Food prices: "While many worry about filling their gas tanks....

Forostar

Ancient Mariner
...many others around the world are struggling to fill their stomachs."

Great quote if you ask me! Is climate change more important than starvation?

Poor go hungry while rich fill their tanks

· IMF meeting World Bank condemns dash to biofuels
· Call for extra £250m in aid to grow more food

Rocketing global food prices are causing acute problems of hunger and malnutrition in poor countries and have put back the fight against poverty by seven years, the World Bank said yesterday.

Robert Zoellick, the Bank's president, called on rich countries to commit an extra $500m (£250m) immediately to the World Food Programme, and sign up to what he called a "New Deal for global food policy".

Zoellick said: "In the US and Europe over the last year we have been focusing on the prices of gasoline at the pumps. While many worry about filling their gas tanks, many others around the world are struggling to fill their stomachs. And it's getting more and more difficult every day."

He said the price of wheat had risen by 120% in the past year, more than doubling the cost of a loaf of bread. Rice prices were up by 75% in just two months. On average, the Bank calculates that food prices have risen by 83% in the past three years.

"In Bangladesh a 2kg bag of rice now consumes almost half of the daily income of a poor family. With little margin for survival, rising prices too often means fewer meals," he said. Poor people in Yemen were now spending more than a quarter of their income on bread. "This is not just about meals forgone today, or about increasing social unrest, it is about lost learning potential for children and adults in the future, stunted intellectual and physical growth. Even more, we estimate that the effect of this food crisis on poverty reduction worldwide is in the order of seven lost years."

The Bank's analysis chimes with research from the International Monetary Fund which shows that Africa will be the hardest hit continent from rising food prices. More than 20 African countries will see their trade balance worsen by more than 1% of GDP through having to pay more for food.

Gordon Brown, the prime minister, has written to his Japanese counterpart, Yasuo Fukuda, who is chairman of the G8 industrialised countries, calling for a "fully-co-ordinated response" to the food crisis.

Zoellick welcomed Brown's initiative, and said this weekend's meetings of the World Bank and the IMF had to do more than simply identify the scale of the crisis.

"This is about recognising a growing emergency, acting and seizing opportunity too. The world can do this. We can do this," he said. "We cannot be satisfied with studies, and papers, and talk." As well as the $500m contribution to the World Food Programme, there should be an expansion in safety-net programmes for poor communities. Zoellick also called for a boost to long-term financial support to aid production. "We must make agriculture a priority."

The Bank plans to double its loans to agriculture projects in developing countries in 2008, to $800m.

Riots have broken out in several countries, including Mexico and India, as a response to the rapid rise in the cost of basic foodstuffs over the past 12 months. A number of governments have imposed export bans on commodities, to try to bring prices under control. Zoellick warned against such protectionist responses.

He was also critical of the dash to grow crops for biofuels. The US and EU have encouraged wider use of such fuels to try to tackle climate change and provide an alternative to oil, but the policy has sometimes diverted agricultural land away from food and exacerbated price rises.

Zoellick criticised the subsidies and import tariffs used to promote wider use of the fuels.

Liz Stuart, spokeswoman for Oxfam, said: "Europe and the US must stop adding fuel to fire by increasing crop production for biofuels. These have dubious environment benefits, and by driving up prices, are crippling the lives of the poor."
 
I've noticed many topics here recently share a similar theme.

The four horsemen appear to be saddled up and riding....
 
You mean I might to get to see 'Rockin' Is Ma Business...' live?

Seriously, it is an issue.  However, as to my comment in the other thread about the grass used for ethanol (switch grass, I had it wrong before)-- there is talk of letting farmers grow it on their CRP ground, which is the ground they are paid to 'not farm'.  There is still a 'gaffe' because that ground is for 'wild life' so the eco 'people' are having a fit.  They want better air, and less natural resources used, but they don't want their spotted hoot owl refuge grass to be cut.  The choices that have to be made to drive my car!
 
Well I guess it's just time to trim the human herd. This, I believe is fast approaching.
 
It's high time to trim the human herd. The problem with switching to Biofuels is that it increases greenhouse gases because of the change since land has to be cleared in order to grow the stuff. There's a very interesting article on this, I'll try to upload it or something. Anyway, so my theory is it's time to stop reproducing, I think we've reached the carrying capacity for humans on this earth and if we don't start doing something about it, mother nature will.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/319/5867/1238?ck=nck

Edit: Sorry thats just a summary.
 
I had always seen this as a misallocation of resources.  Really, there has got to be a better way to do what we are doing, as far as growing and producing food.  I know it is 'crowded' here, but I don't see that stopping anytime soon. 
 
Agreed, and I know the article you are referring to. It described the domino effect that biofuels are creating and thus contributing to the rape of the Amazon rain forest. I mentioned that in another thread.

Amazing how this is paralleling the 100K thread right now. I just talked in there about my neutering.  :D I recommend it to anyone who already has kids, it will definitely help.

...and Japan is now out of butter.......

<knock, knock>

Hey Korea, its Japan, open the door man, I need to borrow a stick of butter...... we're trying to bake a cake over here....
 
Ha Ha!  Exactly!

Can you imagine what would happen here in the states with a 'one child law'?  ACLU would be going batshit all over the place, Catholics and Mormons would completely freak out (I can say that out of my vast knowledge and participation).  Imagine paying more taxes for kids, rather than less, and welfare checks being cut for too many kids, rather than expanded.
 
Mandatory child laws, gene splicing, cloning, superhuman/jellyfish hybrids..... where does it end? The future is scary.
 
Hey, these are the spiders out there in the world, shit's hitting the fan.... and I've just decided that 301 is a good post count for the day. I'm off to battle the gasoline protest truck convoy that's taking place around the Washington beltway now.  :blink:
 
Most of Europe (and the US, I believe), are to busy mending their careers to actually reproduce, so populations are stagnant. It's China and India and their likes we need to worry about, as their demand for living standards comparable to ours is bringing food supplies to its knees. If all of the world was to share the goods equally amongst all people, we'd be living on next to nothing, struggling for our daily meals. The logic in less developed countires (say, Africa), is that if you spawn enough offspring, they'll be there to support you in old age. Problem is, there's little to no food to go around as it is, so bringing in more people hardly helps. But you can't battle the human survival instinct, so what are we to do? Keep pumping food aid their way at an ever-increasing rate? I see this as suppression in a less obvious way than colonies, but it's still suppression. I surely don't have a solution for this, but I think the old "give a man a fish" applies.

Are we, in the west, living too well? If our main concern on a day-to-day basis is if Paris Hilton got a new dress, and not if our family is doing well and have what they need to survive, I'd say that's a yes. We have surplus to share. As long as we don't use it to dominate nations by making them dependent on us, I think we should share.

Oh, and I think hippies should stop hugging trees and wake up to the real world. You can be as holy as you like, but only because you're fortunate enough to have been born into a world that allows you so. If you're wealthy enough to live as a vegetarian by choice, you should get your head checked. Vegetarianism is for people living in regions with no wildlife and only vegetation to live on, period. Did I mention I don't like vegetarians?  :P
 
Actually, being a vegetarian (or at least eating less meat especially of the red variety) is better for the environment and conserves energy. It takes much more water to produce a pound of beef than it does to produce the same amount of any given vegetable.

On a similar note, yes we in the West live too well and it is our responsibility as human beings to share. Of course we must be careful not to make developing countries dependent on us, but thats solved by helping with things actively, as in, giving the funds to a specific thing such as infrastructure or going in and helping the locals to build houses instead of pouring money for corrupt government officials to spend on acquiring the latest Mercedes.
 
I have no facts to back this up with, but it seems, IMO, that some of the post industrialiized countries like having all these third world, developing countries to take advantage of.  You will see 'humanitarian efforts' to look good, sending food and what not to these places, but on the whole, many of these places would look like Florida if any of the 'first world' countries really wanted to have it be so. 
 
Natalie said:
Actually, being a vegetarian (or at least eating less meat especially of the red variety) is better for the environment and conserves energy. It takes much more water to produce a pound of beef than it does to produce the same amount of any given vegetable.
True, but my point was that if you're lucky enough to have the choice, you need to lay off the "holier than thou" attitude. People in Africa don't have the luxury of choosing between several different meals each day, they're lucky to even get one.
 
I have no facts to back this up with, but it seems, IMO, that some of the post industrialiized countries like having all these third world, developing countries to take advantage of.

Of course we like it, its human nature to feel good about your situation if you are the one sitting fat and not the one suffering. And then yes, then you have the option to try and give the struggling party some of your good fortune to try and expunge some of the guilt you feel for being in a better situation.

I'm getting ready to buy a new house, because I'm rich?, ...no. Because the market is good for it and I have been responsible in taking care of my credit. Do I feel guilty about this?, ... not at all, I've earned it.

Here's my contribution to the rest of the world in terms of food once I move in: I'm going to plant a garden. That way, I will buy fewer vegetables at the store. These vegetables that I don't buy are welcome to any third world country in the world that wants them. Could it really be that easy?
 
No.  The pressures of the free market are very much to blame for a lot of what we see here.  Simply put, the West can pay for such food far easier than the developing world.  While planting a garden may reduce your costs of living somewhat, the companies will (in the end) recoup their profit margins by passing your lack of sales onto their other customers via price increases.

It's the same with gasoline.  People are moving away from gas-guzzlers and carpooling more.  The price of gas is going higher and higher, as gas companies attempt to recoup their "losses".  People are also turning away from gas for ethanol, the demand for which has reduced the availability of certain food staples like flour and beans.  That has created a cut in supply, increasing demand for the remaining produced units.

Really, this all comes down to two things.

1. The world is not out of food.  It's not even close to out of food.  The world's food resources are poorly managed.  This includes the ridiculous amount of consumption in the West compared to the developing world.  It also includes the idiocy of primary ethanol.

2. Gas companies in the United States (from whence the global price of gasoline is derived) have created an artificial monopoly.  Thanks, of course, to the fact that they have had no regulation in the past 7-8 years for some strange reason.  Indeed, the price of oil is high, but also the gas companies are taking a record profit every year.  Think about it.
 
Right, all of that is well known. I can do nothing about that.

The underlying point here being: So many people complain that nobody is doing anything to help correct the problems of the world. When someone comes forward to do whatever little they can to try and help the situation (which as an individual, isn't much), the same people complain that that won't make a difference and why try? If enough people, collectively, acted as one in some consolidated effort, then maybe the impact would be great enough to make a difference. I'm still planting my garden. It may not mean a thing, but I'll feel better about it and I'll have fresh vegetables.

Here's a great example of good initiative but bad judgment: Yesterday a bunch of truckers got together to drive slow around the Washington D.C. beltway in an effort to disrupt traffic (even more than the total shit it already is). This was to protest the rising cost of fuel which, granted, truckers are taking the brunt of in their wallets. The irony here, at least to me, is the fact of protesting gas prices by wasting a ton more of it, both in the trucks and in the cars that are running less efficiently now because of the traffic jam.
 
Deano said:
Right, all of that is well known. I can do nothing about that.

The underlying point here being: So many people complain that nobody is doing anything to help correct the problems of the world. When someone comes forward to do whatever little they can to try and help the situation (which as an individual, isn't much), the same people complain that that won't make a difference and why try? If enough people, collectively, acted as one in some consolidated effort, then maybe the impact would be great enough to make a difference. I'm still planting my garden. It may not mean a thing, but I'll feel better about it and I'll have fresh vegetables.

Here's a great example of good initiative but bad judgment: Yesterday a bunch of truckers got together to drive slow around the Washington D.C. beltway in an effort to disrupt traffic (even more than the total shit it already is). This was to protest the rising cost of fuel which, granted, truckers are taking the brunt of in their wallets. The irony here, at least to me, is the fact of protesting gas prices by wasting a ton more of it, both in the trucks and in the cars that are running less efficiently now because of the traffic jam.

My friend, I didn't say to not plant a garden.  I simply said it wasn't that simple.  I'm all about gardens.

And those truckers sound like what they are: the undereducated blue collar class of society that carries our very livelyhood around.  And who are at the brink of all going out of business suddenly thanks to the greed of the corporate wealthy, and unfortunately, those guys have no farking clue what to do about it.
 
A total driver strike would get attention. It would, at the least, get people to start paying attention to the state of the country's railroads.
 
Back
Top