The food crisis: how to solve this equation?

Question

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,547198,00.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/10/opinion/10thu1.html

If we continue to emit large amounts of CO2, food prices will continue to rise due to global warming. So we need to take actions to lower our emissions right away. But if we use bio-fuel produced from food crops, our emissions would be lower, yet the food prices would continue to rise.

None of this is fair to the poor. So do you think people in the rich world care and do you have any suggestions on how to handle this problem?

(If you don't accept global warming to be a problem then don't answer if you don't have anything else to say than that we should continue to use gasoline.)

Answer 1

Given enough time, this problem solves itself.

The problem isn't the rich...it's the poor.  They live in an area incapable of sustaining them with their current level of technology.  There are four options man can take to solve this problem:

1)  You can relocate the starving.  This option is unfeasible because no one wants to take in refugees, and the people themselves do not wish to leave their homeland.

2)  You can find renewable food sources/farming techniques capable of thriving in the area.  After decades of research, I'm sure this would've been implemented by now if it were possible.

3)  You can open factories in the area, employing the locals so they may generate income to pay for imported food.

4)  You can do nothing and let the problem solve itself.

"Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day.  Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime."

Answer 2

Wow, liberal alert.

Answer 3

Everyone dances around these questions (about energy, food, global warming, pollution, inequity) which are all similar because they have a root cause.

I’m afraid that all these problems really are intractable and have no solution as long as the population problem is not addressed.

We will hear from the cornucopian economists about how mankind has solved these problems in the past and will solve them again.  Nothing was ever solved with pessimism.

I agree to a point, but the situation is fundamentally different this time.

There is a limit to available resources.  This is just common sense.

There is a limit to the biospheres ability to absorb our waste.  This is less obvious but no less true.

The root cause is population.  It doesn’t matter if population stabilizes at nine billion.  The earth can’t handle the six we have now.

Due to the increasing scarcity of resources, which follows logically if we have an increasing population, the first thing that will happen is that everything, and I mean absolutely everything needed just to live your life, is going to become fantastically expensive; and then unobtainable entirely.  

One of the resources which we take for granted is an unpolluted environment, this being necessary for producing the things we need like uncontaminated food and potable water.  Or, possibly, in the case of carbon pollution, the ability to grow food or get water at all.

Plan accordingly.

I’m sorry I don’t have an answer to your question.  I post here to try to raise this issue and provide a counterpoint to the denial.  And I don’t mean AGW denial, I mean the general denial about man’s effect on the environment.

Answer 4

Shut down fossil fueled power plants in favor of nuclear plants, and with additional installed generating capacity, break water down into oxygen and hydrogen gases, the latter of which will power hydrogen powered electric cars with fuel cells in place of regular engines.  Everyone gets to keep driving, eating and there are no CO2 emissions with this scheme.

Answer 5

I think that feeding us all, is going to be a problem in the future. No, the rich do not care. Otherwise 33% of the world would not be hungry. On the other hand, it is not thier responsiblity to oversee the poor. That is a Kingdom, not a lot of choices for anyone in the Kingdom but the one running the Kingdom. We need to visualize as a people what we want, as a people. Have you sent a package of food, dry goods, over to the poor lately. It is an interesting thing to do. Get a name and send a package, or two names. It does work if want it to.

Answer 6

First: Short term help (not a solution): Those that are benefitting the most from the current high prices (big oil, including privately held Middle Eastern - Saudi - oil companies) need to finance emergency food relief.  The World Food Program of the UN is asking for $500M.  How much profit is coming into oil-rich nations every day, where the cost to pump a barrel of oil is less than $10, and is sold for over $100?  Answer - billions of dollars per day.  UN needs 1/2 of one of those billion.

Add to that if each of us who actually cares, would contribute $1 per week or $50 per year to similar programs, there would be relief for those in the deepest need.  But profit-making enterprises, who are part of the energy-related causes to the food crisis, MUST take the lead, MUST show responsibility.  I suspect that they will not, and prove once again that greed is stronger than compassion for those who get rich on the backs of the rest of the population...

Educated Opinion:  Food-crop-based bio fuels are foolish wastes of food, energy, and farmland.  They are another bad dream from the Bush "Wreckanomics" agenda, poorly thought out, and just a method for providing government subsidy money to industries which should be self-financing.

Longer term solutions:   For biofuels, cellulosic ethanol and oils are part of a renewable mix.  Saw grass ethanol multiplies input energy by a factor of 5 (500%), while corn-based ethanol multiplies input energy by only 25% at best.  Eventually, we need to wean ourselves from using COMBUSTION as a common form of energy.  Most of our needs for energy can skip this completely, relying on nuclear, solar, and wind to produce high quality electricity (50/60Hz), as well as conversion of water into transportable H2+O2 for fuel cells.  

There are too many people on this planet, for there to be some future where each accounts for one or more tons of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere.  Right now, this number stands at over 4 tonnes for every person on the planet.  This must be reduced to less than 0.5 tonnes per person, with our population peaking at no more than 8 billions.  The only way to get there is to literally force industry and consumers off of the "carbon standard", over the course of the next 40 years...  That is long enough to be a gradual process, and can be relatively painless both physically and economically.  

PS - Nuclear "true costs" are still very much lower than coal-fired generation's "true costs".   A single 500MW power plant will burn one million tons of coal in a year, and emit tons of radioactive gases and solids directly into the atmosphere - radon, uranium (including U235), thorium, etc.  Nuclear power plants contain all of their radioactive emissions, which can be reprocessed for further use, and the remaining waste SAFELY contained in stable and insoluble glasses for the required thousands of years.

There are plenty of solutions - but we have grown fat and complacent with irresponsible usage of cheap energy.   It is time to leave behind 19th century energy technologies, and fully embrace 21st century energy production and usage.  This will solve a multitude of our existing problems.

Be sure, that as with any new technology, it will have its own set of problems, but that set will pale in comparison to what we face if we continue to bury our heads in the sand about this absolutely critical issue.

Answer 7

I don't see a problem in those stories, I see a problem being solved.  Humans are the cause of the environmental problems we now face.  If you eliminate the cause, the problem goes away.

So what do you want to do?  Help a few people and harm the environment, or help the environment and harm a few people?  I don't see how it's possible to do both with current or near future technology.

I'm reminded of this relevant quote:

"What to do when a ship carrying a hundred passengers has suddenly capsized, and only one lifeboat for ten people has been got on water? When the lifeboat is full, those who hate life would try to pull more people on it and drown them all. Those who love and respect life, will take the ship's axe and cut the too many hands clinging to the sides of the boat."

Answer 8

The love of money is the root cause, until we solve that the poor will exist and there will never be enough resources.  Its not about science its about humanity and the heart.

Answer 9

Global warming is a major problem. But not the reason for the high price of food! The price of oil is the reason for food prices rising.

Producing crops uses oil, fertilizers, fuel, etc. Just shipping food cost so much now!  Global warming is an issue that will kill the world, but the cost of energy will do it in before we reach that point.

Answer 10

Which question do you want people to answer?  I mean you asked what three?

1.None of this is fair to the poor. So do you think people in the rich world care

Well, the tax payers in the US, give over Half of all monies given to buy food for starving nations, you can look this up on NPR, if you doubt it,  so 1 nation out of 192 feeds half the starving people, are we rich?   well look at the mid east, Saudi Arabia, and the rest how many do they feed?  Not even themselves.

2. Food prices will continue to rise due to global warming.

Has absolutely nothing to do with it.  that is an out right miss leading statement.  Please do some research on that matter.

3.if you don't have anything else to say than that we should continue to use gasoline.)

Do you have an alternative to run the 150,000,000 cars in the us today?

or how about the million of trucks, trains and ships, that move everything in this country?

Do you expect the average person to go in debt 60,000 for a new hybrid to save money on gas?   or do you expect everything to just come to a stand still?

Answer 11

There is no food crisis

The world produces more than enough food

It is what happens to it that causes the crisis.

More than Half is diverted for the production of Ethanol.

http://upsidedownworld.org/main/content/...

And this is the main reason for social unrest and the rising food prices,This is only the beginning

http://us.oneworld.net/article/view/1599...

This is a political issue and the reasons are profits.

so the profits will win the day.

Not the poor Poor.

Famines are allowed to happen ,as part of a depopulation strategy.

my answer the 13th one down check the links

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...

The problems originate from the control so there is no solution

the production  of ethanol produces more carbon emissions than all of the motor cars and industry in the world

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...

And still it continues and grows.

Global solutions are NOT the agenda Global control IS

we should be looking at Starwars modes of transport

and kill the internal combustion engine ,but those who lead us also own this industry (both the petrol and the cars)and as yet there is plenty of money to made with it

Answer 12

The solution is thus only use waste and high efficiency crops in areas no likely to support food crops such as jatropha and switchgrass. Corn is highly inefficient and a scam as it is the highest unsubsidized crop in America. Bio-fuel made from corn is only to make the big agribusiness already richer than they are at tax payers expense. On top of this is artificially rises the price of food causing malnutrition, riots, and starvation.

Secondly as many people as possible should be eating vegan. Besides the health and ethical benefits it is the most environmental action any one person could take. Here are nine good reasons we should take such actions for environmental reasons.

1. Methane from excrement (Over 20X's more powerful than CO2) "A single dairy cow produces approximately 120 pounds of wet manure per day. Estimates equate the waste produced per day by one dairy cow to that of 20-40 humans per day".

2. Shipping (Our average food is shipped over 1600 miles and its pretty hard to crow a cow in your back yard, albeit a privileged few might have a farm big enough to support some cows).

3. Refrigeration: Unlike most vegetarian options meat needs to be refrigerated to prevent spoiling expending yet more energy.

4. Expends 18% of all green house gases (more than transportation

5. Massive Dead Zones: created from waste runoffs

6. Deforestation: 70% of all previously deforested Amazon is now pasture for animal husbandry and a large portion of the rest is crops grown to feed these animals.

7. Sheer Number of Animals killed for human consumption = 48 billion (2001 stats). There are vastly more animals raised and killed for human consumption than there are people on this earth. Each one of them is taking out 02 an putting back CO2

8. Vastly inefficient: Takes 16 pounds of grain just to get one pound of beef. If even a significant portion of people ate vegan we could feed the whole entire world without major problems. Also a good portion of the land being used to feed animals could be converted back into forests and more effective CO2 filters.

9. Water Usage: "Besides grains, animals need water to survive and grow until they are slaughtered. One pound of beef requires an input of approximately 2500 gallons of water, whereas a pound of soy requires 250 gallons of water and a pound of wheat only 25 gallons. Meat production is inefficient as it requires the consumption of an extensive amount of resources over many months and years before becoming a usable food product. With the water used to produce a single hamburger, you could take a luxurious shower every day for two and a half weeks."

And not only this being vegan is cheaper than any other dietary style. When I go out to eat such options are always the cheapest. Meats and dairy is almost always more expensive than the equivalent vegan options.

Not to mention one will be saving on medical health cost because is done properly it truly is the healthiest dietary lifestyle one can have.

The other solutions entail clean alternative energies such as wind, solar, wave, geothermal, hydroelectric, and some bio-fuel, etc. By reducing GH gases there will be less drought in some places and floods in others, not to mention tornadoes, hurricanes, tsunamis, blithe, and other infestations, etc. This will allow stable conditions for crop growing and will help to keep the price of food down.

Answer 13

I don't think "caring" can be quantified based on economic class.  Even if it could, I don't know how to go about doing that.

It's a multifactorial problem, and one likely to get worse before it gets better.  By some estimates the world population outgrew the food supply in the late 1970's.  That's certainly a factor.  Carl Erlich had predicted that would happen back in the 1950's, although it happened earlier than he predicted.  

The major grain exporting countries with the exception of the USA experienced severe droughts the past few years.  Most of the grain normally given or sold to the areas of starvation comes from the surpluses in the grain exporting countries, and there haven't been many surpluses.  Both agricultural and hydrological experts attribute the droughts to global warming.  Major bodies of water that have been the main water supply for thousands of years are drying up rapidly, all over the world.  In the US, Lake Meade and Lake Powell are expected to be gone in a few years.  That will affect our whole Southwest.  There will be a second round to this, as the glaciers that feed the rivers of the world are melting rapidly.  The glaciers in the Himalayas for example, supply water to China and much of Asia.  These probably won't last more than a decade or two more.  That's when the real food shortages will begin.

Politics, especially trade and tariff policies are a major factor.  This includes both past and current practices.  It also includes economic spectulation on gain futures in the worlds financial markets (and the associated price manipulation).  A recent UN report on food cites both, as does the Australian National Farmers Federation, and recent Op/Ed pieces in the British press.

The UN  Special Rapporteur for the Right to Food  has said

"The EU finances the exports of European agricultural surpluses to Africa ... where they are offered at one half or one third of their (production) price," the UN official charged.

"That completely ruins African agriculture," he added.

"In addition, international market speculation on food commodities must cease,"

Madeleine Bunting writes in the Guardian

"The plight of the hungry in Africa has a history that goes back well before biofuels or China's taste for meat had begun to make their presence felt...This African failure is compared with the green revolution of Asia and has been attributed to too little rain, too sparse a population and too few roads and railways. These have all played their role, as has conflict. But they cannot be used to conceal what is arguably the biggest cause of Africa's failure to feed its peoples: monumental economic incompetence, and self-interest on the part of western donors and advisers...The underinvestment and neglect of African farming go back to colonial times, but became increasingly apparent as the western development agenda gathered force...The Washington consensus ruled that, freed from state intervention, the market would stimulate African agriculture...The effect was catastrophic. Without improved seeds and availability of credit for fertiliser, productivity limped along. At every turn, farmers were knocked back...Often when they got to market, they found it flooded with imports dumped by the west...Donors were hostile to investment in agriculture: between 1990-02 and 2000-02 aid was rising but the amount going into developing agriculture dropped by 43%. It currently amounts to only 4% of all development assistance to the continent. "

The Asia Times opines that the US is the chief culprit

"  The global food crisis is a monetary phenomenon, an unintended consequence of America's attempt to inflate its way out of a market failure. There are long-term reasons for food prices to rise, but the unprecedented spike in grain prices during the past year stems from the weakness of the American dollar. Washington's economic misery now threatens to become a geopolitical catastrophe. "

The Communists blame biofuels, as does the UN to a lesser degree.  There is no doubt that many of the biofuel programs are ill advised, and there is no doubt that they probably play a contributing role to hunger, in that land devoted to biofuels could in theory be used to grow food.  However the reality is that the subsidy is being given to farmers who grow biofuels, not to those who grow food.  In my opinion this makes the culprit the policies of the 29 developed countries, and not biofuels themselves.  In those countries, farmers do recieve subsidies for both food and fuel where subsidies are given.

From the Workers World

" Rice, a staple for nearly half the world’s peoples, costs twice what it did at the start of the year. Corn and wheat costs are sky-high...In countries across the globe where imperialism has caused enormous income inequality, the majority spend most of their income on food. Nigerians, for example, spend 73 percent of their earnings on food; Indonesians spend half...Modern food production relies on petroleum. It is used for fertilizers, farm equipment and transportation...War is also a factor impacting on food prices. Militaries use a lot of oil, whose price has climbed to $100 a barrel since the Iraq and Afghanistan wars began...Farmers who grew rice and other food staples are switching to more profitable cash crops...Global warming and climate change, as a result of imperialist plunder of the earth’s resources, have caused damage to food cultivation...Biofuel cultivation is big business. Highly industrialized countries are demanding ethanol. The European Union is exempting biofuel from some gas taxes...Agribusiness giants Archer Daniels Midland and Cargill control most of the U.S. ethanol production and are its biggest profiteers. The U.S. government gives them billions of dollars in agricultural subsidies, tax credits and much more...Right now, nearly one billion people are hungry worldwide. Every day 24,000 children die from hunger and malnutrition...The United Nations says it would cost $195 billion annually to end world hunger and related diseases. This is less than what the U.S. spends each year on the Iraq war. "

While I agree with much of what the Communists say, it's probably worthwhile to remind ourselves that last year these same folks were blaming the droughts themselves on biofuels.  The Farmers (both American and Australian) did an excellent job of responding to that dubious claim, and they are doing an excellent job of responding to the very similar "food versus fuel" claims.

From American Farm Futures

"The Texas A&M study dispels the food versus fuel debate," says National Corn Growers Association President Ron Litterer. "This study shows there are many forces creating increases in food costs and ethanol is not a major factor. Clearly, corn is meeting the demands for biofuels."

The report also found that relaxing the Renewable Fuels Standard that calls for the use of 36 billion gallons of renewable fuels by 2022 would not lower corn prices. The ethanol infrastructure is in place and the industry has grown in excess of the RFS, so relaxing it would not lower corn prices.

According to the study, the price of oil that has gone to $100 per barrel is the main factor impacting the agricultural industry and the economy as a whole

From the Australian National Farmers Federation

"contributing factors to rising food prices are the high price of oil (which increases costs of food production and distribution), population growth in Asia and drought in wheat-producing countries including Australia and Kazakhstan

National Farmers Federation chief executive Ben Fargher said that despite the impact of the drought over the past five years, Australia was well positioned to respond to the world food crisis. "If countries overseas are looking for food security, one of the best things they could do is reduce barriers to the export of our produce to them," he said.

He said Australia also needed to have the world's best research and development policies to get more crop per drop, and improved rail and road infrastructure to ensure produce can reach overseas markets as efficiently as possible.

He said Australia could also help developing nations affected by food shortages with technological solutions — such as the greater productivity of hybrid grains — and it could lead the way in the creation of strategic stockpiles of food.

Alan Dupont, director of the Centre for International Security Studies at the University of Sydney, said a key role for Australia could be to raise global awareness about the links between climate change and the food crisis.

So to distill this into a set of actions

1) Fairly divide food aid to the countries with starving people between food and agricultural development.

2) End practices like purchasing grain on the world market and selling it below market in countries struggling to develop their agriculture.  50% of the grain provided by the US every year is in this category.

4) End by Trade Agreement all other forms of financial speculation on food in the world markets.

5) Make improved methods such as hybrid seeds available to the agricultural programs in these countries, in lieu of increased food aid.

6) Eliminate all tariffs and trade barriers on food including meat, except those intended to block the spread of disease.

7) Establish "Sunset" targets to end tax exemption for grain grown for biofuels but not provided to grain grown for food.

8)  End military wars of aggression for control of the world's remaining petroleum.  Task the UN Security Council to come up with a report with recommendations for more rational system of allocation of the remaining resources, with incentives to participate.

Answer 14

Food prices are a result of idiotic government subsidies of ethanol production and a plummeting dollar. Translation- another government created crisis.

Answer 15

I've been a vegetarian for over 25 years, and in the last 10 have been acutely aware that one day meat will become a luxury item because of the resources required to bring it to the table.  This will happen gradually, but will be driven by economics and the marketplace.  It is a long term solution, one that will evolve in response to health concerns and the desire to keep up with demand.

I was researching an aspect of global climate recently, and came across the concept of floating greenhouses.  Our food future looks like it's going to have a lot of changes in store for future generations.  But unfortunately, I don't see any immediate relief in sight.

Answer 16

Actually studies have shown that most biofuels create higher emissions than fossil fuels because they require land use change.

The solution is to switch to electric cars, renewable energy, become more energy efficient, and travel less in general.