TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- The Impending International Food Crisis
Pages (4): [1] 2 3 4 »
The Impending International Food Crisis
I'm starting to get interested in environmental sustainability and how it affects development in the Global South. Various changes in our global environment and climate are having a significant effect on human populations the world over - from the shrinking of the Aral Sea and the devastation of livelihoods there to deforestation in the Amazon to desertification in Darfur - development strategies and peace are threatened the world over by changes we don't quite understand. Demographic pressures are mounting at a time where the capacity of the planet to provide for life seems to be decreasing.
An interesting read in today's Washington Post - meager crops in the US and Europe and drought conditions in various parts of the developing world do not bode well for the global food market this year. Already pressure is being put on politicians by populations having more and more difficulty in buying enough food to feed families.
An interesting spin on the subject on page 2 of the article - Ethanol consumes 1/5 of corn production in the US - enough to feed how many people? A simple cost-benefit analysis shows that the opportunity cost of ethanol may be awfully high. But then again, what monetary value is put on the life of a Mauritanian mother making fifty cents a day?
| quote: |
| The New Economics of Hunger A brutal convergence of events has hit an unprepared global market, and grain prices are sky high. The world's poor suffer most. By Anthony Faiola Washington Post Staff Writer Sunday, April 27, 2008; A01 The globe's worst food crisis in a generation emerged as a blip on the big boards and computer screens of America's great grain exchanges. At first, it seemed like little more than a bout of bad weather. In Chicago, Minneapolis and Kansas City, traders watched from the pits early last summer as wheat prices spiked amid mediocre harvests in the United States and Europe and signs of prolonged drought in Australia. But within a few weeks, the traders discerned an ominous snowball effect -- one that would eventually bring down a prime minister in Haiti, make more children in Mauritania go to bed hungry, even cause American executives at Sam's Club to restrict sales of large bags of rice. As prices rose, major grain producers including Argentina and Ukraine, battling inflation caused in part by soaring oil bills, were moving to bar exports on a range of crops to control costs at home. It meant less supply on world markets even as global demand entered a fundamentally new phase. Already, corn prices had been climbing for months on the back of booming government-subsidized ethanol programs. Soybeans were facing pressure from surging demand in China. But as supplies in the pipelines of global trade shrank, prices for corn, soybeans, wheat, oats, rice and other grains began shooting through the roof. At the same time, food was becoming the new gold. Investors fleeing Wall Street's mortgage-related strife plowed hundreds of millions of dollars into grain futures, driving prices up even more. By Christmas, a global panic was building. With fewer places to turn, and tempted by the weaker dollar, nations staged a run on the American wheat harvest. Foreign buyers, who typically seek to purchase one or two months' supply of wheat at a time, suddenly began to stockpile. They put in orders on U.S. grain exchanges two to three times larger than normal as food riots began to erupt worldwide. This led major domestic U.S. mills to jump into the fray with their own massive orders, fearing that there would soon be no wheat left at any price. "Japan, the Philippines, [South] Korea, Taiwan -- they all came in with huge orders, and no matter how high prices go, they keep on buying," said Jeff Voge, chairman of the Kansas City Board of Trade and also an independent trader. Grains have surged so high, he said, that some traders are walking off the floor for weeks at a time, unable to handle the stress. "We have never seen anything like this before," Voge said. "Prices are going up more in one day than they have during entire years in the past. But no matter the price, there always seems to be a buyer. . . . This isn't just any commodity. It is food, and people need to eat." Beyond Hunger The food price shock now roiling world markets is destabilizing governments, igniting street riots and threatening to send a new wave of hunger rippling through the world's poorest nations. It is outpacing even the Soviet grain emergency of 1972-75, when world food prices rose 78 percent. By comparison, from the beginning of 2005 to early 2008, prices leapt 80 percent, according to the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization. Much of the increase is being absorbed by middle men -- distributors, processors, even governments -- but consumers worldwide are still feeling the pinch. The convergence of events has thrown world food supply and demand out of whack and snowballed into civil turmoil. After hungry mobs and violent riots beset Port-au-Prince, Haitian Prime Minister Jacques-�douard Alexis was forced to step down this month. At least 14 countries have been racked by food-related violence. In Malaysia, Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi is struggling for political survival after a March rebuke from voters furious over food prices. In Bangladesh, more than 20,000 factory workers protesting food prices rampaged through the streets two weeks ago, injuring at least 50 people. To quell unrest, countries including Indonesia are digging deep to boost food subsidies. The U.N. World Food Program has warned of an alarming surge in hunger in areas as far-flung as North Korea and West Africa. The crisis, it fears, will plunge more than 100 million of the world's poorest people deeper into poverty, forced to spend more and more of their income on skyrocketing food bills. "This crisis could result in a cascade of others . . . and become a multidimensional problem affecting economic growth, social progress and even political security around the world," U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said. The New Normal Prices for some crops -- such as wheat -- have already begun to descend off their highs. As farmers rush to plant more wheat now that profit prospects have climbed, analysts predict that prices may come down as much as 30 percent in the coming months. But that would still leave a year-over-year price hike of 45 percent. Few believe prices will go back to where they were in early 2006, suggesting that the world must cope with a new reality of more expensive food. People worldwide are coping in different ways. For the 1 billion living on less than a dollar a day, it is a matter of survival. In a mud hut on the Sahara's edge, Manthita Sou, a 43-year-old widow in the Mauritanian desert village of Maghleg, is confronting wheat prices that are up 67 percent on local markets in the past year. Her solution: stop eating bread. Instead, she has downgraded to cheaper foods, such as sorghum, a dark grain widely consumed by the world's poorest people. But sorghum has jumped 20 percent in the past 12 months. Living on the 50 cents a day she earns weaving textiles to support a family of three, her answer has been to cut out breakfast, drink tea for lunch and ration a small serving of soupy sorghum meal for family dinners. "I don't know how long we can survive like this," she said. Countries that have driven food demand in recent years are now grappling with the cost of their own success -- rising prices. Although China has tried to calm its people by announcing reserve grain holdings of 30 to 40 percent of annual production, a number that had been a state secret, anxiety is still running high. In the southern province of Guangdong, there are reports of grain hoarding; and in Hong Kong, consumers have stripped store shelves of bags of rice. Liu Yinhua, a retired factory worker who lives in the port city of Ningbo on China's east coast, said her family of three still eats the same things, including pork ribs, fish and vegetables. But they are eating less of it. "Almost everything is more expensive now, even normal green vegetables," said Liu, 53. "The level of our quality of life is definitely reduced." In India, the government recently scrapped all import duties on cooking oils and banned exports of non-basmati rice. As in many parts of the developing world, the impact in India is being felt the most among the urban poor who have fled rural life to live in teeming slums. At a dusty and nearly empty market in one New Delhi neighborhood this week, shopkeeper Manjeet Singh, 52, said people at the market have started hoarding because of fear that rice and oil will run out. "If one doesn't have enough to fill one's own stomach, then what's the use of an economic boom in exports?" he said, looking sluggish in the scorching afternoon sun. He said his customers were asking for cheaper goods, like groundnut oil instead of soybean oil. Even wealthy nations are being forced to adjust to a new normal. In Japan, a country with a distinct cultural aversion to cheaper, genetically modified grains, manufacturers are risking public backlash by importing them for use in processed foods for the first time. Inflation in the 15-country zone that uses the euro -- which includes France, Germany, Spain and Italy -- hit 3.6 percent in March, the highest rate since the currency was adopted almost a decade ago and well above the European Central Bank's target of 2.0 percent. Food and oil prices were mostly to blame. In the United States, experts say consumers are scaling down on quality and scaling up on quantity if it means a better unit price. In the meat aisles of major grocery stores, said Phil Lempert, a supermarket analyst, steaks are giving way to chopped beef and people used to buying fresh blueberries are moving to frozen. Some are even trying to grow their own vegetables. "A bigger pinch than ever before," said Pat Carroll, a retiree in Congress Heights. "I don't ever remember paying $3 for a loaf of bread." Ill-Equipped Markets The root cause of price surges varies from crop to crop. But the crisis is being driven in part by an unprecedented linkage of the food chain. A big reason for higher wheat prices, for instance, is the multiyear drought in Australia, something that scientists say may become persistent because of global warming. But wheat prices are also rising because U.S. farmers have been planting less of it, or moving wheat to less fertile ground. That is partly because they are planting more corn to capitalize on the biofuel frenzy. This year, at least a fifth and perhaps a quarter of the U.S. corn crop will be fed to ethanol plants. As food and fuel fuse, it has presented a boon to American farmers after years of stable prices. But it has also helped spark the broader food-price shock. "If you didn't have ethanol, you would not have the prices we have today," said Bruce Babcock, a professor of economics and the director of the Center for Agricultural and Rural Development at Iowa State University. "It doesn't mean it's the sole driver. Prices would be higher than we saw earlier in this decade because world grain supplies are tighter now than earlier in the decade. But we've introduced a new demand into the market." In fact, many economists now say food prices should have climbed much higher much earlier. After the fall of the Berlin Wall, the world seemed to shrink with rapidly opening markets, surging trade and improved communication and transportation technology. Given new market efficiencies and the wide availability of relatively cheap food, the once-common practice of hoarding grains to protect against the kind of shortfall the world is seeing now seemed more and more archaic. Global grain reserves plunged. Yet there was one big problem. The global food trade never became the kind of well-honed machine that has made the price of manufactured goods such as personal computers and flat-screen TVs increasingly similar worldwide. With food, significant subsidies and other barriers meant to protect farmers -- particularly in Europe, the United States and Japan -- have distorted the real price of food globally, economists say, preventing the market from normal price adjustments as global demand has climbed. If market forces had played a larger role in food trade, some now argue, the world would have had more time to adjust to more gradually rising prices. "The international food trade didn't undergo the same kind of liberalization as other trade," said Richard Feltes, senior vice president of MF Global, a futures brokerage. "We can see now that the world has largely failed in its attempt to create an integrated food market." In recent years, there has been a great push to liberalize food markets worldwide -- part of what is known as the "Doha round" of world trade talks -- but resistance has come from both the developed and developing worlds. Perhaps more than any other sector, nations have a visceral desire to protect their farmers, and thusly, their food supply. The current food crisis is causing advocates on both sides to dig in. Consider, for instance, the French. The European Union doles out about $41 billion a year in agriculture subsidies, with France getting the biggest share, about $8.2 billion. The 27-nation bloc also has set a target for biofuels to supply 10 percent of transportation fuel needs by 2020 to combat global warming. The French, whose farmers over the years have become addicted to generous government handouts, argue that agriculture subsidies must be continued and even increased in order to encourage more food production, especially with looming shortages. Last week, French Agriculture Minister Michel Barnier warned E.U. officials against "too much trust in the free market." "We must not leave the vital issue of feeding people," he said, "to the mercy of market laws and international speculation." Staff writers Dan Morgan, Steven Mufson and Jane Black in Washington and correspondents Ariana Eunjung Cha in Beijing, Emily Wax in New Delhi and John Ward Anderson in Paris contributed to this report. |
Ethanol sucks ass, it's a scam, and it's a big part of why this mess is happening.
Buy stock in Monsanto, Mosaic, Potash, and the other ag stocks that have been blowing the S&P out of the water and donate to charity, though that would have been better advice 6 months ago...
I understand the problem. Yet Brazil seems to not get any heat for it and they have been using it for a while. Maybe because they were not major donators of grain?
I dont know, anyone care to explain?
| quote: |
| Originally posted by nchs09 I understand the problem. Yet Brazil seems to not get any heat for it and they have been using it for a while. Maybe because they were not major donators of grain? I dont know, anyone care to explain? |
Well its rather clear that global warming is partly backed by some people to keep the poor parts of the world poor.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by ******** I think we are forgetting that oil is going up and up at $120 / barrel it has some effect on the price of fuel. The thing is though that there are different mechanism.. simply though here is the real issue- Countries have lost self sustainability to population growth ratio - not only are some countries underdeveloped in farming skills and development of agricultural landscape but they arn't sufficient with other infrastructure and agrifood industries, such as aqua culture. If these countries would harvest alternate food sources the issues wouldn't be there. As sick as it sounds - if humans accepted canibalism - with our current death rate we also have a very large untapped food source. None the less there is ample food, but the problem is capitalism and greed. Normal people need fuel - so jacking up the price of gas by removing ethanol isn't going to help an already slumping western economy - although countries like canada have jacked 100+ million into the world food program.. what the problem is is that countries arn't tapping all the food sources they have available - their governments need to tap things like aquaculture - also terraforming - look to israel for a model of mastery of landscape - etc... The planet has so many potential untapped food sources.. people can immigrate... so what is the issue? While we need to cushion this.. people arn't thinking straight nor are they seeing a realistic solution.. the countries that get food aid have gotten it for a long time.. and their economy and self sustainability hasn't needed to balance out.. what needs to be done is planning based upon self sustinance.. not on barely surviving.. obviously the agri planning needs vast improvement. Although some places are recovering from colonial exploitation and damage ... we need to develope and move people.. movement of people is key.. regionalization is key... but countries in the west put of barriers to unskilled immigration.. if every plane that flew aid flew back 100 people etc.. and every truck took back 50 etc.. then we would slowly stabalize.. but greed and capitalism is slowing rational progress WE MUST HAVE A REVOLUTION.. JOIN WITH ME WORLD AND I WILL SOLVE ALL YOUR PROBLEMS!!!!!!!!!!! |
Food prices? IMO the biggest concern is when oil supplies will dwindle down and result in massive crisis around the world which will kill many millions (or billions?) of people. Because the sole factor in driving up the world population in the last 2 centuries has been the discovery and use of oil.
I recommend watching a documentary called Crude Impact which talks about this impending crisis in better detail and how its affecting everyone already today, including the environment.
EDIT: The way I put in one sentence is:
"The oil has givith, and thou shall taketh away."
I dont know where is the shortage for 'food'? I thought it was inflation and rising 'cost' of food was a problem because of higher transportation costs as of higher oil prices.. man US media and that fat 'tim' guy on CNN is damn stupid..
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Magnetonium Food prices? IMO the biggest concern is when oil supplies will dwindle down and result in massive crisis around the world which will kill many millions (or billions?) of people. Because the sole factor in driving up the world population in the last 2 centuries has been the discovery and use of oil. I recommend watching a documentary called Crude Impact which talks about this impending crisis in better detail and how its affecting everyone already today, including the environment. EDIT: The way I put in one sentence is: "The oil has givith, and thou shall taketh away." |
| quote: |
| Desertification as a Source of Conflict in Darfur by Michael Renner on June 23, 2007 In Sudan�s Darfur region, brutal scorched-earth tactics by nomadic militias and government army units have killed at least 200,000 people and forced 2.5 million out of their homes since 2003. Stopping the mass violence has become a rallying cry for many who argue that there is a need for �humanitarian intervention.� The ENOUGH Project, for instance, calls for an approach that mixes peacemaking, protection, and punishment of perpetrators of mass violence. In contrast to such sweeping demands, however, negotiations have focused on shoring up a weak African Union mission by deploying a �hybrid� African Union/United Nations peacekeeping force. While Darfur shows the limits of current peacekeeping and humanitarian policy, it is also becoming clear that the roots of conflict are not found in the often-repeated claim of simplistic �ethnic hatreds.� To a considerable extent, the conflict there is the result of a slow-onset disaster�creeping desertification and severe droughts that have led to food insecurity and sporadic famine, as well as growing competition for land and water. The "Sudan Post-Conflict Environmental Assessment"�a new report by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)�argues that severe environmental degradation is among the root causes of the conflict. The 354�page study includes the following findings:
Achim Steiner, the agency�s Executive Director, warns that �Sudan�s tragedy is not just the tragedy of one country in Africa � it is a window to a wider world underlining how issues such as uncontrolled depletion of natural resources like soils and forests allied to impacts like climate change can destabilize communities, even entire nations.� Along similar lines, the Sudan Environment Conservation Society says that average annual rainfall in El Fasher in northern Darfur has dropped nearly in half since data was first gathered in 1917. Meanwhile, Darfur�s population�and with its, pressure on the land�has grown six-fold over the past four decades, to about 6.5 million. Resource challenges might have spurred cooperation between Darfurs�s farming and nomadic communities. The two populations have both a history of competing for scarce water and fertile land, but also a record of economic interdependence and a tradition of seeking negotiated solutions. But encroaching deserts have pushed nomads further south and into growing conflict with farming communities. Increasing scarcity has led to rising tribal antagonism over the past 20 years. Darfur has also experienced increased banditry and lawlessness, and it has played involuntary host to insurgent groups from neighboring Chad. Decades of economic and political neglect by the central government in Khartoum finally led to rebellion in February 2003. The Sudanese government responded by playing up ethnic distinctions and arming the so-called Janjaweed nomadic militias. Both environmental restoration and reconciliation between different communities are key. And those driven off their land by the conflict need to be either allowed back home or resettled in sustainable communities. Refugee camps in Sudan and neighboring Chad themselves are contributing to additional environmental degradation: the displaced have little choice but to cut down trees for firewood, or to deplete the little underground water there is. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov I think that helps explain half of the equation - transportation costs have indeed gone up, but that isn't being passed on to the African consumer in the degree it is to the American consumer. What is a larger problem is actually quantity. There are more mouths to feed than ever before, and as ******** (no, I'm not referring to the cannibalism point he made) notes, sustainability on the ground is dwindling. This is in part a product of globalization - for years it was easier (and cheaper) to get grain from Europe and the US than it was to plant and grow it locally. Now they are paying dearly for that as import prices go up and no infrastructure remains for local planting. But it is also caused in part by the changing environment. I know that oil is the board bogeyman, but we will assuredly have many conflicts fought on the grounds of sustainability as well. To a large degree that's what they are fighting about in Palestine today (water), and it is a root cause of Darfur as well. http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5173 |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by shaolin_Z I haven't done the enough research on the subject, but I'm pretty fucking sure those GMO infested fucking excuses for food and stuff like the terminator gene that doesn't allow third world nations' farmer to save seeds has a little something to do with it do. They're plenty of coporate effort to control just about everything, because it means profits. Who gives a fuck if people have to starve and die in the process (<--- a coporations priorities, not mine). I've read enough in the past but obviously can't recall most of it now, but I it's a complete myth that there aren't enough resources on the planet... yes, if we continue to live like pigs at the expense of the rest of the world... yeah, there certainly isn't enough to go around. |
| quote: |
The Norman Borlaug Rap (Thank You, Norman) I don't know what you been told about farming and food in days of old, but listen and take this to the bank: If there's food in your tummy then you'd better thank N-O-R-M-A-N Norman Borlaug, thank you, man Straight out of Iowa Norman came, then traveled the world, saw suffering and pain. Millions of people were starving, yo in Pakistan, India, Mexico. But just a few years after Norman came, they all had bumper crops of grain. Norman found the great solution, known as the Green Revolution. Billions of people are alive today because of work done by the man named Norman CHORUS: Norman Borlaug, you may be the greatest man in history. Using science and your brain to stamp out hunger, woe and pain. Creating new varieties of plants with new technologies. You're the man we look up to. That is why we're thanking you. But then some people started to panic, telling the farmers to go organic. Technophobes started making a mess of Norman Borlaug's great success. Green groups thought they found the cure in stinky piles of cow manure, telling their governments not to send fertilizer aid to our African friends. So Norman came back to defend high-yield agriculture with his friend, Jimmy Carter, ex-president, to help all the African residents. CHORUS Norman and Jimmy hopped in a plane to help the Africans grow more grain. Soon the men were able to triple corn yields that the Greens had crippled. Feeding the planet is his game and yet he does not have much fame. Got the highest scientific acclaim, and now you better know his name is Norman And he's still working in the fields, helping the farmers increase their yields. With fertilizer, water and better plant breeding he's making sure that farmers are feeding children and their families with corn and rice, cassava and peas. The man has saved so many lives. That's why they gave the Nobel Prize to Norman If you don't know, You better ask somebody About Norman Norman Borlaug Father of the Green Revolution Nobel Peace Prize Winner Forgotten Benefactor of Humanity CHORUS |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by ******** I think we are forgetting that oil is going up and up at $120 / barrel it has some effect on the price of fuel. The thing is though that there are different mechanism.. simply though here is the real issue- Countries have lost self sustainability to population growth ratio - not only are some countries underdeveloped in farming skills and development of agricultural landscape but they arn't sufficient with other infrastructure and agrifood industries, such as aqua culture. If these countries would harvest alternate food sources the issues wouldn't be there. As sick as it sounds - if humans accepted canibalism - with our current death rate we also have a very large untapped food source. None the less there is ample food, but the problem is capitalism and greed. Normal people need fuel - so jacking up the price of gas by removing ethanol isn't going to help an already slumping western economy - although countries like canada have jacked 100+ million into the world food program.. what the problem is is that countries arn't tapping all the food sources they have available - their governments need to tap things like aquaculture - also terraforming - look to israel for a model of mastery of landscape - etc... The planet has so many potential untapped food sources.. people can immigrate... so what is the issue? While we need to cushion this.. people arn't thinking straight nor are they seeing a realistic solution.. the countries that get food aid have gotten it for a long time.. and their economy and self sustainability hasn't needed to balance out.. what needs to be done is planning based upon self sustinance.. not on barely surviving.. obviously the agri planning needs vast improvement. Although some places are recovering from colonial exploitation and damage ... we need to develope and move people.. movement of people is key.. regionalization is key... but countries in the west put of barriers to unskilled immigration.. if every plane that flew aid flew back 100 people etc.. and every truck took back 50 etc.. then we would slowly stabalize.. but greed and capitalism is slowing rational progress WE MUST HAVE A REVOLUTION.. JOIN WITH ME WORLD AND I WILL SOLVE ALL YOUR PROBLEMS!!!!!!!!!!! |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by colonelcrisp then you point out canabalism as a solution? do you not see the stupidity and potential problems with this concept? ie people treating other people as livestock in under developed countries? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Yeah, that was my thought too. I've read allegations that this actually happened in Sudan during war-related famines in the eighties. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by colonelcrisp Quite possibly the stupidest thing i have read all day..... |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by ******** Although some places are recovering from colonial exploitation and damage ... we need to develope and move people.. movement of people is key.. regionalization is key... but countries in the west put of barriers to unskilled immigration.. if every plane that flew aid flew back 100 people etc.. and every truck took back 50 etc.. then we would slowly stabalize.. but greed and capitalism is slowing rational progress |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by jerZ07002 perhaps you should read the rest of his posts. or, people like to protect their cultures as well. capitalism isn't the root of all evil. |
i totally agree. it's much cheaper to send food than it is to integrate them into our society and attempt to approximate a standard of living for them that matches ours.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by colonelcrisp To put some of his stupidity into numbers.... lets negate trucks and look at the plane theory 100 people per aid flight. thats 100 EI checks the gov has to pay out each month + 100 more people to carry under the public health system. so lets say at 1500/ mo / unskilled immigrant who cant find a job here cause the A: dont speak english and B: unskilled labour jobs are hard to come by these days... that is 150 000 per month just in EI, plus indirect costs due to healthcare etc, lets just round that up to 250 000 per month. lets say figuratively you can put 1M worth of aid on a plane. lets also state that the money of aid out plus the ammount spent on immigrants in = 1M per month so in month 1 Aid = 1M EI for Immigrants = 0 # Immigrants = 100 Month 2 Aid = 750K EI = 250K # Imigrants = 200 Month 3 Aid = 500K EI - 500K #immigrants = 300 Month 4 Aid = 250K EI = 750K # Immigrants = 400 Month 5 Aid = 0 EI = 1M #immigrants = 500 now we are stuck paying for 500 people to live here at a cost of 1M / month for the next 6 years at least. The X millions of people in their home country only enjoy the benefit of 2.5M getting paid out to them over 5 months where the 500 people we allow to free load off society here get the equivalent of 2.5 M spent on them (and in reality directly into their pockets) over the same time frame. does this sound sustainable to you? |
Assuming potential food production is finite, on a long enough timeline no amount of continuous population growth is sustainable. A population reduction through starvation, reduced birth rate, or due to conflict over resources is inevitable.
A reduction in the food supply or an increase in the cost of production and transportation of food will almost always place pressure on the poorer strata of society (at this point, it is largely a global market hence the poorer regions bear the brunt of this effect.) Even if the food supply can be increased to the point where these pressures can be alleviated at this time (and it almost certainly could be if it were a high enough priority), overall sustainability will not improve because the removal of this pressure mitigates or prevents the population correction that would have otherwise occurred, and thus leads to even faster population growth which will ensure a future food crisis.
Genuine sustainability can be accomplished only by ensuring that the rate of population growth does not exceed the rate of increase in the 'effective' food supply as measured by the adjusted per capita price of food. However, because the effective food supply is historically erratic, there would have to be a substantial buffer between the two as well. Of course, measures to regulate population growth with any reliability are highly controversial at best. However, to the extent that a hypothetical political philosophy holds both that population control should not be formalized and that we ought to eliminate hunger, I can't help but think that it is entirely incoherent.
I was just watching something on this on our nancy-state CBC (Canadian Broadcast Corp) news the other day.
We've been lucky as Canadians up until now that a combination of the strength of our dollar (globally) and the willingness of the main grocers to cut into their profits up until now.
We too should start seeing some sticker shock at the checkout soon...
/not looking forward to this at all...
Bio-fuels are a disaster of an industry. They make absolutely no long-term solution to the carbon emissions problem. It is a short-term quick fix that will never last without putting extensive pressure on food prices. I think the catalyst of this entire crisis are the oil prices. Not only are the major integrated oil & gas companies making record profits, but they do so at the expense of the consumer. This is not capitalism. It is robbery. Capitalism is an equal exchange between a buyer and seller. Oil sure as hell is not worth $120. I don't care about China, India, emerging markets, etc. IT IS NOT WORTH $120 A BARREL!! I blame the energy cartels of America for the inflation of food and gas prices. Yes, I know the crude oil price has been traded to the level of $120, but I have a very VERY high level of suspicion in the forces behind such a high oil price. My questions are basically...
Who is making the largest oil trades?
How much are they trading?
When are they trading?
Is there a oil industry/American government plot to make oil prices rise? I can't tell you yes or no. I have no solid evidence. The only thing I can point is...
1. Since George W. Bush has taken office, gas prices have risen about 100%
2. Companies such as Exxon Mobil (XOM) have made the highest profit of any company in any industry ever in history. From 2003, XOM's profit rose from $22 billion that year to $41 billion in 2007. Their profit has been at the cost of food prices, delivery services, trucking services, shipping services, and reduced the amount of disposable income available to all workers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My conclusion is the aristocracy is again trying to make serfs out of us, and dammit, I WON'T TAKE IT ANYMORE!!!
I don't think it is entirely incoherent, though I see your point. But I would argue that if we spent half as much time thinking about innovation in food production as we do on innovation of, say, video games, we'd have seen a dozen Norman Borlaugs by now.
Populations will continue to grow - and an effort should be made to curb that growth (hint: abstinence-only education is not the way to go on this one) - but why not work on increasing sustainability as well? The Green Revolution succeeded in feeding millions of people that surely would have starved. I see no reason to believe that we can't do that again if we put our minds to it. Sadly, it isn't a priority in the West, which will always eat before our counterparts in S. Asia and Africa.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Krypton Oil sure as hell is not worth $120. I don't care about China, India, emerging markets, etc. IT IS NOT WORTH $120 A BARREL!! |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Krypton Bio-fuels are a disaster of an industry. They make absolutely no long-term solution to the carbon emissions problem. It is a short-term quick fix that will never last without putting extensive pressure on food prices. I think the catalyst of this entire crisis are the oil prices. Not only are the major integrated oil & gas companies making record profits, but they do so at the expense of the consumer. This is not capitalism. It is robbery. Capitalism is an equal exchange between a buyer and seller. Oil sure as hell is not worth $120. I don't care about China, India, emerging markets, etc. IT IS NOT WORTH $120 A BARREL!! I blame the energy cartels of America for the inflation of food and gas prices. Yes, I know the crude oil price has been traded to the level of $120, but I have a very VERY high level of suspicion in the forces behind such a high oil price. My questions are basically... Who is making the largest oil trades? How much are they trading? When are they trading? Is there a oil industry/American government plot to make oil prices rise? I can't tell you yes or no. I have no solid evidence. The only thing I can point is... 1. Since George W. Bush has taken office, gas prices have risen about 100% 2. Companies such as Exxon Mobil (XOM) have made the highest profit of any company in any industry ever in history. From 2003, XOM's profit rose from $22 billion that year to $41 billion in 2007. Their profit has been at the cost of food prices, delivery services, trucking services, shipping services, and reduced the amount of disposable income available to all workers. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- My conclusion is the aristocracy is again trying to make serfs out of us, and dammit, I WON'T TAKE IT ANYMORE!!! |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Wouldn't capitalism dictate that as long as people are willing to pay a price for a commodity, the price will continue to rise. Isn't that the invisible hand at work? |
| quote: |
| More gas station owners allege price fixing Shell, Chevron, Saudi Refining accused of conspiring to boost pump costs updated 4:07 p.m. ET, Wed., Aug. 22, 2007 SAN FRANCISCO - Nearly two dozen gas station owners in California sued Shell Oil Co., Chevron Corp. and Saudi Refining Inc., on Tuesday, claiming the companies conspired to fix prices for 23,000 franchise owners nationwide. The case filed in U.S. District Court in San Francisco seeks class-action status for the plaintiffs. It is similar to another lawsuit filed in 2004 by other California gas station owners that was thrown out by the U.S. Supreme Court last year. The new group of plaintiffs hopes the court will consider a slightly different argument. Like the previous case, the plaintiffs in this case say chairmen of the three oil companies met privately nearly every month starting in March 1996 for the "purpose of forming and organizing a combination." The lawsuit alleges executives destroyed documents from the meetings, and a now-defunct joint venture violated U.S. antitrust laws and caused artificially high wholesale gas prices in nearly every state from 1999 to 2001. ... The lawsuit hinges on a marketing deal that, plaintiffs say, allowed former rivals to collude on prices starting in 1998, when Shell and Texaco Inc. formed Equilon Enterprises LLC to market gasoline in western states. They formed Motiva Enterprises LLC later that year for the eastern half of the country. Houston-based Saudi Refining also joined Motiva. Equilon and Motiva began operating when inflation-adjusted crude oil prices hit their lowest levels since the Great Depression, according to San Francisco-based lawyer Joseph M. Alioto, who represented plaintiffs in both the old and new cases. Yet gas prices soared for franchise owners, forcing them to pass on the cost to consumers or cut profit margins. "These executives get together and say, 'OK, we're going to raise Texaco's price to Shell's price, then we're going to raise both of them 50 to 75 percent, and we're going to do it after we've already had all these cost savings,'" Alioto said. |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.