The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Sustainable food production is possible, but not with 'business as usual' > Comments

Sustainable food production is possible, but not with 'business as usual' : Comments

By Shenggen Fan and Klaus Töpfer, published 21/11/2011

Water is the biggest constraint on agricultural production, but generally countries only look domestic and industrial use.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
How about you examine the conflict between energy and food production in the use of water? Pie graphs representing agriculture v energy production never take into account the fractured and destroyed aquifers (as done in mining and the CSG industry) - instead only the water that mining is licensed for. Where does the excessive use of water and aquifer destruction that is part of the CSG industry fit into these comments. Water scarcity drives agriculture with industry looking at creative ways - at the farmers expense - to produce food with less water. Try suggesting that to the miners and the CSG extractors.
Posted by nocsg, Monday, 21 November 2011 8:44:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Probably the worst article OLO have published.

I thought I was reading another of those things from a couple of second year students, so simplistic was its subject matter & treatment.

If we are going to have a problem with food shortages, it will be because we have people, who can write such pointless twaddle, in positions of influence.
Posted by Hasbeen, Monday, 21 November 2011 8:58:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Simplistic drivel.
Posted by DavidL, Monday, 21 November 2011 9:40:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My reading of IFPRI is that it is endorsing business as usual ...

http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/11/20/feeding-billions-p1/

and the irony of Oxfam advertising goats for Africa on the same page is deep. If you really want to screw Africa, then increase the number of goats ... she already has 300 million chewing their way through soil protective crop residues and other potential ground cover.
Posted by Geoff Russell, Monday, 21 November 2011 10:22:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Policy issues which ought to be considered are outlined but the article itself does not appear to take account of several matters related to growing demand for food and inability to produce it due to climate change.

Global population growth is expected to grow from the present 7 billion to over 9 billion by 2040, possibly reaching 10 billion by mid century, representing an increase of 28-40% in demand for food. Over this same period it should be expected that mean global temperature will rise to +2C and by 2100 by +4C above those of 1750. These temperature increases will further accelerate loss of mountain glaciers meaning that water from this source will be greatly reduced.

This reduction is already evident in N.W. India where, despite the fact that aquifers are being over-pumped, an approved government policy, grain and other agricultural yields are in decline and no longer support the population. Similarly, aquifers of the Central Valley of California are being depleted as agricultural production competes with burgeoning urban populations for water supplies made scarce by loss of glaciers on the Sierra Nevada.

It should be expected that as global temperature increases, so will evaporation of land based water. While this will inevitably result in higher rainfall, it is unlikely to fall where it is most needed, nor in appropriate amounts. The result is more likely to be increased aridity, drought, heat and fire or damaging flooding rain in agricultural areas and decrease in the area of productive arable land. This is evidenced by an increase in the number and severity of climate events.

It is not clear that policy proposals in this article have been formulated on the basis of these considerations or that they are appropriate to addressing the increasingly negative challenges facing those producing and demanding food.
Posted by Agnostic of Mittagong, Monday, 21 November 2011 1:11:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Come on Agnostic, the recently leaked/released IPCC report says that they do not expect any "obvious" warming for the next 2 or 3 decades. Natural forces are going to disguise any warming they now tell us. Hell, we've been telling them that for years, but like you, they wouldn't listen.

Even worse, sea level is now dropping, we're not all going to drown. It's bloody hard to get a good scare scenario going these days isn't it?

No heating in the last 12 years & now none for 3 decades, how is it going to be up 2 degrees by 2040, less than 3 decades away? Dropped you right in it haven't they?

Shockingly, even such pro a global warming organization as the BBC reported this lot, so the leak must have come from the top.

I'm afraid you'll have to come up with some other disaster syndrome. Global warming is all over for quite a while.

Perhaps a new ice age could be conjured up to help out.
Posted by Hasbeen, Monday, 21 November 2011 3:56:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
nocsg, you have this hate for .CSG.

Where is you evidence that CSG destroys aquifers?

Also, this industry does not use much water, apart from dust suppression and compaction.

What they actually do is desalinate the water, then release it through natural channels.

Best you get your facts from experts, rather than from those on the news trying to distort the truth.

CSG means jobs, jobs and more jobs, and they are a highly monitored industry.
Posted by rehctub, Monday, 21 November 2011 8:27:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hasbeen relies on very obvious and long discredited lies which misrepresent scientific findings and distort empirical fact. Why? Clearly an effort to mislead. For example, Hasbeen tells us that:

sea level is now dropping,
[There has been] No heating in the last 12 years & now none for 3 decades,
how is it going to be up 2 degrees by 2040, less than 3 decades away?

Sea level is continuing to rise at a rate of 3.2mm/year according to satellite and instrument measurements. It does not rise continuously or at the same rate every year so it is easy to cherry-pick data and point to short periods when sea level did not rise. But measuring sea level rise over a 30 year period shows clearly that it is rising and has been doing so for over a century. See graph here.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Sea-level-rise-the-broader-picture.html

No heating in the last 12 years? That is over the period 1999 – 2011? Indeed there has been. What Hasbeen meant to claim was … No heating over last 13 years – that is over the period 1998 – 2011 but Hasbeen can not even cherry-pick the period properly. It is important to include 1998, the hottest year in the 20th century, though not the hottest on record. Doing so tries to distort the truth of the matter which is that mean global temperature has been rising and doing so at an accelerating rate over the last 50 years. Consider the scientific facts here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.ht
Posted by Agnostic of Mittagong, Tuesday, 22 November 2011 11:18:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hasbeen assures us that over the last 30 years, that is since 1980, there has been no global warming, but the fact is that during this period, global temperatures have not only risen but done so at an accelerating rate as shown by the graph here: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/bams-state-of-the-climate/2009-time-series/land This plots temperature increases compiled by 4 different reputable agencies.

Mean global temperature has already risen at about 0.034C/annum and unless it slows down, it will have risen by 2C above pre-industrial temperature by 2040. There is no indication that temperature rise is flowing or falling. Indeed the rate of temperature rise since 1980 should be ringing alarm bells – and it is for everyone who is concerned for our future and informed.

It is all very well to assert that sea level rise and global warming have stopped it is wrong to expect anyone to take such claims seriously when (a) they are contradicted by empirical measurements and (b) no supporting evidence is provided.
Posted by Agnostic of Mittagong, Tuesday, 22 November 2011 11:22:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Agony I told you that the leaked IPCC report predicts no warming for 30 years, not none for the last 30. Do try to read through the red mist that descends when you see facts.
Posted by Hasbeen, Tuesday, 22 November 2011 11:34:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No rehctub I don't hate CSG. But prove to me that it can be done with out impacting upon the aquifers in the driest continent on earth. My evidence comes from the National Water Commission, various Environmental Impact Statements from Queensland and written by the industry itself, contless other places. I am not an extremist but this industry has been developing without any independent scientific analysis. And it is not regulated - does not even have its own act! One look at a gas field in Queensland or America shows quite clearly that agriculture and CSG cannot and never will be able to co-exist with agriculture. And there is nothing in NSW legislation to protect the farmers. So while this industry is under so much suspicion - leave the gas in the ground.
Posted by nocsg, Tuesday, 22 November 2011 1:48:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Further more there is plenty of evidence that it damages and destroys aquifers - Ross Dunn of APPEA even admitted to it. As for water, it extracts huge amounts of artesian water which results in a drawdown on potable aquifers. It also requires large amounts of potable water for drilling as well as fraccing. Sadly I think that your information is coming from the gas companies. It is a highly water intensive industry. Water once extracted from the coal seam aquifer has to be treated extensively - it contains large amounts of sodium bicarbonate and heavy metals. And still no solution for the disposal of the leftover salty residue which is considerable. Millions of tons of salt to be disposed of. Read up on the latest Senate Inquiry.
Posted by nocsg, Tuesday, 22 November 2011 1:53:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hasbeen - you have to be joking!

Are you seriously claiming that you reject peer reviewed science and empirical facts on the basis of a supposed leaked document which you fail to produce and authenticate? Personally I prefer science to the fictions you espouse.
Posted by Agnostic of Mittagong, Wednesday, 23 November 2011 7:16:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Actually, I think the article is good. It is something that does need discussion and by the way, the word is "when", Hasbeen, not "if". I agree also with Nocsg, Mining has a lot to answer for, where water use is concerned and fracking has to stop. A possible suggestion, for which I am sure I will be attacked in this thread, is the use of multi-use crops, such as hemp. Fibre harvested for building, plastics and paper, with seeds harvested for fuel and food simultaneously. Hemp also uses far less water and has little or no need for fertilisers or chemical sprays. Research should be done to source other such plants, if we are to find solutions to the problems noted in this article.
Posted by David Leigh, Friday, 2 December 2011 11:23:47 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy