more careful stewardship of water supplies by local and national governments. I, for one, also believe reasonable pricing policies would help by encouraging the use and development of water efficient crops and smart irrigation systems. But even those who disagree with that prescription should be deeply disturbed by the lack of attention paid to water by those who rushed headlong to biofuels as the answer to the world's energy problems. As the international community grapples with how to fight global warming and build a sustainable future, it must stop ignoring a priority that is even more pressing.
Failure to address the water problem will result in food scarcity. Water scarcity is no longer an environmental issue. It is a national and international security issue that can not be ignored.
Peter Brabeck-Letmathe is the chairman and former chief executive of Nestlé.
Source
Sunday, October 5, 2008
At last, many of the world's political leaders have begun to realize that diverting land and food crops to produce biofuels leads to higher food prices. But an equally important consequence of this policy folly is being largely ignored in the public and political debate: Producing biofuels will further deplete the world's already overtaxed water supply.
This is emblematic of a larger and increasingly dangerous disregard for the world's most valuable, irreplaceable and finite natural resource: fresh water.
Seventy percent of all water withdrawal is already used in agriculture, and while all such activity requires water, growing enough soy or corn to create biofuels is especially water-intensive. For example, to produce just one gallon of diesel fuel up to 9,000 gallons of water are required. Up to 4,000 gallons are needed to produce enough corn for the same amount of ethanol. By way of contrast, producing enough food to meet the caloric needs of one person for one day in, for example, Tunisia or Egypt requires about 666 gallons of water, and twice as much in California (caloric needs and intakes vary widely from region to region due to dietary customs).
If all of the biofuel targets and timelines set by governments across the world are met, we can expect water withdrawals for agriculture to increase by up to one-third. Making a dent in the world's energy problems with biofuels will require much more water than the world can afford to give up. There simply isn't enough; water tables are falling throughout the world. While there are substitutes for oil, there are none for water.
The world is facing a water crisis and, consequently, a food crisis that in terms of severity and potential impact far supersedes the current food crisis or the exhaustion of fossil fuels. Either it never occurred to biofuel advocates to ask about the amount of water needed for biofuel production, or they simply chose to ignore this particular inconvenient truth.
According to a report by the International Water Management Institute, by 2025, about one third of the world's population, perhaps as many as 3 billion people, will face water shortages. From an agricultural standpoint, we may be looking at losses equivalent to the entire grain crops of India and the United States by then. According to some estimates, even without biofuels, we will very likely reach the upper limit of available fresh water for worldwide consumption, more than 2.9 billion cubic miles, by 2050. A growing reliance on biofuels would exacerbate an already difficult challenge.
There was a remarkable lack of careful planning in the drive to convert food to fuel. In Europe and the United States, a developer trying to open a shopping center is subjected to an extensive environmental impact assessment. But when politicians decided to promote biofuels, the decisions were not preceded with a comparably thorough analysis of environmental sustainability.
Regardless of how it happened, policy makers neglected the dwindling supply of a resource essential to life in order to replace fossil fuels and fight global warming. This was not a sensible trade-off. There is no question that we have to reduce our consumption of fossil fuels. But biofuels derived from food crops planted exclusively for that use are clearly the wrong solution. While there are substitutes for oil, there aren't any for water.
This scandal is instructive because it was caused, in part, by the general attitude toward water in both the developed and developing world. Water is still treated as a limitless resource in too many communities, and one reason is that it is has no price. States heavily subsidize water usage so that it is sometimes even free for both farmers and consumers. Because it is not assigned a value in the marketplace, there is no incentive for using it efficiently. If water were not free or heavily subsidized, would biofuels still be produced? I doubt it!
The water problem can be solved. It requires much more careful stewardship of water supplies by local and national governments. I, for one, also believe reasonable pricing policies would help by encouraging the use and development of water efficient crops and smart irrigation systems. But even those who disagree with that prescription should be deeply disturbed by the lack of attention paid to water by those who rushed headlong to biofuels as the answer to the world's energy problems. As the international community grapples with how to fight global warming and build a sustainable future, it must stop ignoring a priority that is even more pressing.
Failure to address the water problem will result in food scarcity. Water scarcity is no longer an environmental issue. It is a national and international security issue that can not be ignored.
Peter Brabeck-Letmathe is the chairman and former chief executive of Nestlé.
Source
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)