The Forum > Article Comments > Competing interests - food or fuel? > Comments
Competing interests - food or fuel? : Comments
By Mark Rosegrant, published 3/1/2008Biofuel production and climate change present unprecedented challenges that will shape the world’s food situation.
- Pages:
-
- Page 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
-
- All
Posted by Q&A, Thursday, 3 January 2008 9:53:05 AM
| |
Apart from second generation biofuels there is also electrification of transport (eg battery cars) and eating less meat to make more crop land available. However the main conclusion I would draw is that under current technological know-how the world has more than enough people. If the average citizen of the future should be entitled to drive a car, eat a full, varied diet and travel in planes then population must reduce. I don't think the current 'haves' giving up more and more for the 'have nots' solves the long term problem. When fuel (petro or bio) is $3 per litre it is the rich who will still fly and drive while recent gains by the poor disappear. Unfortunately some decades of turmoil may be ahead before the sustainability view prevails.
Posted by Taswegian, Thursday, 3 January 2008 3:51:43 PM
| |
An interesting article, though a couple of hard realities have been bypassed in the fog of words.
There was a suggestion of a possibility for less-developed regions, such as Sub-Saharan Africa, benefiting from food exports when the price of food products rise. As things currently stand, these regions already have difficulties in producing enough food for home consumption. What opportunities for future exports in the face of already deteriorating water supplies and climates? And if they need to continue supplementing their own products from world markets, what economic prospects do they have for paying for such purchases? The less-developed regions invariably have populations larger than they can cater for. And those numbers continue to expand. The article, by not factoring in such a multiplier of all those other problems it lists, gives little practical advice for avoiding approaching tragedies. Posted by colinsett, Thursday, 3 January 2008 4:20:43 PM
| |
The author makes various references to the African sub Sahara
region. Fact is that this area has one of the fastest population growth rates in the world and what they need is some good old family planning, which millions of women do not have available to them. We have sent boatload after boatload of free food to the region, the result being ever more mouths to feed. So cheap food is clearly not the answer to their problems. Yes, there has been a spike in wheat markets, but if the question is examined further, its clear that alot more could have been grown. Fact is that 12-18 months ago, when decisions to plant were made, prices were so low, that many simply didn't bother planting. Higher prices will encourage production, where as if they don't cover the cost of production, why bother? In the end, energy is energy, if for food or other uses. Its not the role of farmers to subsidise the world's masses. Taxpayers are quite able to do that. What we now have, is a huge spike in food production costs. Oil has skyrocketed, many fertiliser prices have doubled, so have some common herbides such as Roundup, used world wide. So the level of break-even cost has risen. It won't affect first world consumers much, as the actual wheat in a loaf of bread is a mere few cents. Its processing and marketing that are the big cost items, not the ingredients. Posted by Yabby, Thursday, 3 January 2008 7:07:18 PM
| |
I do not think this article appreciates the imminent effects of the fuel from food policies currently being implemented around the world.
The recent US Energy Bill mandated that about 150 million tonnes of corn be converted to ethanol, equating to approx. 12% of the worlds grain production. This will happen sooner that later if oil prices remain at current levels. Adding the EU’s biofuel efforts and that of sundry other countries, it is easy to see the poor, particularly the urban poor, being outbid for their food needs. Those trading grain futures are already taking positions three years out at prices at least double those of two years ago. This is now the only scenario until 2nd generation biofuels become a reality, perhaps in 5-10 years and hopefully producing biofuels cheaper than from grains. Food shortages are the stuff of civil unrest, wars that spill over national boundaries, starvation and misery. Are the rich of the world prepared to knowingly cause the shortages? Just as mice plagues are built on a period of plenty, the urban poor have built their numbers through migration and reproduction on the back of cheap, available food. Are we prepared to emulate the cycle of a mice plague and so demonstrate we are little better than the apes we evolved from? Posted by Goeff, Thursday, 3 January 2008 10:18:17 PM
| |
Last year, wheat, corn and soybean prices rose to record levels and vast tracts of land are being cleared for corn and palm oil plantations to feed the biofuel industry.
Bio-fuels are being touted as the new panacea for global warming. This fuel is being introduced without much thought about the wider implications. The following article from India says it better than I can. http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2008/01/04/stories/2008010450970900.htm Like the author says, “It is the foreign companies that will gain … and make a lot of money at the cost of the country’s food security.” Posted by Q&A, Friday, 4 January 2008 6:05:18 AM
|
Reminds me (I don't know why) of 'Corn for Oil' scandals much similar to our very own wheat for oil, AWB and 'Team-Howard' ignorance?
A bit flippant for starters maybe, but this is a very good article by Mark Rosegrant and deserves serious discussion.
I understand the Bush Administration has paid huge subsidies to South American countries so that they can clear their forests to plant corn - not to feed people, but to supply the 'gas-guzzlers' up north with biofuel.
Whose next?