<x-charset ISO-8859-1>http://resurgence.gn.apc.org/issues/berry206.htm
Resurgence issue 206
Economics

GLOBAL PROBLEMS,
LOCAL SOLUTIONS

Wendell Berry

If governments fail to protect their citizens, then those citizens 
must protect themselves by developing local economies.

May / June 2001

LET US BEGIN by assuming what appears to be true: that the so-called 
"environmental crisis" is now pretty well established as a fact of 
our age. The problems of pollution, species extinction, loss of 
wilderness, loss of farmland, loss of topsoil may still be ignored or 
scoffed at, but they are not denied. Concern for these problems has 
acquired a certain standing, a measure of discussability, in the 
media and in some scientific, academic, and religious institutions.

This is good, of course; obviously, we can't hope to solve these 
problems without an increase of public awareness and concern. But in 
an age burdened with "publicity", we have to be aware also that as 
issues rise into popularity they rise also into the danger of 
oversimplification. To speak of this danger is especially necessary 
in confronting the destructiveness of our relationship to nature, 
which is the result, in the first place, of gross oversimplification.

The "environmental crisis" has happened because the human household 
or economy is in conflict at almost every point with the household of 
nature. We have built our household on the assumption that the 
natural household is simple and can be simply used. We have assumed 
increasingly over the last 500 years that nature is merely a supply 
of "raw materials" and that we may safely possess those materials 
merely by taking them. This taking, as our technical means have 
increased, has involved ever less reverence or respect, less 
gratitude, less local knowledge, and less skill. Our methodologies of 
land use have strayed from our old sympathetic attempts to imitate 
natural processes, and have come more and more to resemble the 
methodology of mining, even as mining itself has become more 
technologically powerful and more brutal.

And so we will be wrong if we attempt to correct what we perceive as 
"environmental" problems without correcting the economic 
oversimplification that caused them. This oversimplification is now 
either a matter of corporate behaviour, or of behaviour under the 
influence of corporate behaviour. This is sufficiently clear to many 
of us. What is not sufficiently clear, perhaps to any of us, is the 
extent of our complicity, as individuals and especially as individual 
consumers, in the behaviour of the corporations.

What has happened is that most people in our country, and apparently 
most people in the "developed" world, have given proxies to the 
corporations to produce and provide all of their food, clothing and 
shelter. Moreover, they are rapidly giving proxies to corporations or 
governments to provide entertainment, education, child care, care of 
the sick and the elderly, and many other kinds of "service" that once 
were carried on informally and inexpensively by individuals or 
households or communities. Our major economic practice, in short, is 
to delegate the practice to others.

The danger now is that those who are concerned will believe that the 
solution to the "environmental crisis" can be merely political - that 
the problems, being large, can be solved by large solutions generated 
by a few people to whom we will give our proxies to police the 
economic proxies that we have already given. The danger, in other 
words, is that people will think they have made a sufficient change 
if they have altered their "values", or had a "change of heart", and 
that such a change in passive consumers will cause appropriate 
changes in the public experts, politicians, and corporate executives 
to whom they have granted their proxies.

The trouble with this is that a proper concern for nature and our use 
of nature must be practised, not by our proxy-holders, but by 
ourselves. A change of heart or of values without a practice is only 
another pointless luxury of a passively consumptive way of life. The 
"environmental crisis", in fact, can be solved only if people, 
individually and in their communities, recover responsibility for 
their thoughtlessly given proxies. If people begin the effort to take 
back into their own power a significant portion of their economic 
responsibility, then their inevitable first discovery is that the 
"environmental crisis" is no such thing; it is not a crisis of our 
environs or surroundings; it is a crisis of our lives as individuals, 
as family members, as community members, and as citizens. We have an 
"environmental crisis" because we have consented to an economy in 
which by eating, drinking, working, resting, travelling and enjoying 
ourselves we are destroying the natural, the god-given world.

We live, as we must sooner or later recognize, in an era of 
sentimental economics and, consequently, of sentimental politics. 
Sentimental communism holds in effect that everybody and everything 
should suffer for the good of "the many" who, though miserable in the 
present, will be happy in the future for exactly the same reasons 
that they are miserable in the present.

Sentimental capitalism is not so different from sentimental communism 
as the corporate and political powers claim. Sentimental capitalism 
holds in effect that everything small, local, private, personal, 
natural, good and beautiful must be sacrificed in the interest of the 
"free market" and the great corporations, which will bring 
unprecedented security and happiness to "the many" - in, of course, 
the future.

These forms of political economy may be described as sentimental 
because they depend absolutely upon a political faith for which there 
is no justification, and because they issue a cold check on the 
virtue of political and/or economic rulers. They seek, that is, to 
preserve the gullibility of the people by appealing to a fund of 
political virtue that does not exist.

Communism and "free-market" capitalism both are modern versions of 
oligarchy. In their propaganda, both justify violent means by good 
ends, which always are put beyond reach by the violence of the means. 
The trick is to define the end vaguely "the greatest good of the 
greatest number" or "the benefit of the many" - and keep it at a 
distance.

The fraudulence of these oligarchic forms of economy is in their 
principle of displacing whatever good they recognize (as well as 
their debts) from the present to the future. Their success depends 
upon persuading people, first, that whatever they have now is no 
good, and, second, that the promised good is certain to be achieved 
in the future. This obviously contradicts the principle - common, I 
believe, to all the religious traditions - that if ever we are going 
to do good to one another, then the time to do it is now; we are to 
receive no reward for promising to do it in the future. And both 
communism and capitalism have found such principles to be a great 
embarrassment. If you are presently occupied in destroying every good 
thing in sight in order to do good in the future, it is inconvenient 
to have people saying things like "Love thy neighbour as thyself" or 
"Sentient beings are numberless, I vow to save them." Communists and 
capitalists alike, "liberal" capitalists and "conservative" 
capitalists alike, have needed to replace religion with some form of 
determinism, so that they can say to their victims, "I'm doing this 
because I can't do otherwise. It is not my fault. It is inevitable."

The wonder is how often organized religion has gone along with this lie.

The idea of an economy based upon several kinds of ruin may seem a 
contradiction in terms, but in fact such an economy is possible, as 
we see. It is possible, however, on one implacable condition: the 
only future good that it assuredly leads to is that it will destroy 
itself. And how does it disguise this outcome from its subjects, its 
short-term beneficiaries, and its victims? It does so by false 
accounting. It substitutes for the real economy, by which we build 
and maintain (or do not maintain) our household, a symbolic economy 
of money, which in the long run, because of the self-interested 
manipulations of the "controlling interests", cannot symbolize or 
account for anything but itself. And so we have before us the 
spectacle of unprecedented "prosperity" and "economic growth" in a 
land of degraded farms, forests, ecosystems and watersheds, polluted 
air, failing families and perishing communities.

THIS MORAL AND ECONOMIC absurdity exists for the sake of the 
allegedly "free" market, the single principle of which is this: 
commodities will be produced wherever they can be produced at the 
lowest cost, and consumed wherever they will bring the highest price. 
To make too cheap and sell too high has always been the programme of 
industrial capitalism. The idea of the global "free market" is merely 
capitalism's so-far-successful attempt to enlarge the geographic 
scope of its greed, and moreover to give to its greed the status of a 
"right" within its presumptive territory. The global "free market" is 
free to the corporations precisely because it dissolves the 
boundaries of the old national colonialisms, and replaces them with a 
new colonialism without restraints or boundaries. It is pretty much 
as if all the rabbits have now been forbidden to have holes, thereby 
"freeing" the hounds.
The "right" of a corporation to exercise its economic power without 
restraint is construed, by the partisans of the "free market", as a 
form of freedom, a political liberty implied presumably by the right 
of individual citizens to own and use property.

But the "free market" idea introduces into government a sanction of 
an inequality that is not implicit in any idea of democratic liberty: 
namely that the "free market" is freest to those who have the most 
money, and is not free at all to those with little or no money. 
Wal-Mart, for example, as a large corporation "freely" competing 
against local, privately owned businesses has virtually all the 
freedom, and its small competitors virtually none.

To make too cheap and sell too high, there are two requirements. One 
is that you must have a lot of consumers with surplus money and 
unlimited wants. For the time being, there are plenty of these 
consumers in the "developed" countries. The problem, for the time 
being easily solved, is simply to keep them relatively affluent and 
dependent on purchased supplies.

The other requirement is that the market for labour and raw materials 
should remain depressed relative to the market for retail 
commodities. This means that the supply of workers should exceed 
demand, and that the land-using economy should be allowed or 
encouraged to overproduce.

To keep the cost of labour low, it is necessary first to entice or 
force country people everywhere in the world to move into the cities 
- in the manner prescribed by the United States' Committee for 
Economic Development after World War II - and second, to continue to 
introduce labour-replacing technology. In this way it is possible to 
maintain a "pool" of people who are in the threatful position of 
being mere consumers, landless and also poor, and who therefore are 
eager to go to work for low wages - precisely the condition of 
migrant farm workers in the United States.

To cause the land-using economies to overproduce is even simpler. The 
farmers and other workers in the world's land-using economies, by and 
large, are not organized. They are therefore unable to control 
production in order to secure just prices. Individual producers must 
go individually to the market and take for their produce simply 
whatever they are paid. They have no power to bargain or make 
demands. Increasingly, they must sell, not to neighbours or to 
neighbouring towns and cities, but to large and remote corporations. 
There is no competition among the buyers (supposing there are more 
than one), who are organized, and are "free" to exploit the advantage 
of low prices. Low prices encourage overproduction as producers 
attempt to make up their losses "on volume", and overproduction 
inevitably makes for low prices. The land-using economies thus spiral 
downward as the money economy of the exploiters spirals upward. If 
economic attrition in the land-using population becomes so severe as 
to threaten production, then governments can subsidize production 
without production controls, which necessarily will encourage 
overproduction, which will lower prices - and so the subsidy to rural 
producers becomes, in effect, a subsidy to the purchasing 
corporations. In the land-using economies production is further 
cheapened by destroying, with low prices and low standards of 
quality, the cultural imperatives for good work and land stewardship.

This sort of exploitation, long familiar in the foreign and domestic 
economies and the colonialism of modern nations, has now become "the 
global economy", which is the property of a few supranational 
corporations. The economic theory used to justify the global economy 
in its "free market" version is again perfectly groundless and 
sentimental. The idea is that what is good for the corporations will 
sooner or later - though not of course immediately - be good for 
everybody.

That sentimentality is based in turn upon a fantasy: the proposition 
that the great corporations, in "freely" competing with one another 
for raw materials, labour, and market share, will drive each other 
indefinitely, not only toward greater "efficiencies" of manufacture, 
but also toward higher bids for raw materials and labour and lower 
prices to consumers. As a result, all the world's people will be 
economically secure - in the future. It would be hard to object to 
such a proposition if only it were true.

But one knows, in the first place, that "efficiency" in manufacture 
always means reducing labour costs by replacing workers with cheaper 
workers or with machines.

In the second place, the "law of competition" does not imply that 
many competitors will compete indefinitely. The law of competition is 
a simple paradox: competition destroys competition. The law of 
competition implies that many competitors, competing without 
restraint, will ultimately and inevitably reduce the number of 
competitors to one. The law of competition, in short, is the law of 
war.

In the third place, the global economy is based upon cheap 
long-distance transportation, without which it is not possible to 
move goods from the point of cheapest origin to the point of highest 
sale. And cheap long-distance transportation is the basis of the idea 
that regions and nations should abandon any measure of economic 
self-sufficiency in order to specialize in production for export of 
the few commodities or the single commodity that can be most cheaply 
produced. Whatever may be said for the "efficiency" of such a system, 
its result (and, I assume, its purpose) is to destroy local 
production capacities, local diversity, and local economic 
independence.

This idea of a global "free market" economy, despite its obvious 
moral flaws and its dangerous practical weaknesses, is now the ruling 
orthodoxy of the age. Its propaganda is subscribed to and distributed 
by most political leaders, editorial writers, and other "opinion 
makers". The powers that be, while continuing to budget huge sums for 
"national defence", have apparently abandoned any idea of national or 
local self-sufficiency, even in food. They also have given up the 
idea that a national or local government might justly place 
restraints upon economic activity in order to protect its land and 
its people.

The global economy is now institutionalized in the World Trade 
Organization, which was set up, without election anywhere, to rule 
international trade on behalf of the "free market" - which is to say 
on behalf of the supranational corporations - and to overrule, in 
secret sessions, any national or regional law that conflicts with the 
"free market". The corporate programme of global free trade and the 
presence of the World Trade Organization have legitimized extreme 
forms of expert thought. We are told confidently that if Kentucky 
loses its milk-producing capacity to Wisconsin, that will be a 
"success story". Experts such as Stephen C. Blank of the University 
of California, Davis, have proposed that "developed" countries, such 
as the United States and the United Kingdom, where food can no longer 
be produced cheaply enough, should give up agriculture altogether.

The folly at the root of this foolish economy began with the idea 
that a corporation should be regarded, legally, as "a person". But 
the limitless destructiveness of this economy comes about precisely 
because a corporation is not a person. A corporation, essentially, is 
a pile of money to which a number of persons have sold their moral 
allegiance. As such, unlike a person, a corporation does not age. It 
does not arrive, as most persons finally do, at a realization of the 
shortness and smallness of human lives; it does not come to see the 
future as the lifetimes of the children and grandchildren of anybody 
in particular. It can experience no personal hope or remorse, no 
change of heart. It cannot humble itself. It goes about its business 
as if it were immortal, with the single purpose of becoming a bigger 
pile of money. The stockholders essentially are usurers, people who 
"let their money work for them," expecting high pay in return for 
causing others to work for low pay. The World Trade Organization 
enlarges the old idea of the corporation-as-person by giving the 
global corporate economy the status of a super government with the 
power to overrule nations.

I don't mean to say, of course, that all corporate executives and 
stockholders are bad people. I am only saying that all of them are 
very seriously implicated in a bad economy.

Unsurprisingly, among people who wish to preserve things other than 
money - for instance, every region's native capacity to produce 
essential goods - there is a growing perception that the global "free 
market" economy is inherently an enemy to the natural world, to human 
health and freedom, to industrial workers, and to farmers and others 
in the land-use economies; and furthermore, that it is inherently an 
enemy to good work and good economic practice.

I believe that this perception is correct and that it can be shown to 
be correct merely by listing the assumptions implicit in the idea 
that corporations should be "free" to buy low and sell high in the 
world at large. These assumptions, so far as I can make them out, are 
as follows:

1.      That stable and preserving relationships among people, places 
and things do not matter and are of no worth.

2.      That cultures and religions have no legitimate practical or 
economic concerns.

3.      That there is no conflict between the "free market" and 
political freedom, and no connection between political democracy and 
economic democracy.

4.      That there can be no conflict between economic advantage and 
economic justice.

5.      That there is no conflict between greed and ecological or 
bodily health.

6.      That there is no conflict between self-interest and public service.

7.      That the loss or destruction of the capacity anywhere to 
produce necessary goods does not matter and involves no cost.

8.      That it is all right for a nation's or a region's subsistence 
to be foreign-based, dependent on long-distance transport, and 
entirely controlled by corporations.

9.      That, therefore, wars over commodities - our recent Gulf War, 
for example - are legitimate and permanent economic functions.

10.     That this sort of sanctioned violence is justified also by 
the predominance of centralized systems of production supply, 
communications and transportation which are extremely vulnerable not 
only to acts of war between nations, but also to sabotage and 
terrorism.

11.     That it is all right for poor people in poor countries to 
work at poor wages to produce goods for export to affluent people in 
rich countries.

12.     That there is no danger and no cost in the proliferation of 
exotic pests, weeds and diseases that accompany international trade 
and that increase with the volume of trade.

13.     That an economy is a machine, of which people are merely the 
interchangeable parts. One has no choice but to do the work (if any) 
that the economy prescribes, and to accept the prescribed wage.

14.     That, therefore, vocation is a dead issue. One does not do 
the work that one chooses to do because one is called to it by Heaven 
or by one's natural or god-given abilities, but does instead the work 
that is determined and imposed by the economy. Any work is all right 
as long as one gets paid for it.

These assumptions clearly prefigure a condition of total economy. A 
total economy is one in which everything - "life forms", for 
instance, or the "right to pollute" - is "private property" and has a 
price and is for sale. In a total economy significant and sometimes 
critical choices that once belonged to individuals or communities 
become the property of corporations. A total economy, operating 
internationally, necessarily shrinks the powers of state and national 
governments, not only because those governments have signed over 
significant powers to an international bureaucracy or because 
political leaders become the paid hacks of the corporations but also 
because political processes - and especially democratic processes - 
are too slow to react to unrestrained economic and technological 
development on a global scale.

And when state and national governments begin to act in effect as 
agents of the global economy, selling their people for low wages and 
their people's products for low prices, then the rights and liberties 
of citizenship must necessarily shrink. A total economy is an 
unrestrained taking of profits from the disintegration of nations, 
communities, households, landscapes and ecosystems. It licenses 
symbolic or artificial wealth to "grow" by means of the destruction 
of the real wealth of all the world.

Among the many costs of the total economy, the loss of the principle 
of vocation is probably the most symptomatic and, from a cultural 
standpoint, the most critical. It is by the replacement of vocation 
with economic determinism that the exterior workings of a total 
economy destroy the character and culture also from the inside.

In an essay on the origin of civilization in traditional cultures, 
Ananda K. Coomaraswamy wrote that "the principle of justice is the 
same throughout Š [it is] that each member of the community should 
perform the task for which he is fitted by nature. Š" The two ideas, 
justice and vocation, are inseparable. That is why Coomaraswamy spoke 
of industrialism as "the mammon of injustice", incompatible with 
civilization. It is by way of the principle and practice of vocation 
that sanctity and reverence enter into the human economy. It was thus 
possible for traditional cultures to conceive that "to work is to 
pray."

AWARE OF INDUSTRIALISM'S potential for destruction, as well as the 
considerable political danger of great concentrations of wealth and 
power in industrial corporations, American leaders developed, and for 
a while used, the means of limiting and restraining such 
concentrations, and of somewhat equitably distributing wealth and 
property. The means were: laws against trusts and monopolies, the 
principle of collective bargaining, the concept of one-hundred per 
cent parity between the land-using and the manufacturing economies, 
and the progressive income tax. And to protect domestic producers and 
production capacities it is possible for governments to impose 
tariffs on cheap imported goods. These means are justified by the 
government's obligation to protect the lives, livelihoods and 
freedoms of its citizens. There is, then, no necessity or 
inevitability requiring our government to sacrifice the livelihoods 
of our small farmers, small business people, and workers, along with 
our domestic economic independence to the global "free market". But 
now all of these means are either weakened or in disuse. The global 
economy is intended as a means of subverting them.

In default of government protections against the total economy of the 
supranational corporations, people are where they have been many 
times before: in danger of losing their economic security and their 
freedom, both at once. But at the same time the means of defending 
themselves belongs to them in the form of a venerable principle: 
powers not exercised by government return to the people. If the 
government does not propose to protect the lives, livelihoods and 
freedoms of its people, then the people must think about protecting 
themselves.

How are they to protect themselves? There seems, really, to be only 
one way, and that is to develop and put into practice the idea of a 
local economy - something that growing numbers of people are now 
doing. For several good reasons, they are beginning with the idea of 
a local food economy.

People are trying to find ways to shorten the distance between 
producers and consumers, to make the connections between the two more 
direct, and to make this local economic activity a benefit to the 
local community. They are trying to learn to use the consumer 
economies of local towns and cities to preserve the livelihoods of 
local farm families and farm communities. They want to use the local 
economy to give consumers an influence over the kind and quality of 
their food, and to preserve and enhance the local landscapes.

They want to give everybody in the local community a direct, 
long-term interest in the prosperity, health and beauty of their 
homeland. This is the only way presently available to make the total 
economy less total. It was once, I believe, the only way to make a 
national or a colonial economy less total. But now the necessity is 
greater.

I am assuming that there is a valid line of thought leading from the 
idea of the total economy to the idea of a local economy. I assume 
that the first thought may be a recognition of one's ignorance and 
vulnerability as a consumer in the total economy. As such a consumer, 
one does not know the history of the products that one uses. Where, 
exactly, did they come from? Who produced them? What toxins were used 
in their production? What were the human and ecological costs of 
producing them and then of disposing of them? One sees that such 
questions cannot be answered easily, and perhaps not at all. Though 
one is shopping amid an astonishing variety of products, one is 
denied certain significant choices. In such a state of economic 
ignorance it is not possible to choose products that were produced 
locally or with reasonable kindness toward people and toward nature. 
Nor is it possible for such consumers to influence production for the 
better.

Consumers who feel a prompting toward land stewardship find that in 
this economy they can have no stewardly practice. To be a consumer in 
the total economy, one must agree to be totally ignorant, totally 
passive, and totally dependent on distant supplies and 
self-interested suppliers.

And then, perhaps, one begins to see from a local point of view. One 
begins to ask: What is here, what is in me, that can lead to 
something better? From a local point of view, one can see that a 
global "free market" economy is possible only if nations and 
localities accept or ignore the inherent instability of a production 
economy based on exports and a consumer economy based on imports. An 
export economy is beyond local influence, and so too is an import 
economy. And cheap long-distance transport is possible only if 
granted cheap fuel, international peace, control of terrorism, 
prevention of sabotage, and the solvency of the international economy.

Perhaps also one begins to see the difference between a small local 
business that must share the fate of the local community and a large 
absentee corporation that is set up to escape the fate of the local 
community by ruining the local community.

SO FAR AS I can see, the idea of a local economy rests upon only two 
principles: neighbourhood and subsistence.

In a viable neighbourhood, neighbours ask themselves what they can do 
or provide for one another, and they find answers that they and their 
place can afford. This, and nothing else, is the practice of 
neighbourhood. This practice must be in part charitable, but it must 
also be economic, and the economic part must be equitable; there is a 
significant charity in just prices.

Of course, everything needed locally cannot be produced locally. But 
a viable neighbourhood is a community; and a viable community is made 
up of neighbours who cherish and protect what they have in common. 
This is the principle of subsistence. A viable community, like a 
viable farm, protects its own production capacities. It does not 
import products that it can produce for itself. And it does not 
export local products until local needs have been met. The economic 
products of a viable community are understood either as belonging to 
the community's subsistence or as surplus, and only the surplus is 
considered to be marketable abroad. A community, if it is to be 
viable, cannot think of producing solely for export, and it cannot 
permit importers to use cheaper labour and goods from other places to 
destroy the local capacity to produce goods that are needed locally. 
In charity, moreover, it must refuse to import goods that are 
produced at the cost of human or ecological degradation elsewhere. 
This principle applies not just to localities, but to regions and 
nations as well.

The principles of neighbourhood and subsistence will be disparaged by 
the globalists as "protectionism" - and that is exactly what it is. 
It is a protectionism that is just and sound, because it protects 
local producers and is the best assurance of adequate supplies to 
local consumers. And the idea that local needs should be met first 
and only surpluses exported does not imply any prejudice against 
charity toward people in other places or trade with them. The 
principle of neighbourhood at home always implies the principle of 
charity abroad. And the principle of subsistence is in fact the best 
guarantee of giveable or marketable surpluses. This kind of 
protection is not "isolationism".

Albert Schweitzer, who knew well the economic situation in the 
colonies of Africa, wrote nearly sixty years ago: "Whenever the 
timber trade is good, permanent famine reigns in the Ogowe region 
because the villagers abandon their farms to fell as many trees as 
possible." We should notice especially that the goal of production 
was "as many Š as possible." And Schweitzer makes my point exactly: 
"These people could achieve true wealth if they could develop their 
agriculture and trade to meet their own needs." Instead they produced 
timber for export to "the world economy", which made them dependent 
upon imported goods that they bought with money earned from their 
exports. They gave up their local means of subsistence, and imposed 
the false standard of a foreign demand ("as many trees as possible") 
upon their forests. They thus became helplessly dependent on an 
economy over which they had no control.

Such was the fate of the native people under the African colonialism 
of Schweitzer's time. Such is, and can only be, the fate of everybody 
under the global colonialism of our time. Schweitzer's description of 
the colonial economy of the Ogowe region is in principle not 
different from the rural economy now in Kentucky or Iowa or Wyoming. 
A total economy for all practical purposes is a total government. The 
"free trade", which from the standpoint of the corporate economy 
brings "unprecedented economic growth", from the standpoint of the 
land and its local populations, and ultimately from the standpoint of 
the cities, is destruction and slavery.

Without prosperous local economies, the people have no power and the 
land no voice.

Reprinted from Orion (195 Main Street, Great Barrington, MA 01230, USA).

Wendell Berry is a farmer, a poet and a novelist; his latest book, 
Life is a Miracle, was reviewed in Resurgence 205.

from Resurgence issue 206


Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Biofuels list archives:
http://archive.nnytech.net/index.php?list=biofuel

Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
     [EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
     http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 


</x-charset>

Reply via email to