News: Fuel Prices Effect Starving Populations

[Lazarus]

Originally Posted by Duffman

Fact of the matter is the planet is severely overpopulated and these food problems are only going to get worse.

I've found this stir over ethanol lately to be quite interesting. My personal opinion is that it is being driven by those on the extreme left that hate cars and those on the extreme right that love oil, an interesting combination huh? What has drawn me to this conclusion you might ask?

Why is there no movement against coffee bean farming, tobacco farming or land used to grow spices? None of these crops provide any nutritional value and take up land that could be used to grow grains or vegetables. Or land that is used to graze cattle could be converted to crop land and produce many times the calories per acre.

The world has enjoyed both cheap food and cheap energy for too long, now were going to pay the price of a painful adjustment in both.

Totalitarian Agriculture . Here's an interesting link. More if you need a term paper. But at this stage of the game I think it's more of a political issue. IMO.

[RH77]

Originally Posted by FX2.3

I apologize for my off topic comment. The Mayan calendar has nothing to do with the current topic. I was just venting from a long stressful day.

Actually, no need to apologize regarding CEO compensation. The middle class is getting squeezed into oblivion and the top-end of companies get more despite performance.

Nothing changes. I say (actually to anyone) to vote your mind or contact your Congressional Reps to voice your opinion -- for what its worth.

Power also lies in us, the consumer. We can save fuel, boycott companies, and try to "buy locally".

As for the World, perhaps "Food not Fuel" should be the mantra...read: Ethanol.

My apologies if it's too political for this forum...

RH77

[hvatum]

Originally Posted by Duffman

Fact of the matter is the planet is severely overpopulated and these food problems are only going to get worse.

I've found this stir over ethanol lately to be quite interesting. My personal opinion is that it is being driven by those on the extreme left that hate cars and those on the extreme right that love oil, an interesting combination huh? What has drawn me to this conclusion you might ask?

It's also being driven by people who don't like subsidies.

Originally Posted by Duffman

Why is there no movement against coffee bean farming, tobacco farming or land used to grow spices? None of these crops provide any nutritional value and take up land that could be used to grow grains or vegetables. Or land that is used to graze cattle could be converted to crop land and produce many times the calories per acre.

Because those things are all not novel industries, so tsheir influence on prices is not really even quantifiable. They occupy a minuscule amount of land compared to ethanol production so their influence cannot be very great. Tobacco occupied 673K acres vs 79M for Corn. India is a huge producer of coffee, and uses total 900K acres for it. Spices and the like occupy even less.

The cattle argument has merit, and one reason I limit the amount of meat I eat (still eat lots of fish). Some cattle are raised on land not suitable for farming though. Also cattle, coffee and spices cannot be substituted for by battery powered meat nor can cattle be extracted from ANWR.

Edit: Starvation is not a explicitly a problem of over population any more than a lack of underwear is. We don't lack the ability to produce enough food or underwear for everyone on the world, but lots of people live in large numbers far away from where underwear is cheap and these people don't have money, so they can't get underwear. If we had the political will we could provide these people with underwear, but we don't. Sure, if all the people who were starving or didn't have underwear didn't exist, then we wouldn't have people lacking underwear or starving, but that doesn't mean that over-population is the problem - better said "de-population" (to put it euphemistically) would be a solution.

Current human practices are not sustainable, but the world's population is.

Also the species extinction is not happening in the first world and in developed economies, it's happening usually in less developed places. Most often it's the result of unsustainable agriculture practices that produce paltry amounts of food. If they stopped doing that and we provided them food, by eating less meat and giving them that food, this would decrease, but we're not going to do that because it would cost piles of $$$.

[trebuchet03]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

I think we're better off with ethanol than without

I personally think it's a catch22 - but, I'm slightly with you on that.... But, I also see it as being another transition tech - not a potential solution tech.

Personally, I think the only energy solution is solar... Humans and their stuff aside - the planet needs a LOT of energy... And it gets it from the sun. Sure, it's expensive at the moment and not quite efficient enough just yet - but the human race is pretty good at engineering itself out of predicaments... Thus far, it's been deferring problems til later :/

[Duffman]

Originally Posted by hvatum

It's also being driven by people who don't like subsidies.

Have you looked at the subsidies going to agriculture?

The root of all of this is that Europe and North America had a policy for decades of overproducing grains and this was accomplished through massive subsidies. This excess food was dumped on the world markets below cost of production. This excess of food has allowed areas of the world to grow populations that have outpaced their local ability to supply food to themselves. Now that the 1rst world is faced with a quick rise in energy costs and concerns of GHGs it is no longer in our interests to subsidize cheap food for the rest.

I don’t mind providing aid to poor parts of the world when they are in need. But I am not prepared to reduce my standard of living or my future children’s just so the people of the 3rd world can continue to have 10 children and outpace the capacity of their local environment to sustain themselves as well.

[AndrewJ]

Originally Posted by FX2.3

Unless the world ends 2012..

Been reading much Daniel Pinchbeck lately? I've recently been thinking that I need to re-read 2012...


Anyway, it's not so much of an "ending" as a "rebirth" as I understand it.

More interesting to me is that the worst part of the lead-up to 2012 is supposed to be the "ninth-night" or something (I can't remember, that's why I have to re-read it), it began in January 2008. It continues for a bit over a year.

[hvatum]

Originally Posted by Duffman

Have you looked at the subsidies going to agriculture?

The root of all of this is that Europe and North America had a policy for decades of overproducing grains and this was accomplished through massive subsidies. This excess food was dumped on the world markets below cost of production. This excess of food has allowed areas of the world to grow populations that have outpaced their local ability to supply food to themselves. Now that the 1rst world is faced with a quick rise in energy costs and concerns of GHGs it is no longer in our interests to subsidize cheap food for the rest.

I don’t mind providing aid to poor parts of the world when they are in need. But I am not prepared to reduce my standard of living or my future children’s just so the people of the 3rd world can continue to have 10 children and outpace the capacity of their local environment to sustain themselves as well.

Agreed.

The real solution is the education and development of countries where population is booming so they have a more sustainable birthrate. World population growth is already slowing down though. First world countries are mostly imploding population wise and are slowly working on replacing themselves with Mexican or Arab immigrants.

Past subsidies for agriculture don't make subsidies for ethanol a good idea though. Just having done something before doesn't mean we should do it again, but there might be other compelling reasons. (I'm not saying you were arguing this, just making a point rather).

[Duffman]

I am glad to see that you agree, and I agree with your assessment on education, education is the great equalizer in the world.

I think were we differ is that now that food prices have risen, farmers where I am from now receive prices for their crops that exceed their costs. I see the rising price of food as the route to eliminating subsidies to agriculture. Its unfortunate that it is hurting poor people around the world, but the fact that it is hurting people may indicate that their situation was unsustainable as well. I think its more important to address root causes of problems than just feeding starving mouths.

[Arminius]

Originally Posted by RH77

Actually, no need to apologize regarding CEO compensation. The middle class is getting squeezed into oblivion and the top-end of companies get more despite performance.

With all due respect, it's my opinion that the only entity that can squeeze you is the government. Companies can only pay their CEO's with profits, or pay them at a loss. However, they can't take YOUR money an pay CEO's with it. In fact, you can decide to buy from somoene else if you don't like what a company does with the money THEY earned or borrowed. They're free to do that under the law, just like WE are free to spen OUR money.

[hvatum]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

Hence the lunacy of "relief" organizations that focus soley on shipping food in while ignoring the underlying population/resource imbalances. I call them "enablers". Is it any wonder that some of these organizations have been doing this for 50 years, with nothing to show for it.

Agreed. Micro-credit is a much better investment and actually helps them develop their economy and infrastructure so they can sustain themselves. Also actually developing their economy gives them a sense of involvement and responsibility for the welfare of their country and community, unlike year after year food aid which sends them the signal that "life here sucks, but where we come from things are great." Encouraging the smart hard working people to leave is exactly the opposite of what we want - but giving them a stake in the economy encourages them to stay (for this reason I'm also somewhat against immigration, since it tends to retard the development of the country of emigration).

I am in favor of food aid during extraordinary situations though, like in Ireland during the Potato famine - that's a temporary situation which can be solved. But just giving people food year after year... we agree on that.

Duffman:
I think were we differ is that now that food prices have risen, farmers where I am from now receive prices for their crops that exceed their costs. I see the rising price of food as the route to eliminating subsidies to agriculture. Its unfortunate that it is hurting poor people around the world, but the fact that it is hurting people may indicate that their situation was unsustainable as well. I think its more important to address root causes of problems than just feeding starving mouths.

That would be nice if we could lessen subsidies. Also the rising food prices will hopefully encourage people in other countries to invest in modern farming methods since they'll have more of a profit to show for it. So this could be a blessing in disguise.