古巴通訊（1）

「台灣古巴後援會籌備中」，第一期通訊，2007年4月19日。


1.「關達拉美拉」歌曲及影片1

2.「關達拉美拉」歌曲及影片 2 ，請點選 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iO-fLO1ZSPs&mode=related&search

3. 有關古巴前途與世局的可能關係，（翻譯的）長文：請點選 http://www3.nccu.edu.tw/~jsfeng/cuba.doc


4.　Castro 批評美國新能源政策，意外得到英國經濟學人的支持（中文報導一篇，英文評論一篇，如後）

卡斯楚重回公眾視線抨美生物燃料政策

【大紀元 2007-3 月31 日訊】 ( 大紀元記者馮靜綜合編譯) 古巴前總統菲德爾 ‧ 卡斯楚（又譯卡斯特羅）(Fidel Castro) 在八個月患病離開公眾視線之後，星期四(3 月 29 日) 重新發出信號，希望返回到公眾生活中，他在古巴共產黨官方報紙的頭版社論中強烈譴責美國的生物燃料政策。 80 歲的卡斯楚自從去年 7 月施行小腸手術以來，第一次發表簽名文章指責美國總統布希支持使用農產品生產乙醇作為汽車燃料，並稱此舉將會耗盡發展中國家的玉米和其它食物，造成全世界30 億人民的生存危機。
卡斯楚在週四刊登的文章中說：「這不是誇大其詞，而是非常嚴肅的」。他提到布希與美國業界領袖在華盛頓 3 月26 日的談話。在那次會議上，汽車製造商的首席執行官敦促布希，支持增加使用乙醇和生物燃料作為汽車燃料的想法。 布希在 3 月 9 日訪問巴西期間討論合作發展生物燃料時表示，美國打算在今後10 年減少20% 的汽油消耗量。布希說：「我們將制定燃料標準，到 2017 年前會有350 億加侖的代用燃料使用」。 卡斯楚寫道：「您需要 3.2 億噸玉米產生 350 億加侖的乙醇」，如果給「窮國」提供財政刺激來從玉米中提取乙醇，所造成的影響將是危險的。他在文章中說，轉換食物為燃料的「陰險想法」，「顯然確立了美國對外政策的經濟路線」。他還說：「在第三世界國家應用這個想法，您將看見這個行星上的飢餓人群中會有多少人吃不到玉米 [這樣的糧食 ] 。」 但美聯社在其報導中說，卡斯楚在共產黨日報上的激烈抨擊中，沒有答覆一個問題，既他將在政治和政府中扮演什麼角色，以及何時再次公開露面。 自從卡斯楚生病以來，不同於他簽署的幾則其它書面信息，這一消息似乎沒有打消有關他健康的謠言，甚至沒有提及他曾經患病。 古巴問題專家、 1979 到 1982 年擔任美國駐哈瓦那高級外交官的韋恩‧ 史密斯 (Wayne Smith) 表示：「這似乎顯示卡斯楚仍然意識清楚，不像我們在過去幾個月中看到的蒼白無力的形象。」「我認為這並不預示著卡斯楚提早返回權力中心，而是想介入談論他所關心問題的表現。」 卡斯楚的未來角色引起更多的猜想，特別是最近幾個月，從資深古巴官員和家庭成員中傳出越來越多的有關他恢復健康的樂觀報告。 彭博新聞社報導說，卡斯楚的狀況和確切疾病依然是這個國家的秘密，但人們廣泛認為，他患有小腸憩室 (diverticular) 疾病，一種腸壁衰弱、可能導致持續出血的疾病。
古巴知識界偏左派和不同政見者庫斯塔 (Morua Manuel Cuesta) 曾說，卡斯楚「不再有體力維持他早先那樣的政治活動」。 當卡斯楚作了緊急小腸手術後，他把總統職位讓給 75 歲的兄弟、國防部長勞爾 ‧ 卡斯特羅 (Raul Castro) 。從那以後他再沒有公開出現。同時，勞爾承繼了他哥哥所有名下的集體領導的領袖地位。
但從卡斯特羅過去談論美國政策對發展中國家作用的一向口氣來看，無疑他是這篇文章的作者，而非別人代筆。他提到，古巴也在試驗從甘蔗中提取乙醇，但表示，如果富有的國家從窮國進口關鍵的食用農作物、譬如玉米，以幫助滿足能源需求，將會造成嚴重的後果。 最近幾星期，玻利維亞總統埃沃 ‧ 莫拉萊斯 (Evo Morales) 和幾位資深古巴官員表示，卡斯特羅能夠很快在公共事務中承擔更活躍的角色，甚至可能返回擔任總統的職務。
資料來源：美聯社，彭博新聞社





Ethanol--Castro was right Apr 4th 2007-From The Economist print edition

As a green fuel, ethanol is a good idea, but the sort that America produces is bad
IT IS not often that this newspaper finds itself in agreement with Fidel Castro, Cuba's tottering Communist dictator. But when he roused himself from his sickbed last week to write an article criticising George Bush's unhealthy enthusiasm for ethanol, he had a point. Along with other critics of America's ethanol drive, Mr Castro warned against the "sinister idea of converting food into fuel". America's use of corn (maize) to make ethanol biofuel, which can then be blended with petrol to reduce the country's dependence on foreign oil, has already driven up the price of corn. As more land is used to grow corn rather than other food crops, such as soy, their prices also rise. And since corn is used as animal feed, the price of meat goes up, too. The food supply, in other words, is being diverted to feed America's hungry cars.
Ethanol is not much used in Europe, but it is a fuel additive in America, and a growing number of cars can use either gasoline or ethanol. It accounted for only around 3.5% of American fuel consumption last year, but production is growing by 25% a year. That's because the government both subsidises domestic production and penalises imports. As a result, refineries are popping up like mushrooms all over the midwest, which now sees itself as the Texas of green fuel.
Why is the government so generous? Because ethanol is just about the only alternative-energy initiative that has broad political support. Farmers love it because it provides a new source of subsidy. Hawks love it because it offers the possibility that America may wean itself off Middle Eastern oil. The automotive industry loves it, because it reckons that switching to a green fuel will take the global-warming heat off cars. The oil industry loves it because the use of ethanol as a fuel additive means it is business as usual, at least for the time being. Politicians love it because by subsidising it they can please all those constituencies. Taxpayers seem not to have noticed that they are footing the bill.
Bad, good and best
But corn-based ethanol, the sort produced in America, is neither cheap nor green . It requires almost as much energy to produce (more, say some studies) as it releases when it is burned. And the subsidies on it cost taxpayers, according to the nternational Institute for Sustainable Development, somewhere between $5.5 billion and $7.3 billion a year.
Ethanol made from sugar cane, by contrast, is good. It produces far more energy than is needed to grow it, and Brazil—the main producer of sugar ethanol—has plenty of land available on which to grow sugar without necessarily reducing food production or encroaching on rainforests. Other developing countries with tropical climates, such as India, the Philippines and even Cuba, could prosper by producing sugar ethanol and selling it to rich Americans to fuel their cars.
There is a brighter prospect still out there: cellulosic ethanol. It is made from feedstocks rich in cellulose, such as wood, various grasses and shrubs, and agricultural wastes. Turning it into ethanol requires expensive enzymes, but much research is under way to make the process cheaper. Cellulosic ethanol would be even more energy-efficient to produce than sugar ethanol and would not impinge at all upon food production. Eventually, it might even allow countries with lots of trees and relatively few people, such as Sweden and New Zealand, to grow their own fuel rather than import oil.
That is still some way off. In the meantime, America should bin its silly policy. If it stopped taxing good ethanol and subsidising bad ethanol, the former would flourish, the latter would wither, the world would be greener and the American taxpayer would be richer.
Ethanol is not going to solve the world's energy problems on its own. But its proponents do not claim that it would. Ethanol is just one of a portfolio of new energy technologies that will be needed over the coming years. Good ethanol, that is—not the bad stuff America is so keen on.