June 3, 2008
Column: We cannot go on eating like this
It is all very awkward. China and India are getting richer. And it appears their new middle classes want all the things we want: cars, washing machines, even meat. Here in the west, we have to restrain ourselves from saying: “Stop. You can’t live like us. The planet can’t stand it. And our wallets can’t stand it. Have you seen the price of petrol?”
Global equity is the awkward issue lying behind the world food crisis. In the long run, it will also prove fundamental to discussions on energy and global warming.
But, for the moment, this difficult, abstract issue is largely obscured by the urgency of finding practical solutions to rising food prices.
The remainder of this column can be read here. Please post comments below.
My question after reading this material is why, when some ayatollah calls Bush a “Great Satan” do people call the ayatollah an extremist, a radical or a nut? I have no idea who is keeping score on this, but what does a person have to do to be considered officially evil or a “Satan”? Starting a war that kills hundreds of thousands of people isn’t enough? Now it turns out he wants to starve 2.7 billion desperately poor people living on less than two bucks a day, just so some shopaholic who looks like the back end of a sumo wrestler can fill the tank of his SUV.
The “Last Days” crowd are hunting all over for the “Anti-Christ”… Looks like they already voted for him.
Posted by: David Seaton | June 3rd, 2008 at 7:12 am | Report this comment.
beside the obvious hypocrisy mentioned in the first paragraph , and which don’t disturb me in the slightest , the main problem remain ….6.7 billions people .
The food energy and power energy is the same crisis ,
the food production of the green revolution is based on carbon energy , a bit under 90% of all our consumption .
Beside the vagarity of the weather and the lose of good farming land , the oil crisis , the coming gas crisis and the depletion of this old war horse coal will ineluctably bring us to sustainability .
The world can support one billion .. top !
I.E. some 6 billions are scheduled for termination over the coming century ,there is no alternative and no escape , it’s not going to be pretty .
We are like willie coyote chasing the road runner of happiness over the cliff , this moment of ballistic rest before gravity bring us back to a reality check .
.
Posted by: jeannick | June 3rd, 2008 at 9:44 am | Report this commentYou’re right that asking China, India and other emerging economies to stay poor is a total non-starter (politically as well as morally) - but on the other hand (as your article also makes clear), the problem is that the burgeoning global middle class also risks leaving the world’s poor in an untenable position, now that supplies of energy, food, water, land and ‘airspace’ for our emissions are all getting scarce. Moises Naim asked in a recent LA Times editorial whether the world could afford a middle class (http://tinyurl.com/597kz9) - he might have asked whether the poor can afford one, too.
On climate change, at least, we’ve known for a while where the debate needs to go. Given that stabilising the climate will necessarily entail sharing out a safe global ‘emissions budget’, we can’t duck the question of how to share such a budget out - and, by extension, how to satisfy the different equity claims of both emerging economies and least developed countries. How to do that? In a nutshell, through enshrining the principle of fair shares to the global common resource of the atmosphere through a process of convergence to equal per capita emission rights by some agreed date (2030, 2050, the day after tomorrow - whatever countries can hammer out). More and more people in the climate debate are now accepting that proposition (Nick Stern being a notable recent convert), and discussion of it ought to figure heavily on the road to next year’s Copenhagen summit.
With food, though, it’s as you say much harder to see how the principle of fair shares can be operationalised. At this week’s UN food summmit (from where I write) the demand side effects of changing diet patterns aren’t even being talked about seriously, even though most analysts agree they’re the most important driver of rising food prices (http://tinyurl.com/5hccj3).
Still, one starting point would be to get some basic analytical tools up on the web. If I want to calculate my lifestyle’s carbon footprint, there are any number of websites that will allow me to do just that - and to see whether I’m living within or beyond my ‘fair share’ of the atmosphere.
But if I look for a calculator to figure out my diet’s “grain footprint” - the amount of wheat, corn and other cereals needed not just for my daily bread, but (more significantly) the meat, dairy products and processed food in my western diet - I draw a blank. As a result, I’ve no way of telling whether (like the man in the cartoon you refer to in your column) I’m taking food out of someone else’s food bowl, or being a responsible consumer and living within my fair share.
Now exactly a comprehensive global solution, it’s true; but if global food supply fails to keep pace with demand growth - forecast by the World Bank to rise by 50% by 2030 - then a pretty relevant piece of the puzzle.
Posted by: Alex Evans | June 3rd, 2008 at 9:51 am | Report this commentJust two comments:
1) Equity? Since when did equity enter into the equation? We may pray for equitable food distribution, as many people always have, but local politics have ruled, everywhere from India to Saudi Arabia, to European Ag Policy, to America. If you are looking for global equity in food then you are looking for global price control and we know what that does to ag policy (i.e. Africa). I have not seen, what existed in my childhood, major food scarcity, except in those nations where it has always existed (e.g. Sahel). What I have seen is that all are having to choose between driving their excessive cars, reducing their excessive consumption of non-essential goods, to eat. And that is not a bad thing for the adjustment of our global economies;
2) Some years ago, some of us argued for a high tax on fuel in the United States as a “market” restriction on SUVs and the like. Now the market is performing what we should have done earlier. And thus there is a readjustment. But, as I argue above, so be it, the SUVs will go away, the three - six car families will disappear, and we will think twice before going for that drive in the country. Malls might shrink and the level of general consumption might fall, say (to pull a number out of the air) 25%, but that is not a bad thing for the middle class in developing lands.
We will go on a diet and readjust.
Posted by: Miles Wortman | June 3rd, 2008 at 11:23 am | Report this commentGideon,
Your latest blog post makes grim reading.
What it really exposes is the unsustainability of the present system of unfettered and exploitative capitalism. An economic system that allows the three wealthiest individuals in the world to accumulate as much personal wealth as the poorest 48 countries combined is bound to have disastrous consequences.
Contrary to jeannick’s claim, the world can support many billions of inhabitants, but not as we currently live. The scale of consumption enjoyed by Western societies for the last 50 years has been nothing short of gluttony. At the same time the poorest have sunk into hitherto unthought levels of poverty and desperation. Just look at the downward trajectory of African economies since the end of direct colonialism for evidence.
But there is no reason why the poor of the world can’t be fed, even with the current levels of food production in the world. Let’s not forget that in Europe and the USA farmers are still paid to leave perfectly productive land fallow. The potential is there, it’s just that the profit motivation is not.
Granted, newly rich countries cannot expect to be able to pillage the earth’s resources as we have for the last 200 years. But we must not preach to developing countries about sustainability without leading from the front, otherwise they will justifiably treat us with disdain.
Unfortunately there is currently no motivation towards sustainability, as business simply seeks to maximise its profit in the short term to satisfy shareholders. Hence, before we can be sustainable, feed the poorest, and generally be a nicer, happier world, we need to think of a radically new and better way to structure our economies.
All the best,
Damien
http://spoolzofthought.wordpress.com
Posted by: Damien the old photocopy boy | June 3rd, 2008 at 11:25 am | Report this commentThe food and energy crises are the result of weakening government power over the last fifty years. Prior to World War 2, governments ran countries and directed industrial and social policy to achieve their objectives. This included fostering industries (for example ship-building in Germany or farming in France) or encouraging people to have more or less children (China being an extreme example). Since govenments went onto the corporate payroll and big business replaced elected officials as the chief policy making group we have prioritised economic growth at all costs.
The measures that could reduce the problem are obvious but not profitable for big businesses that donate to US and European political parties. They might include:
• All new cars to be powered by hybrid engines within 24 months – easily achievable, but American and European manufacturers would have to buy engines from Toyota and Honda.
• All diversion of crops and land for bio fuels to be halted within 6 months – easily achievable, but American and European governments would have to continue to depend on the Middle East for oil supplies (it might even encourage them to work harder to bring peace and stability to the region).
• Research into alternative fuels to be immediately assisted by government tax breaks and grants even if the oil industry doesn’t like it.
• All vehicle engines above 2.0 litres in size to be subject to a ‘super tax’ of $1000 or more.
• European and US governments to hit the targets that they set themselves for recycling – not just in 5 years time but starting next month. Use funds from the auto ‘super tax’ to pay for sorting of materials in recycle cans to reduce contamination for example when the wrong colour glass is mixed in (often only 10% of the materials sent for recycling actually are re-used because of the contamination problem).
• Europe and US both to immediately remove farm subsidies that prevent farmers in Afrca, Asia and South American from exporting their affordable foods to first world markets.
• Transporting of freight goods by rail, sea or canal to be supported with government grants and tax breaks while transportation by road is heavily taxed.
• All governments to invest at least 10% of their budgets in free public transport starting today (yes, really free).
• Encourage cycling by putting a bike lane on every road in every major city – as wide as a bus lane. Even if it makes congestion worse for people in cars.
• These kind of initaitves are obvious to anyone who thinks about the challenges for more than a few minutes. But they’re unlikely to happen because big business (most importantly in Europe and the US) doesn’t benefit.
There would be a transfer of power away from a handful of mega-corporations and more reward for smaller or more innovative companies that have solve environmental problems. Food is still going to cost more and oil prices will rise to (one day) above $200 a barrel. But we will be doing all we can to reduce the size of the problem and then at least government can say that it is not the slave of big business. Young people might even start to have enough faith in them to vote again!
Posted by: Jason Fitzgerald | June 3rd, 2008 at 1:04 pm | Report this commentPerhaps it is also worth noting that the rate of increase in food production, having been about 2% a year, is now expected by the USDA to decline to about 1% over the next decade. Since world population is now increasing at slightly faster than this, the consequences are easy to predict. As Jeffrey Sachs has repeatedly said, the urgent imperative is to improve agricultural productivity in poorer nations, particularly in Africa.
http://www.carboncommentary.com/2008/06/03/85#more-85
Posted by: Chris Goodall | June 3rd, 2008 at 1:39 pm | Report this commentDon’t want to get all cyclic on everyone but the last time we had a scare like this was–wait a minute!–the late 1970s a few years before oil finally topped at $50 in 1980 (? not sure) on its way to $10 in 1985 (sure on that).
If food prices stay high enough for long enough, the food will be forthcoming. And the problem with a famine is never the abundance (or lack) or food. Famine is usually a problem of distribution: getting the food to the starving hinterlands. Thus the urbanisation we’ve seen in China and India, the migration of the peasantry to the cities, actually mitigates against the worst of any famine. It’s much easier to distribute food to city dwellers than to those in the remote countryside.
Still, not to be echo Candide too much, as it’s not the best of all possible worlds. We don’t think too much about it in the UK (having just swum through spring) but water resources in both China and India are already stretched. Drought is very possible in central China and its effects will be hard to alleviate.
So: situation of food supplies: not serious. No threat of famine. Situation of water supplies: serious, could at some point be critical. Situation of oil: well, we all know that.
Posted by: MaryCunningham | June 3rd, 2008 at 2:54 pm | Report this commentPS: the migration of the Indian and Chinese peasantry to urban areas also limits population growth. Fertility rates are low among an urban population. It’s Cunningham’s first law of demography. Want a smaller population? Encourage your young adults to live in cities.
Posted by: MaryCunningham | June 3rd, 2008 at 3:00 pm | Report this commentA win-win scenario for Monsanto and GM crops?
Posted by: J.J. | June 3rd, 2008 at 3:39 pm | Report this commentWhen I see packets of rice from the USA piled up high in a supermarket here, that’s what crosses my mind.
Yes, let’s all be communists and have global price controls with corrupt UN/3rd World governments pulling a Mugabe on us all!
Wasn’t the Soviet Union constantly having to be bailed out by imported grain from America?
Get the Israelis in the case: if they could make the desert bloom on a shoestring, maybe they can do something about those vast, unproductive wastes in Africa…
Posted by: Shevvers | June 3rd, 2008 at 3:52 pm | Report this commentI am not sure that the Africans, Chinese or Indians would welcome the Israelis but, then again, I am not so sure that the Israelis made the desert bloom on a shoestring–looked at the US foreign aid budget lately? 20% to Israel, and has been for years. Some shoestring!
Posted by: MaryCunningham | June 3rd, 2008 at 5:02 pm | Report this commentI think a good place to start would be to stop wasting food.In the UK, a shocking 30-40% of all food is never eaten. In the last decade the amount we binned went up by 15%. Every year each of us throws away over £400 worth of food - that’s £20 billion pounds overall.A 10 year study has shown that 40-50% of all food in the US ready for harvest never gets eaten.
Posted by: Bruce | June 3rd, 2008 at 5:05 pm | Report this commentThese numbers are just sick! I am not sure of other western countries but am pretty sure this is a chronic problem.
Public awareness, education(starting from schools) would help.
Better logistics and storage in developing countries like India will save millions of tonnes of food rotting in warehouses.
Not saying that this will solve the so called food crisis, but at some point we have to get wise about our habits.
Lets do the simple things right first!
Shevvers,
the water, oil and greenhouse gas capacity of the planet are all being used up at a rate that makes your suggestion impractical.
Even before the ‘food crisis’ hit, a billion people were going hungry - yet there were no headlines about the ‘hunger crisis’ or the ‘poverty crisis’…
Posted by: David | June 3rd, 2008 at 5:14 pm | Report this commentMary, the aid to Israel is military. Unless you are suggesting that Israel has been bombing water out of the desert the “aid” - aka military credits - isn’t relevent.
Furthermore, Israel IS recognised as a leader in hydroponics and in desalination. Furthermore, Israel HAS very large trade links with most African nations, China and India. Africa in particular has been a large trading partner of Israel for decades.
A significant portion of the “starving billion” are doing so because of their incompetent and inconsiderate governments. Many of the mass famines of the last decades have been man-made, whether the Ethiopian and Somali famine as a result of civil war, Mao’s great leap forward, Lenin and Trotsky’s de-kulakisation, Mugabe’s “redistribution” of farms or post-independence African nations wanting to industrialise because that’s gives prestige and who cares if it destroys their economy.
As for food prices, I see on the way to work we are selling agricultural funds to retail - traditionally a sign of the top of the market.
Posted by: Danny | June 3rd, 2008 at 5:31 pm | Report this commentMary, on the other hand your comments at 2:54 and 3pm are spot on. One addition, in dollar constant terms oil in 1980 or 81 was 101USD.
One minor quibble, the “peasants” are the people growing the food in China….
Posted by: Danny | June 3rd, 2008 at 5:45 pm | Report this commentCuriously hundreds of fishermen in my region (Galicia, Northwestern Spain) were throwing fish back to the Ocean because the price was too low for them.
Fish, milk, grain….thousands of tonnes are being lost every year because its price is considered too low by farmers and fishermen.
Posted by: Enrique | June 3rd, 2008 at 6:06 pm | Report this commentDanny,
Re: Chinese peasantry. The productivity of the avg. peasant/agricultural labourer/small farmer–not up on pc stuff,what’s the right word?–is unfortunately very low. Migration of the peasantry/ag labourer/smallfarmer to the cities actually_improves_agricultural productivity. You can look at the European and American examples of this. I wouldn’t think the Chinese are any different.
Re: desalinisation
This tends to be a very intensive user of energy and with $100 & upwards oil I would say not v. efficient. Additionally the worrisome areas of China are deep in the interior–far from the sea. Guess the water shortage is as dependant on distribution as a food shortage is in a famine.
Re: US aid to Israel
Well, as I see it it all goes into the same pot. Not having to spend on military aid frees up resources for other needs. I know pre 1994 Israel had a close relationship with South Africa, but I am not sure that it endured after the ANC took power.
IMHO water is/will be the main problem in future.
We shall see.
Posted by: MaryCunningham | June 3rd, 2008 at 6:21 pm | Report this commentI think when people say that rising food prices have anything to do with rising incomes in India then they are wrong. Because no doubt people in India are getting richer and they want and are living like middle classes in west, but in food there is a clear distinction. Majority of Indian middle class is vegetarian, leave alone the middle class even the Indian billionares are pure vegetrarian.
Posted by: Anku Sharma | June 3rd, 2008 at 7:29 pm | Report this commentAnd, after all, India is an exporter of grain…
Posted by: Enrique | June 3rd, 2008 at 9:31 pm | Report this commentMary Cunningham, just a slight reality check about Israel making the desert bloom on a shoestring. I am no knee jerk supporter of Israel and am firmly opposed to the illegal settlements, Gaza blockade, Likud party, etc., etc.
But it is true that Israel made the desert bloom on a shoestring, back in the 1950’s when I visited there several times during my student years. Aid from America was a lot smaller than it is now, I am quite sure in real terms as well. Life was austere, not only on the kibbutzim, but in the cities as well.
There was no place in Israel that was more than a few miles away from the border with Jordan (remember, this was before 1967) and the contrast between the green on the Israeli side and the parched earth on the Jordanian side was so stark as almost to give one a physical sense of shock.
I do not know what things are like now. It has been almost 50 years since my last visit to Israel, and, to be honest, I think that that part of the world, while of course important, is a good deal less significant than a lot of places that we hear almost nothing about in America.
How many Americans, for example, know about the demonstrations going on now in Thailand? How many would be able to find Thailand on a map? Or Asia? or Europe? or Canada?
Or Mexico? Ah, there I think almost everybody could give the right answer, thanks to Lou Dobbs and the Minutemen.
But the subject of this blog was food, or so I seem to recall. Most of the above posts are focused on the important issue of demand in developing countries, but I do not see much comment about the US side of the ledger, even though GR mentions this as well. As everyone knows, there is a terrible epidemic of obesity in America, including among children. It is a major health issue.
Certainly, proposals to deal with the international food crisis could also include vigorous measures aimed at persuading Americans (voluntarily, of course) to eat less for the sake of their own health, safety and longetivity.
In the past decade or so, there has been considrable progress in this direction. But there are powerful business interests opposed. This is unlikely to change any time soon.
Posted by: algasema | June 3rd, 2008 at 11:23 pm | Report this commentMary, I don’t know any specific figures on chinese agricultural productivity but I am not entirely sure how having less people makes the remainder MORE productive. As long as each one produces more than he/she consumes there is a net gain and with one billion people… well, i think this says it perfectly!:
http://www.despair.com/achievement.html
Posted by: Danny | June 4th, 2008 at 1:00 am | Report this commentIt looks you’ve not done your home work. Go and check the numbers first…
http://discussionleader.hbsp.com/krishnamurthy/2008/05/the-global-food-crisis.html?cm_mmc=npv-_-listserv-_-MAY_2008-_-Globalbus
Americans and their endless consumption has screwed up the world…
One who creates the mess has to clean it up too..this is a simple law of nature…don’t ask or expect India or China to clean your shit…
Posted by: Suya Gagan | June 4th, 2008 at 1:28 am | Report this commentalgasema, in constant dollar terms Israel between 1949 and 1961 received 3.5bn USD, mostly agricultural. Egypt got just under 2bn USD same timeframe.
Figures from USAID green book and are constant dollar.
Posted by: Danny | June 4th, 2008 at 1:58 am | Report this commentRe: agricultural productivity
Danny, small holding plots are the worst way to feed a family, a province or a country. Many examples, the most recent the EU, previously the US.
Take the example of the US today, (roughly) 1.7% work in agriculture and the country is a big net exporter. The movement out of the farming sector began about 1870, the more people left the land the more agricultural production increased. Same thing in the EU as well, only later: grain mountains, wine lakes &tc.
The movement in China from the country to the city is essential for greater agricultural production. I don’t know about migration patterns in India, maybe someone could enlighten.
Posted by: MaryCunningham | June 4th, 2008 at 8:28 am | Report this commentDear Gideon Rachman,
Do you know what these good folks had for dinner, after a tiring day of discussing food shortages and the possibility of famine?
The bitter herbs or the fatted calf?
Yours,
Posted by: MaryCunningham | June 4th, 2008 at 8:48 am | Report this commentMary C.
Mr. Rachman is correct that technological changes appear to make a difference at the margin only and the essence of the social contract between the governments and the people (in both democratic and authoritarian states)is the promise of ever-increasing consumption in return for the consent to govern.
The first worlders won’t give up what they have(look at the Americans’ so-called addiction to oil) and the others want what the first-worlders have, with the plausible argument that the biggest consumers should give up the most consumption.
Absent some kind of miraculous and world-wide Damascene Conversion, I think there is every reason to feel pessimistic about the future of our planet.
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | June 4th, 2008 at 4:45 pm | Report this commenthttp://www.campaigniran.org/casmii/
Wrong. The markets will solve this as they always have: prices will go up, consumption patterns will change, new technologies will mean new solutions. The miracle of the invisible hand.
Posted by: RCS | June 4th, 2008 at 5:48 pm | Report this commentyes, if it is profitable it will be produced as every farmer knows…after all farmers are enterpreneurs and farming is a business as any other.
Posted by: Enrique | June 4th, 2008 at 6:00 pm | Report this commentGR”Alex Evans of New York University suggests that these global inequalities mean that it might be more useful to think about “food democracy” than about “food security”.”
“Food Democracy”… what a wonderful and challenging concept to craft and implement….
Policies promoting “Food Democracy” would look very different from those of “Food Security”
in some ways famine is easier to address than what is currently going on…we have real serious “hunger” in the US and around the globe among the working poor…
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | June 4th, 2008 at 7:22 pm | Report this commentI should say that credit for the distinction between food democracy and food security belongs not to me but to Professor Tim Lang, from City University, who (like me) also works on food at Chatham House. His lecture on food democracy and food security from December last year is well worth a look - see http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/pn78p12-16.pdf.
Posted by: Alex Evans | June 4th, 2008 at 10:34 pm | Report this commentAlex,
Thank You for the link ! I was just trying to put together a a reading list for myself on the subject.
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | June 4th, 2008 at 10:52 pm | Report this commentMary, that you move people out of agriculture and into cities - where they continue to consume but not produce - would be a mono-causal reason for total agricultural production to go up makes no sense to me. On the other hand, I know exactly zero about the subject, so even if you know next to nothing then you know more than me!
PS for the record had onion soup and a really good fillet steak…
Posted by: Danny | June 5th, 2008 at 3:36 am | Report this commentDanny, I know a fair amount about this. It’s a question of scale. One large agricultural unit of 100 hectares produces, say, 100 bushels of wheat, ten small units of ten hectares produce (same area) would be lucky to produce 10. The consumption of the smallholders (we won’t call them peasants) remains roughly similar whereever they are, say, about 10 bushels. The country is thus better of by 80 bushels of wheat, they can store about 20 (for a rainy, well, since drought is the problem for a nonrainy) and export the rest.
You can see the effect in reverse in Zimbabwe where large, efficient farms were broken up and divided into smallholding, undercapitalized plots. The country rather quickly has gone from exporting grain to importing to–today–starving. The whole process is terribly sad.
I don’t think they had steak–lots of Indians there. No pork either: Muslims. Rice and a few vegetables?
Posted by: MaryCunningham | June 5th, 2008 at 8:43 am | Report this commentWell, I know the economics of specialisation but can’t subtract. Country would be better off by 90 bushels–seems too much though. Stick with 80 and bump up the consumption to 20.
Still, the interesting question remains: what do you serve the good and great after a conference on famine and food shortages? Lentils? Pasta and beans?
Posted by: MaryCunningham | June 5th, 2008 at 8:48 am | Report this commentMary - how about bark?
Hear people in the DPRK swear by it!
Posted by: Danny | June 5th, 2008 at 5:32 pm | Report this commentGideon
The World Bank’s pathetic reaction to the global food crisis would be sad were it not terrifying. The World Bank is one of the world’s biggest contributers to climate change by financing huge new coal projects in India, China and elsewhere, financing vast cattle ranches in the Amazon forest region, pushing oil palm plantations and other agrifuel production worldwide, and by cutting down GHG-absorbing forests. The World Bank’s contribution to climate change should begin with halting all their coal finance and promote wind and solar as fast as practicable. The Bank should stop their US$2Billion livestock financing, and their support for agrifuels and commercial logging in tropical forests. Also, how helpful is it to call on others (e.g.,sovereign wealth funds)to pay for the damage the Bank is causing?
Posted by: Robert Goodland | July 18th, 2008 at 8:41 pm | Report this comment