6 May 08    Food Emergency, NYT, editorial
30 Apr 08    Wheat, Corn and Ethanol Fight for Acres, WP, Bruce Babcock, life discussion
27 Apr 08    The Global Grain Trade: The Haves and Have-nots, WP
27 Apr 08    Reasons for Rising Food Prices, WP, comments
27 Apr 08    The New Economics of Hunger, WP, Anthony Faiola, comments
27 Apr 08    Towards a more enlightened, ecologically sound & cooperative food policy, ICESC, Anton Keller, comment
27 Apr 08    A Full Plate Today, Uncertainty Tomorrow, WP,  Faith D'Aluisio and Peter Menzel
27 Apr 08    Food, the new gold, WP, video
26 Apr 08    Movable Feast Carries a Pollution Price Tag, NYT, Elisabeth Rosenthal
20 Apr 08    A Worsening Food Crisis, WP, editorial

THE WORLD'S most dangerous conflicts stem from religion and ideology -- tragic proof that man does not live by bread alone. But when bread is hard to get, that, too, causes unrest. And lately, it has been very expensive indeed: The World Bank estimates that global food prices have risen 83 percent in the last three years. Hence, food riots in Haiti, Egypt and Ethiopia and the use of troops in Pakistan and Thailand to protect crops and storage centers. Many countries are banning or limiting food exports. World Bank President Robert B. Zoellick says that 33 countries are at risk of food-related upheaval. Famine may revisit North Korea, parts of Africa or, disastrously for U.S. foreign policy, Afghanistan.

To many, the villain is biofuels. U.S. and European ethanol programs, intended as an antidote to climate change and an alternative to OPEC oil, stand accused of snatching food from the world's hungry. According to India's finance minister, ethanol is "a crime against humanity." And it is part of the problem. The more corn becomes ethanol, the less will be available as food for people and livestock. In the U.S. farm belt, heavy ethanol subsidies, such as a tax break of 51 cents a gallon, encourage the shift. These subsidies were already questionable, in economic terms, before the commodity crunch. That they might contribute to hardship for the world's poor is another argument for reducing them.

But ethanol's impact should not be overstated. The International Food Policy Research Institute, which is critical of ethanol, pins about 25 to 33 percent of the recent price rise on biofuels; the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization guesses about 10 to 15 percent. Most of the crisis is rooted in three other factors: drought in grain-exporting Australia; the surging price of crude oil, which raises food prices through the costs of shipping and petrochemical fertilizer; and booming demand for food in China, India and other newly prosperous areas of the developing world. These areas consume not only more staples such as rice and wheat but also more meat from animals fed on grain. This trend is here to stay -- and, unlike Australian drought or oil inflation, no one should want it to go away. Lifting hundreds of millions of Asians out of poverty is a historic achievement.

To cope with the current situation, the United States must contribute its share to help the U.N. World Food Program fill a $500 million gap in its budget. Congress should change U.S. law to let U.S. aid buy food in developing countries themselves, which could boost local producers. Looking further ahead, the U.S. and multilateral institutions must also support greater investment in farming in the developing world, including funding for research into improved crop yields, which has been in steady decline over the last 25 years.

Today's crisis could be tomorrow's opportunity. If the era of cheap food is over, higher prices might stimulate local agricultural production in Africa and other places that now depend on imports. This will be likelier if the United States and Europe finally dismantle the wasteful crop subsidies and trade barriers that fatten their farmers' bank accounts -- but distort international markets at the expense of the poor.

Cod caught off Norway is shipped to China to be turned into filets, then shipped back to Norway for sale. Argentine lemons fill supermarket shelves on the Citrus Coast of Spain, as local lemons rot on the ground. Half of Europe’s peas are grown and packaged in Kenya.

In the United States, FreshDirect proclaims kiwi season has expanded to “All year!” now that Italy has become the world’s leading supplier of New Zealand’s national fruit, taking over in the Southern Hemisphere’s winter.

Food has moved around the world since Europeans brought tea from China, but never at the speed or in the amounts it has over the last few years. Consumers in not only the richest nations but, increasingly, the developing world expect food whenever they crave it, with no concession to season or geography.

Increasingly efficient global transport networks make it practical to bring food before it spoils from distant places where labor costs are lower. And the penetration of mega-markets in nations from China to Mexico with supply and distribution chains that gird the globe — like Wal-Mart, Carrefour and Tesco — has accelerated the trend.

But the movable feast comes at a cost: pollution — especially carbon dioxide, the main global warming gas — from transporting the food.

Under longstanding trade agreements, fuel for international freight carried by sea and air is not taxed. Now, many economists, environmental advocates and politicians say it is time to make shippers and shoppers pay for the pollution, through taxes or other measures.

“We’re shifting goods around the world in a way that looks really bizarre,” said Paul Watkiss, an Oxford University economist who wrote a recent European Union report on food imports.

He noted that Britain, for example, imports — and exports — 15,000 tons of waffles a year, and similarly exchanges 20 tons of bottled water with Australia. More important, Mr. Watkiss said, “we are not paying the environmental cost of all that travel.”

Europe is poised to change that. This year the European Commission in Brussels announced that all freight-carrying flights into and out of the European Union would be included in the trading bloc’s emissions-trading program by 2012, meaning permits will have to be purchased for the pollution they generate.

The commission is negotiating with the global shipping organization, the International Maritime Organization, over various alternatives to reduce greenhouse gases. If there is no solution by year’s end, sea freight will also be included in Europe’s emissions-trading program, said Barbara Helferrich, a spokeswoman for the European Commission’s Environment Directorate. “We’re really ready to have everyone reduce — or pay in some way,” she said.

The European Union, the world’s leading food importer, has increased imports 20 percent in the last five years. The value of fresh fruit and vegetables imported by the United States, in second place, nearly doubled from 2000 to 2006.

Under a little-known international treaty called the Convention on International Civil Aviation, signed in Chicago in 1944 to help the fledgling airline industry, fuel for international travel and transport of goods, including food, is exempt from taxes, unlike trucks, cars and buses. There is also no tax on fuel used by ocean freighters.

Proponents say ending these breaks could help ensure that producers and consumers pay the environmental cost of increasingly well-traveled food.

The food and transport industries say the issue is more complicated. The debate has put some companies on the defensive, including Tesco, Britain’s largest supermarket chain, known as a vocal promoter of green initiatives.

Some of those companies say that they are working to limit greenhouse gases produced by their businesses but that the question is how to do it. They oppose regulation and new taxes and, partly in an effort to head them off, are advocating consumer education instead.

Tesco, for instance, is introducing a labeling system that will let consumers assess a product’s carbon footprint.

Some foods that travel long distances may actually have an environmental advantage over local products, like flowers grown in the tropics instead of in energy-hungry European greenhouses.

“This may be as radical for environmental consuming as putting a calorie count on the side of packages to help people who want to lose weight,” a spokesman for Tesco, Trevor Datson, said.

Better transportation networks have sharply reduced the time required to ship food abroad. For instance, improved roads in Africa have helped cut the time it takes for goods to go from farms on that continent to stores in Europe to 4 days, compared with 10 days not too many years ago.

And with far cheaper labor costs in African nations, Morocco and Egypt have displaced Spain in just a few seasons as important suppliers of tomatoes and salad greens to central Europe.

“If there’s an opportunity for cheaper production in terms of logistics or supply it will be taken,” said Ed Moorehouse, a consultant to the food industry in London, adding that some of these shifts also create valuable jobs in the developing world.

The economics are compelling. For example, Norwegian cod costs a manufacturer $1.36 a pound to process in Europe, but only 23 cents a pound in Asia.

The ability to transport food cheaply has given rise to new and booming businesses.

“In the past few years there have been new plantations all over the center of Italy,” said Antonio Baglioni, export manager of Apofruit, one of Italy’s largest kiwi exporters.

Kiwis from Sanifrutta, another Italian exporter, travel by sea in refrigerated containers: 18 days to the United States, 28 to South Africa and more than a month to reach New Zealand.

Some studies have calculated that as little as 3 percent of emissions from the food sector are caused by transportation. But Mr. Watkiss, the Oxford economist, said the percentage was growing rapidly. Moreover, imported foods generate more emissions than generally acknowledged because they require layers of packaging and, in the case of perishable food, refrigeration.

Britain, with its short growing season and powerful supermarket chains, imports 95 percent of its fruit and more than half of its vegetables. Food accounts for 25 percent of truck shipments in Britain, according to the British environmental agency, DEFRA.

Mr. Datson of Tesco acknowledged that there were environmental consequences to the increased distances food travels, but he said his company was merely responding to consumer appetites. “The offer and range has been growing because our customers want things like snap peas year round,” Mr. Datson said. “We don’t see our job as consumer choice editing.”

Global supermarket chains like Tesco and Carrefour, spreading throughout Eastern Europe and Asia, cater to a market for convenience foods, like washed lettuce and cut vegetables. They also help expand the reach of global brands.

Pringles potato chips, for example, are now sold in more than 180 countries, though they are manufactured in only a handful of places, said Kay Puryear, a spokeswoman for Procter & Gamble, which makes Pringles.

Proponents of taxing transportation fuel say it would end such distortions by changing the economic calculus.

“Food is traveling because transport has become so cheap in a world of globalization,” said Frederic Hague, head of Norway’s environmental group Bellona. “If it was just a matter of processing fish cheaper in China, I’d be happy with it traveling there. The problem is pollution.”

The European Union has led the world in proposals to incorporate environmental costs into the price consumers pay for food.

Switzerland, which does not belong to the E.U., already taxes trucks that cross its borders.

In addition to bringing airlines under its emission-trading program, Brussels is also considering a freight charge specifically tied to the environmental toll from food shipping to shift the current calculus that “transporting freight is cheaper than producing goods locally,” the commission said.

The problem is measuring the emissions. The fact that food travels farther does not necessarily mean more energy is used. Some studies have shown that shipping fresh apples, onions and lamb from New Zealand might produce lower emissions than producing the goods in Europe, where — for example — storing apples for months would require refrigeration.

But those studies were done in New Zealand, and the food travel debate is inevitably intertwined with economic interests.

Last month, Tony Burke, the Australian minister for agriculture, fisheries and forestry, said that carbon footprinting and labeling food miles — the distance food has traveled — was “nothing more than protectionism.”

Shippers have vigorously fought the idea of levying a transportation fuel tax, noting that if some countries repealed those provisions of the Chicago Convention, it would wreak havoc with global trade, creating an uneven patchwork of fuel taxes.

It would also give countries that kept the exemption a huge trade advantage.

Some European retailers hope voluntary green measures like Tesco’s labeling — set to begin later this year — will slow the momentum for new taxes and regulations.

The company will begin testing the labeling system, starting with products like orange juice and laundry detergent.

Customers may be surprised by what they discover.

Box Fresh Organics, a popular British brand, advertises that 85 percent of its vegetables come from the British Midlands. But in winter, in its standard basket, only the potatoes and carrots are from Britain. The grapes are South African, the fennel is from Spain and the squash is Italian.

Today’s retailers could not survive if they failed to offer such variety, Mr. Moorehouse, the British food consultant, said.

“Unfortunately,” he said, “we’ve educated our customers to expect cheap food, that they can go to the market to get whatever they want, whenever they want it. All year. 24/7.”

Daniele Pinto contributed reporting.

North America helps feed the world, supplying about half of global grain exports. People in developing countries spend up to 80 percent of their money on food. So when food prices rise sharply, partially a result of supply changes in North America and other grain-producing countries, the world's poor feel it most - and right in the gut.

No single factor can be blamed for the global food crisis. An unlucky confluence of events over the past several years contributed to soaring prices.

Comments

woodyag wrote:
You are leaving out SPECULATORS, in the commodity markets- we're talking billions of dollars dumped in by index and hedge funds- of COURSE it drives the price up. These folks want this speculation outlawed. Would we allow a "futures" market in water? In chemotherapy drugs? Why is it legal for food, which is life or death???!!
http://littlebloginthebigwoods.blogspot.com/2008/04/no-i-will-not-calm-down-hunger-action.html
Look here for Europe's view: www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,549187,00.html
4/27/2008 3:17:53 PM

mhamilton410 wrote:
Pretty sad isn't it! So what's next, water shortage? Better keep praying and pray the people elect intelligent leaders for the people this time and not for corporate profits. Butter not guns economy for a while until it swings back the other way.
4/27/2008 10:49:51 AM

caroleatlarge wrote:
Back in the 1970's many academics and other pundits wrote dire predictions of food shortages and chaos, mostly attributing the problem to excessive populations. Now that many countries have reduced their populations, especially the wealthy ones, the problem obviously has made a come back, only this time, it seems to be deadly real and deadly dangerous and based on an entirely different collection of reasons in addition to population needs.
What to do? There was an old Jewish proverb that went around in the seventies that still seems to resonate with human existence.
You have two men walking along with enough food for one of them; for only one more day. Well, it was said, let the two share what they have for that day, and pray for some more for tomorrow. The alternative, of course, was for a to kill b, have enough for that day, and then when tomorrow arrived, do the same thing again.
4/27/2008 8:06:39 AM

brajakmishra wrote:
Wonderful analysis of facts.
4/27/2008 3:02:22 AM

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-Édouard 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. 

The Haber-Bosch process helped embargoed war-time Germany to produce munition and fuel from susbstitute base products. Rudolf Eickemeyer's subsequently developed wood hydrolisis process (US patent 3787241) provided for the economical and ecology-friendly industrial-size production of ethanol, xylitol, etc. on the basis of weed, hard wood and such waste products of bagasse (residue of sugar cane; www.solami.com/foodcrisis.htm#ethanol).  In the seventies, UNCTAD, the International Sugar Council and some Swiss pharmaceutical firms tried hard to convince sugar cane producers in Australia, Brasil, Cuba, Jamaica and South Africa that as exporters, primarily, they are not in the sugar but in the hard currency-producing business. However, visionaries belong to a rare, if not endangered specie. Since then, Hoffmann-Laroche and others successfully have used the FDA-approved sugar-substitute Xilit in a range of food products mainly due to its outstanding dental and other medical qualities. And in the wake of growing ecological awareness and global drives to reduce CO2 emmissions by increased ethanol use, corn producers have increasingly switched to supply that industry, rather than the food market. No force being able to push through an idea whose time hasn't come, maybe it's time now to draw inspiration from the other side of that same coin: no force in the world can withstand the strength of an idea whose time has come. But what does it take to get the world's responsible farmers and industrialists also to look back in order to change track into a more broad-minded and cooperative future?

Comments

melbournegirl wrote:
This is not "new" economics. Anybody who knew anything about the subject could have predicted EXACTLY what happened. Many did, to deaf do-gooder ears.
4/27/2008 5:20:31 PM

thardman wrote:
Has anyone other than me noticed that every time someone mentions "what just happened was the Perfect Storm", along comes some other factor to make the perfect storm even more perfect. Feh.
Right about now, the only things that could make the outlook a bit more grim would be if the global influenza pandemic started and was only about halfway done and then have the New Madrid fault kick loose an earthquake of power comparable to the one of 1803.
That quake last week in Indiana or wherever may well have been a warning shock.
If you think the people in the third-world are starving now, wait until an 8.1 magnitude quake collapses St Louis and changes the course of the Mississippi. Well, then we could have another Katrina on top of that. Oh, and isn't there an asteroid headed right at us in a few years?
4/27/2008 5:13:17 PM

thakorevipul wrote:
IT IS ALSO NECESSARY TO CONTROL THE GROWTH OF POPULATION WORLDWIDE. THOSE COUNTRIES AND ETHNIC AND RELIGIOUS GROUPS SUCH AS CATHOLICS AND MUSLIMS WHO REFUSE TO CONTROL POPULATION GROWTH SHOULD NOT RECEIVE ANY INTERNATIONAL ASSISTANCE.
IN DEVELOPED COUNTRIES CHILD BENEFIT SHOULD BE RESTRICTED TO FIRST TWO CHILDREN ONLY. SENSIBLE COUNTRIES AND TAX PAYERS SHOULD NOT SUBSIDISE IRRESPONSIBLE BEHAVIOUR OF COUNTRIES OR GROUPS.
4/27/2008 5:05:00 PM
Recommend (1)

debera109 wrote:

vandeswaluw1 wrote:
Capitalism will kill this planet.

6925thCobras wrote:
Has anyone here been to Detroit lately? Back in the 17 and 1800's Detroit used to have "ribbon farms". These were long, narrow farms with access to the Detroit River and Lake St Clair, the primary transportation source in those days. The soil, which at one time or another was river bottom is very fertile. There we many creeks running through the Detroit area. Eventually the farms gave way to nice houses and neighbors as well as a lot of factories.
Now the factories are gone, most of the houses are gone (burned or torn down). Hardly anyone wants to live "in" Detroit anymore unless they have to. It offers no services for daily life (grocery stores, gas stations, post offices, or mass transit etc.) It's city government is corrupt.
Now let's get to the point about food and food shortages. Along with there being a lot of open land in Detroit, which is being reclaimed by pheasants and even coyotes, there are a lot of unemployed, unskilled, undernourished people in Detroit. Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could take back a great deal of this land and put the people to work growing a wide variety of vegetables and even raising livestock. Why couldn't it be a self sustaining village again? And if it could work in Detroit, it would work throughout the country and the world.
I know that this is a pipedream but maybe, just maybe, it will give someone who has the knowledge, ambition and clout, an idea that could be built on.
4/27/2008 4:45:55 PM

jvandeswaluw1 wrote:
pilot22a is spot on!!
4/27/2008 4:38:05 PM

jvandeswaluw1 wrote:
The bee is one of disappearing species; Albert Einstein said that without bees we're lost.
4/27/2008 4:34:02 PM

Beck_Childs wrote:
"Consider, for instance, the French." Only the laziest authors reply on francophobia to try add some zip to their vanilla interpretations. Shame on you. France believes that protecting its culture, including its farmers, is important. The US outsourced its culture to the lowest bidder long ago.
4/27/2008 4:31:38 PM
Recommend (1)

jvandeswaluw1 wrote:
Listen to the song: Umaguma by Pink floyd. We're destroying the rain forests, the lungs of the world. I don't like that. Do you?
4/27/2008 4:25:28 PM

jvandeswaluw1 wrote:
billmosby,
The subject at hand is caring for our planet. We humans are part of mother nature, we're neglecting our duties. Having a good time is for most people more important than respecting what our Creator gave us. We should have a collective conscience instead of letting the rats take over our planet.
4/27/2008 4:16:41 PM

soonerthought wrote:
wake up, world.
4/27/2008 4:15:30 PM
Recommend (1)

peristyle wrote:
When we let the religions and the politicians run a planet instead of administrators and scientists along with good skilled workers we will always be doomed and badadoomed, no matter where we live or believe, they are the shepherds, and sheep on us.
4/27/2008 3:57:09 PM

billmosby wrote:

jvandeswaluw1 wrote:
There are more people dying because of smog,etc, than of smoking. If Americans cared about air pollutions then they wouldn't use DU-ammo in Irak/Afghanistan.

jvandeswaluw1 wrote:
We eat too much!!
4/27/2008 3:47:13 PM

magellan1 wrote:
Who is this dude with the grass coming out of his mouth on the lead page? He looks like a black Yoda! But I do LOVE those pricey designer sunglasses he's wearing. He could feed a lot of people with what he paid for those! LMAO!
4/27/2008 3:43:38 PM
Recommend (1)

shipfreakbo214 wrote:
I would like to give a donation to world hunger,including our country,because it exsists here to. Trouble is you just don't know who to trust.You have 10% going for food and 90% going in to some jokers bank account.
4/27/2008 3:35:44 PM
Recommend (2)

shipfreakbo214 wrote:
Greed and more greed Once every one gets there piece of the action ,we will have plenty of food.Business as usual,profits over people. Only problem here is it's creating starvation in the world. We have people in the world who just don't care.Look at the pictures coming in from Africa on starving people. SHAMEFUL
4/27/2008 3:24:00 PM
Recommend (3)

wsToronto wrote:
The factor that is missing here is the massive expulsion of small-scale subsistence farmers from the land in poor countries. These people end up in city slums needing money income to obtain food for their families and having very little of it. The loss of a small-holding peasantry in the name of modernization and agricultural 'progress' means a loss of the traditional subsistence 'cushion' in tough times, an increasing reliance on wage income and international grain markets, with drastic results for the unemployed poor, rural and urban. This is what the development economists mesmerized by the money economy fail to grasp -- the fatal consequence of the loss of subsistence agriculture for local consumption.
4/27/2008 3:12:08 PM
Recommend (4)

jvandeswaluw1 wrote:
There are more people dying because of smog, etc, than of smoking. If Americans cared about air pollutions then they wouldn't use DU-ammo in Irak/Afghanistan.
4/27/2008 3:07:47 PM
Recommend (1)

jvandeswaluw1 wrote:
Capitalism will kill this planet.
4/27/2008 3:01:19 PM
Recommend (3)

charko825 wrote:
By John Coleman     jcoleman@kusi.com
It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM.
Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data back in the late 1990's to create an allusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental wacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the "research" to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.
Environmental extremist, notable politicians among them then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild "scientific" scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda.
Now their ridicules manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic Political Party, the Governor of California, school teachers and, in many cases, well informed but very gullible environmental conscientious citizens. Only one reporter at ABC has been allowed to counter the Global Warming frenzy with one 15 minutes documentary segment.
I do not oppose environmentalism. I do not oppose the political positions of either party. However, Global Warming, i.e. Climate Change, is not about environmentalism or politics. It is not a religion. It is not something you "believe in." It is science; the science of meteorology. This is my field of life-long expertise. And I am telling you Global Warming is a nonevent, a manufactured crisis and a total scam. I say this knowing you probably won't believe me, a mere TV weatherman, challenging a Nobel Prize, Academy Award and Emmy Award winning former Vice President of United States. So be it.
I suspect you might like to say to me, "John, look the research that supports the case for global warming was done by research scientists; people with PH D's in Meteorology. They are employed by major universities and important research institutions. Their work has been reviewed by other scientists with PH D's. They have to know a lot more about it than you do. Come on, John, get with it. The experts say our pollution has created an strong and increasing greenhouse effect and a rapid, out of control global warming is underway that will sky rocket temperatures, destroy agriculture, melt the ice caps, flood the coastlines and end life as we know it. How can you dissent from this crisis? You must be a bit nutty.
Allow me, please, to explain how I think this all came about. Our universities have become somewhat isolated from the rest of us. There is a culture and attitudes and values and pressures on campus that are very different. I know this group well. My father and my older brother were both PHD-University types. I was raised in the university culture. Any person who spends a decade at a university obtaining a PHD in Meteorology and become a research scientist, more likely than not, becomes a part of that single minded culture. They all look askance at the rest of us, certain of their superiority. They respect government and disrespect business, particularly big business. They are environmentalists above all else.
And, there is something else. These scientists know that if they do research and results are in no way alarming, their research will gather dust on the shelf and their research careers will languish. But if they do research that sounds alarms, they will become well known and respected and receive scholarly awards and, very importantly, more research dollars will come flooding their way.
So when these researchers did climate change studies in the late 90's they were eager to produce findings that would be important and be widely noticed and trigger more research funding. It was easy for them to manipulate the data to come up with the results they wanted to make headlines and at the same time drive their environmental agendas. Then their like minded PHD colleagues reviewed their work and hastened to endorse it without question.
There were a few who didn't fit the mold. They did ask questions and raised objections. They did research with contradictory results. The environmental elitists berated them brushed their studies aside.
I have learned since the Ice Age is coming scare in the 1970's to always be a skeptic about research. In the case of global warming, I didn't accept media accounts. Instead I read dozens of the scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct when I assure you there is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril. It is all a scam, the result of bad science.
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/comments
4/27/2008 2:58:44 PM
Recommend (1)

jvandeswaluw1 wrote:
In the meantime deserts are becoming larger, droughts, excessive rain,etc, destroy crops for millions of people. But as usual Americans know anything better than others.
4/27/2008 2:54:15 PM

MarkinJC wrote:
Hedge funds and sovereign wealth funds have shifted their tremendous resources to commodities to drive up prices and manipulate the markets for personal gain and unquestioned greed. Old news.
4/27/2008 2:51:52 PM
Recommend (1)

jvandeswaluw1 wrote:
charko825, Your using foul, insulting language, typical republican manners.
4/27/2008 2:49:50 PM
Recommend (1)

ChristianM wrote:
Actually there are about 8 billion acres of arable land on this planet and Al Gore is right, global warming will reduce that by 10% with rising waters by 2060, ten years after we cannot produce food enough to feed a population of 13 billion.
What to do? Interesting, but birth control or war, which do you choose?
We have limited resources, the oceans are over fished and 80% of our oxygen comes from the oceans so. 2 children families or war.
Actually, the numbers are real, and with a population of 13 billion there is not enough arable land factoring in an 11% increase in protein yields and 5% increase in disease and drought resistance.
Eleven areas, over 12,000 islands will be uninhabitable in 30 years due to rising water and what to do.
WAR or LIMIT FAMILY size? I vote limit family size and mandate it world wide and do not ship food to countries that do not comply.
Technology? I already listed the obvious and they are projections, not proven seeds.
Farming of fish can help, but that too is limited.
Smaller lots, vertical building and clearing 90% of the world’s forest lands can help but we do not have 100 years.
We have 40-50 to make tough choices and enforce them.
If the Pope is allowed to preach no birth control then the fate of Catholics in poor countries is sealed.
We have 8 billion acres of arable land and that is it and IT is shrinking.
Innovation can help, but look over the past 50 years and project forward and I am optimistic based on just the advances in the past 30 years!
Stop gaps are COAL TO LIQUID (OIL), Nuclear POWER that can be used to increase oxygen rates and electrolyze water for hydrogen fuels and synthetic protein, our potential savior using bacillus and seaweed we can create foods rich in protein and vitamins but we need NUCLEAR POWER to make it happen and stop all arable land production for synthetic fuels and we may make it to 2080.
We must limit families and as cruel as it may sound, limit food to those countries that do not support 2 child maximums and we must furnish them birth control.
We may have to nationalize food production, but to insure maximum yields.
4/27/2008 2:45:19 PM
Recommend (3)

jvandeswaluw1 wrote:
Per head of the world populatiomn, the Americans are the biggest polluters. America has 5%% of the world's pop[ulation but uses 25% of the total energy resouces!!
4/27/2008 2:43:22 PM
Recommend (2)

charko825 wrote:

pilot22a wrote:
There is a people surplus, not a food shortage. Any famine we bring upon ourselves, because we refuse to limit our production of human beings. Somewhere this unrestricted breeding must stop.

hc2254 wrote:
Ted Turner is right. Plus he's too rich to either miss a meal or run out of gas.
4/27/2008 2:26:46 PM

pilot22a wrote:
There is a people surplus, not a food shortage. Any famine we bring upon ourselves, because we refuse to limit our production of human beings. Somewhere this unrestricted breeding must stop.
4/27/2008 2:25:58 PM
Recommend (4)

infuse wrote:

jvandeswaluw1 wrote:
@infuse, Another 100 years at the most and our existance on this planet is history.

charko825 wrote:
The silence from Al Gore is deafening on the current food prices and coming famines. It was good ol' no brain Al that broke the vote in the Senate back in 1994 that has mandated ethanol and other renewable fuels get a share of the gasoline additives market. Of course the current Senate just revalidated what Al did....

$6.00/gallon of gas is coming....our politicians are failing us miserably.....they should all be bought pink dresses to wear--they act like women....
4/27/2008 2:08:56 PM
Recommend (5)

jvandeswaluw1 wrote:
We've to go back to basics or we'll pay a price we cam't afford.
4/27/2008 2:02:26 PM

jvandeswaluw1 wrote:
WATER is more important than OIL!!
After the oil wars, the water wars?
4/27/2008 1:55:02 PM

rat-the wrote:
Coal to Oil. Liquified Coal. What ever you want to call it, WE have the Technology and the Resources, to make it HAPPEN! Jobs for Pennsylvania-Kentucky there McCain? ;~)
4/27/2008 1:53:51 PM
Recommend (1)

AVirginiaPlanter wrote:
Condoms and Birth Control Pills. The world is overpopulated and Thomas Malthus was wrong. Humans are stripping and destroying the World's resources.
4/27/2008 1:53:41 PM
Recommend (2)

jvandeswaluw1 wrote:
My conscience tells me that I feel so ashamed that we'll leave a contaminated planet behind for our own flesh and blood.
I feel; guilty. Do you?
4/27/2008 1:50:05 PM

billmosby wrote:

magellan1 wrote:
China - 20% of the world's population, 7% of the arable land
U.S. - 5% of the world's population, 20% of the arable land
It will be interesting to see which comes first - $500 a barrel oil or $200 a bushel of wheat. Beauty of it is, wheat is renewable. Heh, heh, heh!

jvandeswaluw1 wrote:
Their bank accounts are more important than keeping people alive- the Irak profiteers are a good example!
4/27/2008 1:32:37 PM
Recommend (2)

rat-the wrote:
First-Ethanol from Food, was just about as dumb as a sack of Rocks! :-(
Second, you ain't seen NOTHING Yet. This is occurring during a Seasonal Optimal Period. The Warm environnment of the Planet, is at it's BEST to capitalize on the largest Harvests the World can produce. VAST regions of Northern Europe, Asia, and Canada, are able to produce now, what could easily be GONE in as little as 5 Years. See Ostriches, there is every possible chance, that for any of several reasons, we are about to go from WARMING, to Cooling. :-(
Famine, Pestilence, and Death by Exposure, go Hand in Hand, With ICE AGES! And WHAT, has Al Gore the Moron, or anyone else done to prepare for the events that could follow the Gulf Stream Shutting Down due to not enough support from the Thermohaline Conveyor, or a Series of Large Volcanic Eruptions, or Both?
Why do MOST of our Leaders all look like Lemmings? :-(
WHY, are they running for the Ocean screaming "Follow Us!"?
4/27/2008 1:31:33 PM
Recommend (4)

ChristianM wrote:
Greed and a government and agency heads elected by the government and a war for OIL and ISRAEL is the cause. Greed, the mantra of the conservatives. Alcohol as few is INSANE from a country with our coal reserves we can convert coal into GAS at HALF THE PRICE of CORN ethanol or switchgrass. We have no energy policy except that written by ExxonMobilConocoPhillipsARCOBPAMOCO. Alcohol as a fuel is insane and starving the world's children. Coal to oil is cheaper and keeps people from starving and within 5 years, with focus could eliminate all Middle East needs.
WITHIN 5 years ELIMINATE ALL Middle East Oil needs! CTL technology produces FINISHED fuels and we could produce 9,000,000 barrels equivalent a day IF we wanted to at a cost of ONE THIRD the price of OIL today! Bush and Cheney are killing children in Iraq and now in the world with their criminal heads of every department and the greed inherent in the system.
4/27/2008 1:24:42 PM
Recommend (1)

billmosby wrote:
Ethanol might be a minor player at present, but with mandates or incentives in place aimed at increasing US ethanol production by a factor of 6 in the next several years, it won't remain minor for long.
This article mentions wheat production already being displaced onto less fertile land in favor of ethanol feedstocks. For all the talk of grass ethanol feedstocks being producible on less fertile land, what guarantees can we get that, if and when production shifts to those feedstocks, they won't also displace food crops on more productive land?
Will midwestern farmers, for example, forgo ethanol feedstock production on land they own just because someone else may want to plant on less productive land somewhere else? Or if the regulators try to get into the act, will we have a supersized version of the enforcement problem posed by bans on certain other flora today?
4/27/2008 1:24:00 PM

jvandeswaluw1 wrote:
Feed America first is nonsense. Wheat, corn,etc, will be sold to the highest bidders. That's how a capilistic system works. Do you really be lieve that these people care about feeding the poorest Americans? Never. The biofuel conspiricy is going after the very poor first and then the rest will follow. Why? The existance of the elite is in danger and they'll take their own measures. My Granny used to say that a FULL belly doesn't care about an empty belly!! Let her words enter your thoughts.
4/27/2008 1:23:39 PM
Recommend (1)

bobmarleyforpeace wrote:
HEMP
4/27/2008 1:23:04 PM

charko825 wrote:

pgbsan wrote:
charko825 -- Perhaps you should do a Google search before harping on the amazing benefits of the Bakken Formation. Your news report is from early February (which reads more like oil industry propoganda), and relied on a very preliminary USGS report from 1999. The latest USGS report referenced in your article was released: Bakken holds about 3 billion barrels, not nearly enough for energy independence and, considering the huge area it encompasses, squeezing oil out of the asphalt in LA is probably more economical... http://newsok.com/article/3230048/1208235289

http://www.dailyreckoning.com/rpt/OilShale.html
"The technical groundwork may be in place for a fundamental shift in oil shale economics," the Rand Corporation recently declared. "Advances in thermally conductive in-situ conversion may enable shale-derived oil to be competitive with crude oil at prices below $40 per barrel. If this becomes the case, oil shale development may soon occupy a very prominent position in the national energy agenda."

genuineone wrote:
It just doesn't seem fair that the poorest people in the World, who are even too poor to own a car, have to pay for the high cost of gas too.
The high cost of gas, and greedy governments are driving the poorest to starvation and ultimately death. Wasn't the economy and the inability to get bread that drove the French masses to revolt during the French Revolution against the Monarchy? If, we as a Global Society, continue to ignore these social catastrophes and ignore their problems, I would not be surprised if communism or a form of socialism again becomes a highly popular dogma in many of those countries. The seeds of discontent are there to be picked all over the World and the soil for Marxist or similar ideas will become more fertile. This could become an alternative for people who feel that they are unfairly ignored and exploited. People like Hugo Chavez, or worse, will rise and take over Latin America and Asia. Hugo Chavez is immensely popular among the poor in Venezuela because he has seen the disparity among the rich and the poor. Gas in Venezuela cost 12 cents a gallon, after Hugo Chavez decided to nationalize gasoline. While some Americans, especially, people like Bush are very critical of Hugo Chavez, I have observed that both Hugo Chavez and Bush are very similar in personality.
THEY BOTH REMIND ME OF ROBIN HOOD. HOWEVER, THE DIFFERENCE IS THAT HUGO CHAVEZ STEALS FROM THE RICH TO GIVE TO THE POOR, WHILE GEORGE W. BUSH STEALS FROM THE POOR TO GIVE TO THE RICH. YOU CAN JUDGE FOR YOURSELF, WHO IS A BETTER PERSON BETWEEN THE TWO OF THEM.
4/27/2008 1:19:45 PM
Recommend (1)

debera109 wrote:

winemaster2 wrote:
Along with the flawed economic, that does not work, conservative ideology of preference of war, inequity and rights only of their kind, propaganda of terror hype, fomentation of hate, fear and conservative patriotic feeding frenzy to control the hearts and minds of the misled and the gullible, using food to produce the like of ethanol with Government subsides for the pockets of like minded conservative republican farmers, should there be any doubt the megalomaniac's scheme will yet be another total failure.

jvandeswaluw1 wrote:
@infuse,
Another 100 years at the most and our existance on this planet is history.
You underestimate what global warming is doing at the moment. The air we're breathing is polluted to such an extent that it causes long cancer. How about the smog cities in America? The growing shanty towns on the outskirts of the big cities?
Ever heard of Smokey Mountain in Manila,
Mexico City,etc? Our effected foodchain,
contaminated lakes and rivers floating with dead fish?
4/27/2008 1:11:40 PM
Recommend (0) Report Abuse Discussion Policy

Catjone wrote:
Hey, I have an idea?! We should ask the candidates about how they would fix the problem.

Oh...that's right, we're too busy asking them about flags on their lapel and about an event 10 years ago in a forgotten Eastern block country...Kosovo was it?
4/27/2008 1:07:38 PM
Recommend (1) Report Abuse Discussion Policy

charlie8 wrote:
The article “The New Economics of Hunger” covers most strategic problems. France, most European countries and the US decided to subsidized agriculture following the world wars I&II. From the late 1940’s to date enormous excess of food products were built especially throughout the G-7 nations. Politicians frequently draw battle grounds arguing either for the producer or as a tool for urban vote. In the mean time global population has grown to six billion inhabitants on this earth.

Per capita growth of income linked to shortages of production has severely depleted old excesses. Shortages linked to radically increasing transportations costs now are suddenly gripping the throat of all global consumers. The media of radio and then television somewhat sped global communication but the Internet has “closed the deal” with news traveling in real time. Humanitarian aid given by governments and benevolent organizations have budgeted a fixed currency amount. These amounts will now purchase from 1/3rd to ½ the quantity of just a year ago.

Simply earthly dwellers are facing a third world war leading to mass destruction, or global trade leveling per capita income meaning as well a redistribution of wealth. The question remains can the extreme wealth recently accumulated by entities and some individuals be redistributed or will this recent excessive wealth accumulation continue to control the global political leaders? Hopefully the power of people will prevail.
4/27/2008 1:05:44 PM
Recommend (2) Report Abuse Discussion Policy

TheodoreRoosevelt wrote:
sandylong5274 wrote:
And so,Michelle Obama turned to her husband Barack Hussein Obama and says,
"Let them eat cake!" ...So don't count on
Obama doing a damn thing about this problem or any other prolem,based on Obama
miserable track record so far folks.
--------------------------------------
And Hillary said cake? Thats to good for them!!

2 terms as a Senator and Hillary says grub for worms you mangy dogs, I am to busy ducking snipers to worry about your problems.
4/27/2008 1:00:14 PM
Recommend (0) Report Abuse Discussion Policy

infuse wrote:
mhr614 wrote:
So many countries have been mismanaged, for example Zimbabwe, which went from being one of the most productive countries in the world to one of the poorest. Much of Africa has suffered under black rule, a fact that the liberal media keeps as quiet as possible. To them the white race is the responsible party- ask the Reverend Wright, mentor and pastor to the man who just may become president of the United States. That would suit the international left just fine.
-------------------------
Not a single mention of Argentina? Or the potato famine in Ireland years ago? The great depression in the U.S.? Could it be that when whites mismanage an economy it distorts your racist attitude?

But we can venture well beyond the whitewashed world you prefer. Have you any racist comments about the poor economies in India, China, Latin America? Darker skins seem to get your attention. How did you manage to omit them?
4/27/2008 12:53:48 PM
Recommend (0) Report Abuse Discussion Policy

Madjack11 wrote:
HugitThrough wrote;

"haha. Maybe calling you a name was a little juvenile, but you just can't shape individual behaviors on a global level.

We can't even do it here at home because of our "one party system".

You're right, and wrong. It's a change in thinking that I'd like to see - a change from the me-me-my small town and nothing else' mentality that afflicts most people. Even a small thing - if done by hundreds of millions - can shape the destiny of this planet and utilmately, our human race.

It's a matter of realizing that change starts with thought, and continues through action.

As an example, if everyone in the US made a conscious effort to not purchase items with outrageous packaging, and made it clear to the companies producing such items that they won't be until their packaging becomes biodegradable, then the companies would be forced to come up with an alternative to stay in business. And this scenario has been played out before with changes to products that companies make every day due to consumer complaints, suggestions, and buying patterns.

But that takes sacrifice - "Sorry kids, you'll be drinking Milk, water, and Cool-Aid from now on" - and that's not what most people are willing to do because they think that it won't make a difference, so what's the point? After all, no one else is doing it so why should I? It's a viscious cycle that can be broken with the simple thought that "I have a personal stake in my environment and I will do everything I can to keep it healthy, regardless of what anyone else is doing." That's why I ended my post with my favorite "doomed" statement.

Unless and until people start to think of themselves as the keepers of our planet, we humans will continue to pillage and rape the resources of this earth - to the total destruction of our species.

I don't want it to be that way, but I have little faith in the intelligence of people or their ability to see the future consequences of their current actions.

4/27/2008 12:53:31 PM
Recommend (0) Report Abuse Discussion Policy

ricinro85212 wrote:
It seems that there is a recommendation for the "liberalization" of international food markets. This seems reasonable and prudent but with one warning and over-riding rule: no one goes hungry. In return we clearly need to keep our population within its means and stop using food for fuel.
We are ready for the new solar/wind economy but it requires much change. The primary change is that we mush stop believing that some "invisible hand" will wean us off fossil fuels in the short term. Other changes will force the public ownership of the electrical grid and standards for photovoltaics so solar power harvesting is on everyones roof.
Point is that when we can stabilize global warming and stop using food for cars then we can feed the world.
4/27/2008 12:49:27 PM
Recommend (0) Report Abuse Discussion Policy

jaybyrd1 wrote:
The article seems to merely skim over the root cause, which has been acknowledged by many others,is the impact of the demand for biofuels on the food supply. THe article id not fully address the fact that supply and demand curves are being negatively impacted by the demand for alternative fuel sources, financed to a large degree with our tax dollars. It may be time to reassess our commitment to alternative fuel sources...I am sure AlGore and concert promoters will soon have the answer to this dilemma.In the meantime, prepare to starve.
4/27/2008 12:46:41 PM
Recommend (3) Report Abuse Discussion Policy

arrabbiato wrote:
Schmeterling is absolutely right: Food for fuel, is an INSANE idea, just as the idea of ethanol is, even if it were possible for EVERYONE to use ethanol as motor fuel, oil consumption through automobiles only accounts for some one quarter to one half of America's total oil and energy needs-and agribusiness is getting TRIPLE subsidies to grow this? And as arable land is being used all over the world to line the greedy pockets of agribusiness while the developing world starves-but the problem is, we do live in a global community, and whatever the developed world does to act on market forces negatively, rebounds like a boomerang back to the developed world in a variety of ways, and on many different levels-soaring prices for grain in the developed world, political instability in the developing world-ethanol is a joke, a chimera-what we need is ENERGY INTERDEPENDENCE-NOT ENERGY INDEPENDENCE-ETHANOL IS A BYPRODUCT OF PURE EVIL GREED-IT MUST BE STOPPED
4/27/2008 12:42:57 PM
Recommend (5) Report Abuse Discussion Policy

darrelldavis wrote:
Issues like these, hunger, death and war are issues that the candidates should be talking about. Even more- justify over a half billion dollars in campaign spending when children have no food.
4/27/2008 12:41:02 PM
Recommend (3) Report Abuse Discussion Policy

infuse wrote:
jvandeswaluw1 wrote:
This is a world wide problem this problem is aggrevated by our global warming.
---------------------------------
Global warming actually helps farmers produce more by extending the growing season for millions of acres of fertile land. That is definitely not the problem for this food shortage. Droughts come and go. And the one in Australia is not at all unusual from an historical perspective.

Biofuels are another thing however. In the face of growing worldwide populations and extreme third world poverty, selling off foodstuff for machinery fuel seems not wise at all.
4/27/2008 12:40:06 PM
Recommend (2) Report Abuse Discussion Policy

mhr614 wrote:
So many countries have been mismanaged, for example Zimbabwe, which went from being one of the most productive countries in the world to one of the poorest. Much of Africa has suffered under black rule, a fact that the liberal media keeps as quiet as possible. To them the white race is the responsible party- ask the Reverend Wright, mentor and pastor to the man who just may become president of the United States. That would suit the international left just fine.
4/27/2008 12:38:08 PM
Recommend (3) Report Abuse Discussion Policy

jvandeswaluw1 wrote:
This is a world wide problem this problem is aggrevated by our global warming.
Anybody who watced CNN's The world in peril knows what I mean. In a nutshell: Our planet will not grow in size, what does grow in size is the planet's population. In the end there will be not enough resources to sustain us all. Most people don't realize that we've to MORE with LESS. In 1950 we were with 2.5 billion people on the planet, in 2050 there will be 9.5 billion people on the planet! In one hundred years an increase of 7 billion people. I believe that we blew it. Facts are facts.

4/27/2008 12:33:22 PM
Recommend (1) Report Abuse Discussion Policy

infuse wrote:
As we taxpayers subsidize giant American corporations like ConAgra to sell grain to third world countries, pushing indigenous farmers off their land, we are observing the smug corporate victory of what they and their Republican sycophants call free trade. In the end it has produced a free traders' panacea: subsidies and outrageously high prices.

That people are starving is but a by-product of those proverbial winners and losers in the "free" market.
4/27/2008 12:32:57 PM
Recommend (0) Report Abuse Discussion Policy

HugitThrough wrote:
Madjack11 wrote:
HugitThrough wrote:
"madjack11, you are crazy and stupid. Thats a deadly combination."
Now that's not playing nice! I didn't call you names. Oh, wait...
You wouldn't be one of those tits on a boar's A$$ I referred to in my post, would you?
_________________________________________

haha. Maybe calling you a name was a little juvenile, but you just can't shape individual behaviors on a global level.
We can't even do it here at home because of our "one party system".
4/27/2008 12:31:23 PM
Recommend (0) Report Abuse Discussion Policy

oddlyamerican wrote:
The debate over the more immediate causes (biofuel, China, drought, etc.) of the crisis, almost becomes moot when considering the draconian global economy that has consciously allowed the world's poor to suffer under such sudden impacts to the system.

In order to comprehensively address the crisis we obviously first need to recognize the immediate problem of the shortage (no small feat), but then it is crucial to make allowances for the lesser developed markets of poorer countries when flooding them with cheap subsidized goods.

Otherwise we throw one half of the world's population to the wolves when the global economy is impacted.

http://oddlyamerican.wordpress.com/2008/04/21/food-glorious-food/
4/27/2008 12:29:03 PM
Recommend (1) Report Abuse Discussion Policy

jfisher23 wrote:
It is time to empty the sperm banks, give all males a vasectomy, and all women a tubal ligation, thus giving back the planet to a kinder gentler animal!!!!!
4/27/2008 12:15:09 PM
Recommend (1)

Madjack11 wrote:
HugitThrough wrote:

"madjack11, you are crazy and stupid. Thats a deadly combination."

Now that's not playing nice! I didn't call you names. Oh, wait...

You wouldn't be one of those tits on a boar's A$$ I referred to in my post, would you?

4/27/2008 12:14:16 PM
Recommend (0) Report Abuse Discussion Policy

edbyronadams wrote:
"Will the Lord be kind to the creaters of this cruel mess?"

Was it the Lord or somebody else that gave Australia the drought?
4/27/2008 12:12:55 PM
Recommend (0) Report Abuse Discussion Policy

braultrl wrote:
Mmmmm! Soylent green!
4/27/2008 12:11:30 PM
Recommend (1) Report Abuse Discussion Policy

winemaster2 wrote:
Yes indeed, let us keep pushing more wars, conflicts propaganda of terror hype, fomentation of hate, fear, keep on sinking over $17 billion a month for fraud wars, war on terror, while the country is growing more polar, neighbors are told to spy on neighbors. Droughts persisting, and the hypocrite Governors in their Sunday best preying for rain.

If the past Feb. was any measure, all we will need is another few hurricanes like Katrina and Rita and the drought to continue in the S.E. US, where main Atlanta water sources is 16 feet below level.

Should there be any reason why the likes of Arabs, Chinese, Japanese, Europeans not buy our wheat, corn and other food stuff, when the value of the USD is rock bottom.

Perhaps it is a world combined conspiracy against the US to keep on jacking up oil prices, running us into more debt and totally destroy the flawed economic structure and system. We already have the worst ever over $4 trillion federal deficit since George Bush took over, over $14 trillion foreign to the Chinese, Arabs, Japanese and other, the lowest ever value of the USD, not to mention over $17 billion monthly cost of the Fraud Iraq war and the BS war on terror.
4/27/2008 12:10:49 PM
Recommend (0) Report Abuse Discussion Policy

va22207 wrote:
Ban the using of food to produce fuel.
Where is the poor man's right to survival?
The corn can convert only 0.03% solar energy into corn seeds.
On the other hand, a good solar panel converts 25% solar light to electricity.
Boycott ethanol.
4/27/2008 12:10:39 PM
Recommend (3) Report Abuse Discussion Policy

fedupindc wrote:
In response to the earlier comment about switchgrass:It seems that Corn is the only material being pushed for ethanol production. Why not push for other materials to produce ethanol? Switchgrass can be planted on those acres that farmers are paid not use!!

Good point about switchgrass but the technology to convert switchgrass to ethanol is not there yet and may never be there. Chemically you have to have something thatkes close to ethanol like sugar, a solid state alcohol.

You also have to take into account water and pollution byproducts. The latest farm passed in Congress has $405 million in it for MD to clean up pollution in the Chesapeake Bay from biofuel farming. And Corn ethanol requires more energy in than is gotten out. Any farm land has to be use for food production, not fuel production. Maybe scrub land but that's speculative.
4/27/2008 12:05:00 PM
Recommend (0) Report Abuse Discussion Policy

bluelagoon21 wrote:
SO GLOBALIZATION IS DOING WONDERS WITH POOR COUNTRIES
4/27/2008 11:58:55 AM
Recommend (0) Report Abuse Discussion Policy

schmetterlingtoo wrote:
This is all about the false promises of "energy independence"-it is a MYTH, AND THE PRODUCTION AND USE OF ETHANOL IS QUITE LITERALLY STARVING THE DEVELOPING WORLD AND CAUSING POLITICAL INSTABILITY THROUGHOUT THE WORLD AS GRAIN PRICES SOAR THROUGH THE ROOF BECAUSE ARABLE LAND IS BEING USED TO GROW CORN FOR ETHANOL.

Ethanol has the publicity, it has the subsidies-it has the "allure" of that non-sensical term "energy independence" and of "going green." THE USE OF ETHANOL IS BASED ON MYTHS, NOT REALITY.

ALTERNATIVE FUELS CONTAIN JUST TWO THIRDS OF THE HEAT ENERGY OF GASOLINE, SO THE BILLIONS OF ETHANOL GALLONS THAT THE US PRODUCES ARE BUT A DROP IN THE BUCKET FOR THE US OVERALL ENERGY NEEDS.

In 2006 the US produced about 5 billion gallons of ethanol from corn and around 250 million gallons from soybeans.

Although that sounds like a lot, when you compare that to a country as large as the US and its overall energy needs IT IS INFINITELY MINISCULE. AMERICAN AIRLINES USED 3 BILLION GALLONS OF FOSSIL FUEL IN ONE YEAR ALONE!

Biofuels cannot match the performance requirements of jet fuels. Nor can biouels begin to meet US growing need for diesel fuels.

Back in 1997, the GAO issued a report concluding that "ethanol's potential for substituting for petroleum is so small that it is unlikely to significantly affect overall energy security."

Ethanol and other biofuels cannot significantly affect overall oil consumption patterns because they cannot replace key oil-based fuels.

So the fact of the matter is this: EVEN IF THE US TURNED ALL OF ITS CORN INTO ETHANOL, IT WOULD SUPPLY LESS THAN 6 PERCENT OF AMERICA'S TOTAL OIL NEEDS-JUST 6 PERCENT-A NEGLIGIBLE AMOUNT. THERE IS OBVIOUSLY NOT ENOUGH ARABLE LAND TO PRODUCE WHAT IS NEEDED FOR BIOFUELS IN ANY WAY, UNLESS THE BIOFUELS CAN BE MADE FROM THINGS LIKE GRASS, OR STRAW-OR ALTERNATIVE FUELS, -NATURAL GAS BYPRODUCTS CHANGED TO LIQUIDS-BUT THE TECHNOLOGY TO PRODUCE SUCH BIOFUELS, AND ALTERNATIVE SOURCES TO FOSSIL FUEL IS JUST A PIPE DREAM AT THIS POINT-THE IDEA THAT SUCH COULD PRODUCE ENOUGH FOR AMERICA'S ENERGY NEEDS ANYTIME EXCEPT THE DISTANT FUTURE IS JUST NUTS.

Pres. Bush wants 35 billion gallons of alternative fuel use a year, BUT HERE'S THE THING: that will only account for around 11 percent of the US TOTAL oil consumption, by volume, AND EVEN IF YOU TOOK PRES. BUSH'S TARGET GOAL OF 35 BILLION GALLONS A YEAR AND QUADRUPLED IT-THIS AMOUNT OF FUEL COULD NOT PRODUCE THAT WHICH IS NEEDED TO MEET AMERICA'S ENERGY NEEDS-AND THAT IS EQUALLY TRUE OF OTHER LARGE DEVELOPED COUNTRIES, NOT JUST THE US.

Making ethaol from corn borders on fiscal insanity. It uses taxpayer money to make subsidized motor oil from the single most subsidized crop in America. A recent study shows that biofuel subsidies in the US were as much as 7 BILLION A YEAR, LIKELY TO RISE BY SEVERAL BILLIONS A YEAR. What this means is, that the American taxpayer may soon be paying 16 BILLION PER YEAR TO SUBSIDIZE THE PRODUCTION OF A FUEL-ETHANOL-THAT WILL DO LITTE IF ANYTHING TO REDUCE AMERICA'S OVERALL OIL IMPORTS.

FOOD OR FUEL? THAT'S WHAT YOU'VE BEEN INDOCTRINATED WITH BY YOUR POLITICIANS-DEMOCRAT AND REPUBLICAN-GROW CORN FOR ETHANOL, AND THAT WIL ELIMINATE FOOD SHORTAGES THROUGH THE MONEY WE SAVE FROM FOSSIL FUELS.

As Fidel Castro said last year, "converting food into fuel IS A "SINISTER IDEA" ad that the expanded use of biofuels would cause hunger among the people in the poorer countries of the world.

AND FIDEL CASTRO WAS 100 PERCENT RIGHT-SAYING THIS JUST THIS PAST YEAR.

TRIPLE TAX SUBSIDIES FOR AGRIBUSINESS-TO THE CRIMINAL PRICE FIXERS ARCHER DANIELS MIDLANDS -THAT YOU, THE TAYPAYER GIVE THEM EVERY YEAR, ARE LITERALLY DRIVING UP FOOD COSTS ALL OVER THE WORLD AS ARABLE LAND IS BEING USED TO GROW CORN FOR ETHANOL - IT IS STARVING THE WORLD AND IT IS ALREADY CAUSING POLITICAL INSTABILITY THROUGHOUT THE WORLD.

STOP BUYING INTO THE MYTHS OF ETHANOL, STOP LINING THE POCKETS OF AGRIBUSINESS THROUGH THEIR TRIPLE TAXPAYER-FINANCED SUBSIDIES-STOP STARVING THE DEVELOPING WORLD-AND DO IT NOW.
4/27/2008 11:53:35 AM
Recommend (7) Report Abuse Discussion Policy

jfisher23 wrote:
So much for a Global economy. The rich get richer and the poor now eat dirt!!!!
AND NO CAKE!!!!
4/27/2008 11:53:26 AM
Recommend (1) Report Abuse Discussion Policy

jfisher23 wrote:
So much for a Global economy. The rich get richer and the poor now eat dirt!!!!
AND NO CAKE!!!!
4/27/2008 11:53:26 AM
Recommend (1) Report Abuse Discussion Policy

analyst72 wrote:
...and who, do you think, 'The New Economics of Hunger' is going to hit the hardest, to the point of starvation?
Does anyone think that the b*stards from Fox Aljazeera, or the inner circle of Stupid One are going to suffer one bit?
Do you think that the CEOs, with 300 million retirement packages, are going to starve?
WAKE UP, G.D.!
4/27/2008 11:49:17 AM
Recommend (0) Report Abuse Discussion Policy

JohnTovar wrote:
Will the Lord be kind to the creaters of this cruel mess?
4/27/2008 11:44:09 AM
Recommend (0) Report Abuse Discussion Policy

gerrypadfield wrote:
Thank you for this series. The in-depth reporting on this issue is important to us all. I will be reading all week.

M. Padfield
4/27/2008 11:41:19 AM
Recommend (0) Report Abuse Discussion Policy

winemaster2 wrote:
Along with the flawed economic, that does not work, conservative ideology of preference of war, inequity and rights only of their kind, propaganda of terror hype, fomentation of hate, fear and conservative patriotic feeding frenzy to control the hearts and minds of the misled and the gullible, using food to produce the like of ethanol with Government subsides for the pockets of like minded conservative republican farmers, should there be any doubt the megalomaniac's scheme will yet be another total failure.
4/27/2008 11:40:36 AM
Recommend (1) Report Abuse Discussion Policy

6925thCobras wrote:
rpotah, the way you state your comment makes it hard for me to know if you are being sarcastic or if you are making an arguement for being wasteful. "Being less productive" sounds like a negative. Our productivity and consumerism has led to the birth of the proclivity of storage units all across our nation. We buy so much junk that we have no where to keep it. And, unfortunately, most of the junk we buy, we don't manufacture here in the U.S., we get it from Third World Countries.
4/27/2008 11:35:21 AM
Recommend (0) Report Abuse Discussion Policy

magellan1 wrote:
China - 20% of the world's population, 7% of the arable land

U.S. - 5% of the world's population, 20% of the arable land

It will be interesting to see which comes first - $500 a barrel oil or $200 a bushel of wheat. Beauty of it is, wheat is renewable. Heh, heh, heh!
4/27/2008 11:33:31 AM
Recommend (1) Report Abuse Discussion Policy

sophie138 wrote:
jvandeswaluw1 wrote:
Ever heard of the ratcage test? In the end the rats start eating each other for the lack of food!!

yes, i heard about it in a high school psych class in 1951 or '52, and the reason was over-population. are we ever going to get it? will our politicians ever address it?
4/27/2008 11:31:05 AM
Recommend (2) Report Abuse Discussion Policy

jvandeswaluw1 wrote:
madjack11,
The world is doomed as you said. I wonder who's guilty of it. The human being, the meanest animal in the jungle.
4/27/2008 11:20:06 AM
Recommend (0) Report Abuse Discussion Policy

illslope wrote:
It seems that Corn is the only material being pushed for ethanol production. Why not push for other materials to produce ethanol? Switchgrass can be planted on those acres that farmers are paid not use!!
4/27/2008 11:18:48 AM

jvandeswaluw1 wrote:
Ever heard of the ratcage test? In the end the rats start eating each other for the lack of food!!
4/27/2008 11:15:55 AM
Recommend (0) Report Abuse Discussion Policy

horend wrote:
Lavrat,

Difficult times are definitely ahead, and I agree that individuals/nations should take a proactive stance with regard to family planning. However, this is not a plan which can be implemented overnight.

First, based on various studies concerning the climate, African nations are the first to face the direct impact of climate change. The poorest of the poor in Africa most be educated to understand the impact of their family planning choices. The drought conditions effecting these nations are not changing.

Second, we here in the United States, live in excess. Most individuals base their success on their individual wealth and accumulated assets. Most people believe free flowing clean water is a God-given asset, clean air will always be there. What we do not realize is that our water basins are drying. Look at the current drought situation in the southern states. Without water, migration will occur to northern states stressing resources in that area. The Ogallala aquifer which allows the midwestern breadbasket to feed our nation is dwindling. This is a non-refillable aquifer. Additionally, land is continuing to be subverted for corn/ethanol crops setting aside less for consumption, more for energy, but surprisingly to most people, ethanol production consumes more energy than it produces. Rainfall is limited and we are in the midst of, I believe, a very serious seven year drought.

Third, every time Ben Bernanke reduces our interest rates to keep our financial institutions afloat, the dollar loses further value making food more expensive to the countries holding our dollars.

Fourth, desertfication is growing in both China and Mongolia, Australia has made poor farming choices and is suffering from serious drought conditions.

We can not simply cut-off food to poor countries. Massive change is required - BUT it is required from all nations. We have one planet, and one planet only. In all of our years of space exploration, we have yet to find another planet to relocate to. Government leaders must seriously address these issues and stop remaining ignorant. When government leaders inform their citizenry, only then will the populations begin to understand the precarious situations we face.
4/27/2008 11:14:32 AM
Recommend (3) Report Abuse Discussion Policy

egalitaire wrote:
inherent dangers of speculative trading, where traders never grow, store, transport, or process a commodity.

this scenario is not unlike the current mortgage industry bust or the Great Depression.

i thought fed chair ben bernanke was the Great Depression guru. instead, he sells us kitsch.
4/27/2008 11:11:21 AM
Recommend (0) Report Abuse Discussion Policy

rpatoh wrote:
6925thCobras:

You make some good points. The US should quit being so productive. Less productivity would lead to the use of fewer resources. It is bad politics for the US to feed the world and use up a disproportionate share of resources in the effort. "Forcing" the worlds hungry to depend on the US for substinance has been likened to colonialism and led to world hatred, and the justification for terrorism towards our nation. We should only produce and use what we need for ourselves while allowing other countries do the same. Surely the water we save will help the peoples of northern Africa.
4/27/2008 11:09:44 AM
Recommend (2) Report Abuse Discussion Policy

cschotta1 wrote:
this is what happens when we elect a bunch of out of touch elitists to Congress. they have no idea what the cost of gasoline is nor do they care about how their actions effect the rest of the world, since they are NEVER held accountable.
4/27/2008 11:06:10 AM
Recommend (3) Report Abuse Discussion Policy

6925thCobras wrote:
Families living on one dollar a day for food is uncomprehendable, if not impossible, in the United States.

This is a very disturbing story. There is much that can be done about this situation with proper leadership and organization.

We need to look at how much food we waste in the U.S. Look at the supermarket shelves across the country. We have 50 or more types of bread for sale. Every evening a great deal of that is never sold and just goes stale. You can see it in the dumpsters behind the store or, hopefully, given away to food banks or charities.

Secondly, and this is not some radical, anti-meat eater idea, but it takes a lot of grain to raise one steer. Our farming pratices have gotten to be inefficient and wasteful. We need to look at what we eat on a daily basis.

Thirdly, it takes a lot of water to grow grain. This cost adds to the price of food products. How much water is put into plastic bottles for the store shelves everyday? This practice too, is wasteful. Not only do we use petrolium products to produce these bottles but we have to dispose of them somewhere and that means more landfill. Many tests have shown that the water in these bottles is no more pure than the tap water we have at home. It gets to be very tiresome to see people walking around with plastic bottles of water as if they are doing something good for their health, when in actuality they are harming the environment.

One would hope that the fine citizens of our country would become a little more aware of how we effect the world in our everyday lives.

Just thinking out loud....and hopefully, someone with more knowledge than me, can add to the list of things we can do on a personal level to help alleviate this situation.
4/27/2008 10:54:02 AM
Recommend (4) Report Abuse Discussion Policy

HugitThrough wrote:
madjack11, you are crazy and stupid. Thats a deadly combination.
4/27/2008 10:52:35 AM
Recommend (0) Report Abuse Discussion Policy

dunnhaupt wrote:
The human race cannot keep doubling in number every few years indefinitely, or there will be standing room only. We are totally unprepared today for a catastrophe, for instance a volcanic eruption that wipes out all crops worldwide for a year, such as the US last experienced in 1806 when it snowed all summer.
4/27/2008 10:51:26 AM
Recommend (9) Report Abuse Discussion Policy

georgettec28 wrote:
This may sound simplistic or to some even, self-serving. I am very concerned about global hunger more so than any other issue that has surfaced world-wide in