Giant Leap newsletter. Take a look!
http://www.treaty.org/
No carpenter would attempt to build a wooden house without a hammer. Yet, in more than half a century since the right to be free from hunger was established in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the world has struggled to end hunger without the similarly crucial tool of strong law. The valiant aid and development programs we've relied on instead have proven insufficient to eliminate malnutrition, which still yields an annual death rate far exceeding that of the Nazi genocide machinery during World War II, and afflicts almost 800 million others. And it's not just the malnourished dying slow deaths who suffer - hunger also fuels overpopulation, which in turn inflicts corollary damage on the world's environment, economy, and urban, regional and international stability.
Famines and hunger are not inevitable necessities of nature. Widespread expert opinion holds that the planet has adequate food for all its inhabitants, and that famines and hunger are caused primarily by political conflict and detachment. As with other social ills like slavery and exploitation of the environment, the plague of hunger is sure to persist until legal safeguards against it are codified and enforced.
That's why hope is rising in many quarters for the prospects of the International Food Security Treaty (IFST). Based on existing international covenants, the IFST aims to establish enforcable international law guaranteeing the right to be free from hunger, and to oblige countries to establish their own related national laws. The IFST has been recognized as a crucial missing link in the world's efforts to eliminate hunger by leading figures in the United Nations, anti-hunger organizations, the U.S. Congress and courts system, and national religious groups.
These pages about the IFST will give you a glimpse of a vital new development in human history, through which anyone can help realize the world's potential to become more secure and just.
View the IFST Campaign flier and these pages to discover:
The Treaty Principles http://www.treaty.org/principles-English.html
The International Food Security Treaty http://www.treaty.org/treaty.html
Law as Catalyst in the Eradication of Hunger http://www.treaty.org/Catalyst.html
Declarations of Support http://www.treaty.org/support1.html
What You Can Do http://www.treaty.org/involvement.html
Saturday, October 31, 2009
How Long Can the World Feed Itself?
By Gwynne Dyer, 10 October 2006
http://www.gwynnedyer.com/articles/Gwynne%20Dyer%20article_%20%20Feeding%20the%20World.txt (2009-10-31)
We are still living off the proceeds of the Green Revolution, but
that hit diminishing returns twenty years ago. Now we live in a finely
balanced situation where world food supply just about meets demand, with no
reserve to cover further population growth. But the population will grow
anyway, and the world's existing grain supply for human consumption is
being eroded by three different factors: meat, heat and biofuels.
For the sixth time in the past seven years, the human race will
grow less food than it eats this year. We closed the gap by eating into
food stocks accumulated in better times, but there is no doubt that the
situation is getting serious. The world's food stocks have shrunk by half
since 1999, from a reserve big enough to feed the entire world for 116 days
then to a predicted low of only 57 days by the end of this year.
That is well below the official safety level, and there is no sign
that the downward trend is going to reverse. If it doesn't, then at some
point not too far down the road we reach the point of absolute food
shortages, and rationing by price kicks in. In other words, grain prices
soar, and the poorest start to starve.
The miracle that has fed us for a whole generation now was the
Green Revolution: higher-yielding crops that enabled us to almost triple
world food production between 1950 and 1990 while increasing the area of
farmland by no more than ten percent. The global population more than
doubled in that time, so we are now living on less than half the land per
person than our grandparents needed. But that was a one-time miracle, and
it's over. Since the beginning of the 1990s, crop yields have essentially
stopped rising.
The world's population continues to grow, of course, though more
slowly than in the previous generation. We will have to find food for the
equivalent of another India and another China in the next fifty years, and
nobody has a clue how we are going to do that. But the more immediate
problem is that the world's existing grain supply is under threat.
One reason we are getting closer to the edge is the diversion of
grain for meat production. As incomes rise, so does the consumption of
meat, and feeding animals for meat is a very inefficient way of using
grain. It takes between eleven and seventeen calories of food (almost all
grain) to produce one calorie of beef, pork or chicken, and the world's
production of meat has increased fivefold since 1950. We now get through
five billion hoofed animals and fourteen billion poultry a year, and it
takes slightly over a third of all our grain to feed them.
Then there's the heat. The most visible cause of the fall in world
grain production -- from 2.68 billion tonnes in 2004 to 2.38 billion tonnes
last year and a predicted 1.98 billion tonnes this year -- is droughts, but
there are strong suspicions that these droughts are related to climate
change.
Moreover, beyond a certain point hotter temperatures directly
reduce grain yields. Current estimates suggest that the yield of the main
grain crops drops ten percent, on average, for every one degree Celsius
that the mean temperature exceeds the optimum for that crop during the
growing season. Which may be why the average corn yield in the US reached a
record 8.4 tonnes per hectare in 1994, and has since fallen back
significantly.
Finally, biofuels. The idea is elegant: the carbon dioxide
absorbed when the crops are grown exactly equals the carbon dioxide
released when the fuel refined from those crops is burned, so the whole
process is carbon-neutral. And it would be fine if the land used to grow
this biomass was land that had no alternative use, but that is rarely the
case.
In South-East Asia, the main source of biofuels is oil palms, which
are mostly grown on cleared rainforest. In the United States, a "corn
rush" has been unleashed by government subsidies for ethanol, and so many
ethanol plants are planned or already in existence in Iowa that they could
absorb the state's entire crop of corn (maize, mealies). In effect, food
is being turned into fuel -- and the amount of ethanol needed to fill a big
four-wheel-drive SUV just once uses enough grain to feed one person for an
entire year.
There is a hidden buffer in the system, in the sense that some of
the grain now fed to animals could be diverted to feed people directly in
an emergency. On the other hand, the downward trend in grain production
will only accelerate if it is directly related to global warming. And the
fashion for biofuels is making a bad situation worse.
It's only in the past couple of centuries that a growing number of
countries have been able to stop worrying about whether there will be
enough food at the end of the harvest to make it through to next year. The
Golden Age may not last much longer.
_________________________________
Gwynne Dyer is a London-based independent journalist whose articles
are published in 45 countries.
http://www.gwynnedyer.com/articles/Gwynne%20Dyer%20article_%20%20Feeding%20the%20World.txt (2009-10-31)
We are still living off the proceeds of the Green Revolution, but
that hit diminishing returns twenty years ago. Now we live in a finely
balanced situation where world food supply just about meets demand, with no
reserve to cover further population growth. But the population will grow
anyway, and the world's existing grain supply for human consumption is
being eroded by three different factors: meat, heat and biofuels.
For the sixth time in the past seven years, the human race will
grow less food than it eats this year. We closed the gap by eating into
food stocks accumulated in better times, but there is no doubt that the
situation is getting serious. The world's food stocks have shrunk by half
since 1999, from a reserve big enough to feed the entire world for 116 days
then to a predicted low of only 57 days by the end of this year.
That is well below the official safety level, and there is no sign
that the downward trend is going to reverse. If it doesn't, then at some
point not too far down the road we reach the point of absolute food
shortages, and rationing by price kicks in. In other words, grain prices
soar, and the poorest start to starve.
The miracle that has fed us for a whole generation now was the
Green Revolution: higher-yielding crops that enabled us to almost triple
world food production between 1950 and 1990 while increasing the area of
farmland by no more than ten percent. The global population more than
doubled in that time, so we are now living on less than half the land per
person than our grandparents needed. But that was a one-time miracle, and
it's over. Since the beginning of the 1990s, crop yields have essentially
stopped rising.
The world's population continues to grow, of course, though more
slowly than in the previous generation. We will have to find food for the
equivalent of another India and another China in the next fifty years, and
nobody has a clue how we are going to do that. But the more immediate
problem is that the world's existing grain supply is under threat.
One reason we are getting closer to the edge is the diversion of
grain for meat production. As incomes rise, so does the consumption of
meat, and feeding animals for meat is a very inefficient way of using
grain. It takes between eleven and seventeen calories of food (almost all
grain) to produce one calorie of beef, pork or chicken, and the world's
production of meat has increased fivefold since 1950. We now get through
five billion hoofed animals and fourteen billion poultry a year, and it
takes slightly over a third of all our grain to feed them.
Then there's the heat. The most visible cause of the fall in world
grain production -- from 2.68 billion tonnes in 2004 to 2.38 billion tonnes
last year and a predicted 1.98 billion tonnes this year -- is droughts, but
there are strong suspicions that these droughts are related to climate
change.
Moreover, beyond a certain point hotter temperatures directly
reduce grain yields. Current estimates suggest that the yield of the main
grain crops drops ten percent, on average, for every one degree Celsius
that the mean temperature exceeds the optimum for that crop during the
growing season. Which may be why the average corn yield in the US reached a
record 8.4 tonnes per hectare in 1994, and has since fallen back
significantly.
Finally, biofuels. The idea is elegant: the carbon dioxide
absorbed when the crops are grown exactly equals the carbon dioxide
released when the fuel refined from those crops is burned, so the whole
process is carbon-neutral. And it would be fine if the land used to grow
this biomass was land that had no alternative use, but that is rarely the
case.
In South-East Asia, the main source of biofuels is oil palms, which
are mostly grown on cleared rainforest. In the United States, a "corn
rush" has been unleashed by government subsidies for ethanol, and so many
ethanol plants are planned or already in existence in Iowa that they could
absorb the state's entire crop of corn (maize, mealies). In effect, food
is being turned into fuel -- and the amount of ethanol needed to fill a big
four-wheel-drive SUV just once uses enough grain to feed one person for an
entire year.
There is a hidden buffer in the system, in the sense that some of
the grain now fed to animals could be diverted to feed people directly in
an emergency. On the other hand, the downward trend in grain production
will only accelerate if it is directly related to global warming. And the
fashion for biofuels is making a bad situation worse.
It's only in the past couple of centuries that a growing number of
countries have been able to stop worrying about whether there will be
enough food at the end of the harvest to make it through to next year. The
Golden Age may not last much longer.
_________________________________
Gwynne Dyer is a London-based independent journalist whose articles
are published in 45 countries.
GM seeds threaten food supply, claim researchers
By Caroline Scott-Thomas, 11-Sep-2009
http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Financial-Industry/GM-seeds-threaten-food-supply-claim-researchers
Related topics: Food prices, Financial & Industry, Cereals and bakery preparations
Modern seed companies are reducing crop diversity – and this could have serious consequences for food supply as the climate heats up, researchers claimed at the World Seed Conference in Rome this week.
This is the second time in a week that researchers have raised fears about the impact of climate change on crops. According to a study published online in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences last week, climate change could result in severe shortages of two of America’s most important grains – corn and soy. Although yields increase with temperature up to 29C for corn and 30C for soybeans, there is a sharp decline in yield above these thresholds, they said.
Now fresh concerns have been raised that food manufacturers could find it more difficult to source ingredients in the future, as researchers from the International Institute of Environment and Development (IIED) have suggested that large-scale seed companies could squeeze out traditional plant breeding.
The researchers argue that corporate control of the seed industry and widespread use of a relatively small number of seed varieties could mean that traditionally bred varieties for drought and pest resistance could be lost, with devastating consequences for food supply.
IIED project leader Krystyna Swiderska said: “Where farming communities have been able to maintain their traditional varieties, they are already using them to cope with the impacts of climate change. But more commonly, these varieties are being replaced by a smaller range of “modern” seeds that are heavily promoted by corporations and subsidized by governments. These seeds have less genetic diversity yet need more inputs such as pesticides and fertilizers and more natural resources such as land and water.”
http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Financial-Industry/GM-seeds-threaten-food-supply-claim-researchers
Related topics: Food prices, Financial & Industry, Cereals and bakery preparations
Modern seed companies are reducing crop diversity – and this could have serious consequences for food supply as the climate heats up, researchers claimed at the World Seed Conference in Rome this week.
This is the second time in a week that researchers have raised fears about the impact of climate change on crops. According to a study published online in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences last week, climate change could result in severe shortages of two of America’s most important grains – corn and soy. Although yields increase with temperature up to 29C for corn and 30C for soybeans, there is a sharp decline in yield above these thresholds, they said.
Now fresh concerns have been raised that food manufacturers could find it more difficult to source ingredients in the future, as researchers from the International Institute of Environment and Development (IIED) have suggested that large-scale seed companies could squeeze out traditional plant breeding.
The researchers argue that corporate control of the seed industry and widespread use of a relatively small number of seed varieties could mean that traditionally bred varieties for drought and pest resistance could be lost, with devastating consequences for food supply.
IIED project leader Krystyna Swiderska said: “Where farming communities have been able to maintain their traditional varieties, they are already using them to cope with the impacts of climate change. But more commonly, these varieties are being replaced by a smaller range of “modern” seeds that are heavily promoted by corporations and subsidized by governments. These seeds have less genetic diversity yet need more inputs such as pesticides and fertilizers and more natural resources such as land and water.”
The Carnivore’s Dilemma
By NICOLETTE HAHN NIMAN OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
NEW YORK TIMES
Published: October 30, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/31/opinion/31niman.html?pagewanted=2
IS eating a hamburger the global warming equivalent of driving a Hummer? This week an article in The Times of London carried a headline that blared: “Give Up Meat to Save the Planet.” Former Vice President Al Gore, who has made climate change his signature issue, has even been assailed for omnivorous eating by animal rights activists.
Related Times Topics: Factory Farming
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/f/factory_farming/index.html
NEW YORK TIMES
Published: October 30, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/31/opinion/31niman.html?pagewanted=2
IS eating a hamburger the global warming equivalent of driving a Hummer? This week an article in The Times of London carried a headline that blared: “Give Up Meat to Save the Planet.” Former Vice President Al Gore, who has made climate change his signature issue, has even been assailed for omnivorous eating by animal rights activists.
Related Times Topics: Factory Farming
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/f/factory_farming/index.html
Food and Population - Educational ideas
... mainly on population and women’s health.
By Bonnie Humber; submitted by Julia Morton-Marr 2009-10-29
Awareness, Knowledge, Empowerment and a Vehicle to pass the information on.
1. Use the already empowered women to empower other women on population issues.
2. Population is a women’s health issue.
3. In areas of poverty, use food to attract and deliver condoms and educational messages.
4. Encourage women’s meetings and dovetail sex-ed with other programs like they do with the Grameen Bank who give micro loans in Bangladesh.
5. Donate a goat to a family with a case of condoms.
6. Include Mothers and daughters in western countries in the process. The message must be personalized.
7. Have safe zones for girls in Africa so that female mutilation is never achieved.
8. Classrooms need a real sex-ed curriculum component as a regular subject, not an additional one.
9. Use Dance, Drama Presentations and Road Shows to invite participation in condom use.
10. Listen and ask women what they need and organize it for them. If they ask to a tubal ligation, give it to them. This only after them understanding why they should limit the size of their family.
Men
11. Conception education for men, invite them for a beer and give them a box of condoms.
12. Involve Fathers and sons, in the educational programs so that they understand the problems. They must understand the damage they can do to women.
13. Remove the myth that AIDS will cure men if they have sex with children under 5 years old.
14. Encourage same sex marriages, as they will not be children from these.
Government and Religious
15. The involvement of Churches and other Religious groups, as their members will follow if they understand the problems and they are presented well.
16. Governments need to ‘work with NGO’s’ wherever possible. One member of Parliament can make a huge difference.
Media & Laws
17. Use TV & Radio programs to get the message across.
18. Computer networking has amazing possibilities with the right messages.
19. Enforce laws that cover sexual criminal mis-conduct.
By Bonnie Humber; submitted by Julia Morton-Marr 2009-10-29
Awareness, Knowledge, Empowerment and a Vehicle to pass the information on.
1. Use the already empowered women to empower other women on population issues.
2. Population is a women’s health issue.
3. In areas of poverty, use food to attract and deliver condoms and educational messages.
4. Encourage women’s meetings and dovetail sex-ed with other programs like they do with the Grameen Bank who give micro loans in Bangladesh.
5. Donate a goat to a family with a case of condoms.
6. Include Mothers and daughters in western countries in the process. The message must be personalized.
7. Have safe zones for girls in Africa so that female mutilation is never achieved.
8. Classrooms need a real sex-ed curriculum component as a regular subject, not an additional one.
9. Use Dance, Drama Presentations and Road Shows to invite participation in condom use.
10. Listen and ask women what they need and organize it for them. If they ask to a tubal ligation, give it to them. This only after them understanding why they should limit the size of their family.
Men
11. Conception education for men, invite them for a beer and give them a box of condoms.
12. Involve Fathers and sons, in the educational programs so that they understand the problems. They must understand the damage they can do to women.
13. Remove the myth that AIDS will cure men if they have sex with children under 5 years old.
14. Encourage same sex marriages, as they will not be children from these.
Government and Religious
15. The involvement of Churches and other Religious groups, as their members will follow if they understand the problems and they are presented well.
16. Governments need to ‘work with NGO’s’ wherever possible. One member of Parliament can make a huge difference.
Media & Laws
17. Use TV & Radio programs to get the message across.
18. Computer networking has amazing possibilities with the right messages.
19. Enforce laws that cover sexual criminal mis-conduct.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Contraception cheapest way to combat climate change
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/6161742/Contraception-cheapest-way-to-combat-climate-change.html
Contraception is almost five times cheaper as a means of preventing climate change than conventional green technologies, according to research by the London School of Economics.
By Richard Pindar
Published: 12:05PM BST 09 Sep 2009
Comments 141
Comment on this article
UN data suggests that meeting unmet need for family planning would reduce unintended births by 72 per cent Photo: PA
Every £4 spent on family planning over the next four decades would reduce global CO2 emissions by more than a ton, whereas a minimum of £19 would have to be spent on low-carbon technologies to achieve the same result, the research says. The report, Fewer Emitter, Lower Emissions, Less Cost, concludes that family planning should be seen as one of the primary methods of emissions reduction. The UN estimates that 40 per cent of all pregnancies worldwide are unintended.
Contraception is almost five times cheaper as a means of preventing climate change than conventional green technologies, according to research by the London School of Economics.
By Richard Pindar
Published: 12:05PM BST 09 Sep 2009
Comments 141
Comment on this article
UN data suggests that meeting unmet need for family planning would reduce unintended births by 72 per cent Photo: PA
Every £4 spent on family planning over the next four decades would reduce global CO2 emissions by more than a ton, whereas a minimum of £19 would have to be spent on low-carbon technologies to achieve the same result, the research says. The report, Fewer Emitter, Lower Emissions, Less Cost, concludes that family planning should be seen as one of the primary methods of emissions reduction. The UN estimates that 40 per cent of all pregnancies worldwide are unintended.
connections of population growth to climate change
A Worldwatch Institute Blog
2009-10-21
Climate Change: What’s Suicide Got to Do With It?
Robert Engelman Dateline Copenhagen 2009-10-21
Predictably, the growing debate about the connections of population growth to climate change is growing ugly. The ever-provocative U.S. radio commentator Rush Limbaugh has publicly suggested that New York Times reporter Andrew Revkin take his own life to help out the environment.
Revkin had floated the idea of carbon credits for one-child families as “purely a thought experiment, not a proposal.” (Elena Marszalek of Worldwatch helped spread the idea by immediately blogging about it, an assist Revkin duly credited.) It could hardly be anything but a thought experiment, given that no country on earth has come close to instituting carbon credits of any kind for families or individuals. And for reasons that Limbaugh’s tasteless suggestion helps clarify, no government negotiator headed for the Copenhagen climate conference will touch population with a pole the length of a wind turbine rotor blade. The whole idea that human numbers have anything to do with the world’s climate change dilemma remains too prone to Limbaugh’s level of discourse for most of the over-stressed climate-change negotiating community even to contemplate.
Which is exactly why Revkin performed a public service in putting out the idea of carbon credits for small families—non-starter though it is. The public interest in the population connection to climate change is growing fast, and for understandable reasons. Obviously human beings, and no natural or non-human phenomenon, are responsible for the dramatic rise in the concentration of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution began. And just as obviously, the fact human population has grown well into the billions since then has a lot to do with the magnitude of the subsequent buildup of these gases. This is worth discussing, and was touched upon in State of the World 2009, but the conversation still has a long way to go before most climate negotiators and policymakers take it seriously. If Revkin can stand a call for his suicide, the rest of us can welcome more people thinking about the obviousness of the human and population connections to environmental degradation.
Revkin’s non-proposal is likely to be irrelevant anyway, once the world grapples seriously with climate change. The cost of living will probably rise as we phase out carbon-based energy, and even more so if we don’t—and we’ll suffer the climatic consequences as well. Modern parents respond to tough times by seeking to postpone childbearing. They’ll get plenty of economic incentives from life to want just one or maybe two children. What they’ll need—as Revkin recognizes—is good family planning services to make sure pregnancy happens only when a child is wanted. If Limbaugh weren’t so hungry for attention of any kind, he’d concede that none of this has anything to do with suicide.
2009-10-21
Climate Change: What’s Suicide Got to Do With It?
Robert Engelman Dateline Copenhagen 2009-10-21
Predictably, the growing debate about the connections of population growth to climate change is growing ugly. The ever-provocative U.S. radio commentator Rush Limbaugh has publicly suggested that New York Times reporter Andrew Revkin take his own life to help out the environment.
Revkin had floated the idea of carbon credits for one-child families as “purely a thought experiment, not a proposal.” (Elena Marszalek of Worldwatch helped spread the idea by immediately blogging about it, an assist Revkin duly credited.) It could hardly be anything but a thought experiment, given that no country on earth has come close to instituting carbon credits of any kind for families or individuals. And for reasons that Limbaugh’s tasteless suggestion helps clarify, no government negotiator headed for the Copenhagen climate conference will touch population with a pole the length of a wind turbine rotor blade. The whole idea that human numbers have anything to do with the world’s climate change dilemma remains too prone to Limbaugh’s level of discourse for most of the over-stressed climate-change negotiating community even to contemplate.
Which is exactly why Revkin performed a public service in putting out the idea of carbon credits for small families—non-starter though it is. The public interest in the population connection to climate change is growing fast, and for understandable reasons. Obviously human beings, and no natural or non-human phenomenon, are responsible for the dramatic rise in the concentration of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution began. And just as obviously, the fact human population has grown well into the billions since then has a lot to do with the magnitude of the subsequent buildup of these gases. This is worth discussing, and was touched upon in State of the World 2009, but the conversation still has a long way to go before most climate negotiators and policymakers take it seriously. If Revkin can stand a call for his suicide, the rest of us can welcome more people thinking about the obviousness of the human and population connections to environmental degradation.
Revkin’s non-proposal is likely to be irrelevant anyway, once the world grapples seriously with climate change. The cost of living will probably rise as we phase out carbon-based energy, and even more so if we don’t—and we’ll suffer the climatic consequences as well. Modern parents respond to tough times by seeking to postpone childbearing. They’ll get plenty of economic incentives from life to want just one or maybe two children. What they’ll need—as Revkin recognizes—is good family planning services to make sure pregnancy happens only when a child is wanted. If Limbaugh weren’t so hungry for attention of any kind, he’d concede that none of this has anything to do with suicide.
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Elephant in the Living Room
Overpopulation is the “elephant in the living room” – everyone sees it but no one wants to talk about it. Exponential growth on a finite planet is neither sustainable nor desirable; however, even though sustainability is the “buzz word” de jour, humankind worships growth. Most politicians would rather walk through a mine field in their bare feet than discuss population control with their constituents.
Ref. 21September 2009
Let’s Talk About the Elephant in the Living Room*
John Cairns, Jr.
Department of Biological Sciences, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,
Blacksburg, Virginia 24061, USA
*This posting is a simultaneous submission for “Climate Change and You: Putting a Face on Global Warming,” EcoRes Forum Online E-Conference #3, October 19-29, 2009. Further information available at http://www.eco-res.org/ .
Ref. 21September 2009
Let’s Talk About the Elephant in the Living Room*
John Cairns, Jr.
Department of Biological Sciences, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,
Blacksburg, Virginia 24061, USA
*This posting is a simultaneous submission for “Climate Change and You: Putting a Face on Global Warming,” EcoRes Forum Online E-Conference #3, October 19-29, 2009. Further information available at http://www.eco-res.org/ .
Kenneth Boulding’s insights
Boulding’s insights.
(a) Boulding (1966) stated: ‘Anyone who
believes exponential growth can go on forever in a
finite world is either a madman or an economist.’
(b) Boulding (1971) offered three theorems on
human population limitations:
(1) The Dismal Theorem: If the only ultimate check
on the growth of population is misery, then the
population will grow until it is miserable enough to
stop its growth.
(2) The Utterly Dismal Theorem: Any technical
progress can only relieve misery for a while. As
long as misery is the only check on population
growth, the technical improvement will only enable
population to grow, and will soon enable more people
to live in misery than before. The final result of
technical improvements, therefore, is to increase
the equilibrium population, which is to increase the
sum total of human misery.
(3) The Moderately Cheerful Dismal Theorem: Fortunately,
it is not too difficult to restate the Dismal
Theorem in a moderately cheerful form. This theorem
states that if something else, other than misery
and starvation, can be found that keeps a prosperous
population in check, the population does not
have to grow until it is miserable and starves; it can
be stably prosperous.
(a) Boulding (1966) stated: ‘Anyone who
believes exponential growth can go on forever in a
finite world is either a madman or an economist.’
(b) Boulding (1971) offered three theorems on
human population limitations:
(1) The Dismal Theorem: If the only ultimate check
on the growth of population is misery, then the
population will grow until it is miserable enough to
stop its growth.
(2) The Utterly Dismal Theorem: Any technical
progress can only relieve misery for a while. As
long as misery is the only check on population
growth, the technical improvement will only enable
population to grow, and will soon enable more people
to live in misery than before. The final result of
technical improvements, therefore, is to increase
the equilibrium population, which is to increase the
sum total of human misery.
(3) The Moderately Cheerful Dismal Theorem: Fortunately,
it is not too difficult to restate the Dismal
Theorem in a moderately cheerful form. This theorem
states that if something else, other than misery
and starvation, can be found that keeps a prosperous
population in check, the population does not
have to grow until it is miserable and starves; it can
be stably prosperous.
climate change impact on agriculture
Agriculture and climate change
2009
International Food Policy Research Institute. IFPRI Briefs, 2020 Focus
http://www.ifpri.org/ourwork
CLIMATE CHANGE: IMPACT ON AGRICULTURE AND COSTS OF ADAPTATION
• Report (updated October 1, 2009)
• Appendix 1: Methodology (updated October 7, 2009)
• Appendix 2: Results by World Bank Regional Grouping of Countries
The Challenge
Agricultural Adaptation to Climate Change in the Developing World: What will it Cost?
IFPRI Policy Seminar.
October 5, 2009
Video now available
The unimpeded growth of greenhouse gas emissions is raising the earth’s temperature. The consequences include melting glaciers, more precipitation, more and more extreme weather events, and shifting seasons. The accelerating pace of climate change, combined with global population and income growth, threatens food security everywhere.
Agriculture is extremely vulnerable to climate change. Higher temperatures eventually reduce yields of desirable crops while encouraging weed and pest proliferation. Changes in precipitation patterns increase the likelihood of short-run crop failures and long-run production declines. Although there will be gains in some crops in some regions of the world, the overall impacts of climate change on agriculture are expected to be negative, threatening global food security.
Populations in the developing world, which are already vulnerable and food insecure, are likely to be the most seriously affected. In 2005, nearly half of the economically active population in developing countries—2.5 billion people—relied on agriculture for its livelihood. Today, 75 percent of the world’s poor live in rural areas.
This Food Policy Report presents research results that quantify the climate-change impacts mentioned above, assesses the consequences for food security, and estimates the investments that would offset the negative consequences for human well-being.
This analysis brings together, for the first time, detailed modeling of crop growth under climate change with insights from an extremely detailed global agriculture model, using two climate scenarios to simulate future climate. The results of the analysis suggest that agriculture and human well-being will be negatively affected by climate change:
• In developing countries, climate change will cause yield declines for the most important crops. South Asia will be particularly hard hit.
• Climate change will have varying effects on irrigated yields across regions, but irrigated yields for all crops in South Asia will experience large declines.
• Climate change will result in additional price increases for the most important agricultural crops–rice, wheat, maize, and soybeans. Higher feed prices will result in higher meat prices. As a result, climate change will reduce the growth in meat consumption slightly and cause a more substantial fall in cereals consumption.
• Calorie availability in 2050 will not only be lower than in the no–climate-change scenario—it will actually decline relative to 2000 levels throughout the developing world.
• By 2050, the decline in calorie availability will increase child malnutrition by 20 percent relative to a world with no climate change. Climate change will eliminate much of the improvement in child malnourishment levels that would occur with no climate change.
• Thus, aggressive agricultural productivity investments of US$7.1–7.3 billion are needed to raise calorie consumption enough to offset the negative impacts of climate change on the health and well-being of children.
Author:
Nelson, Gerald C.
Rosegrant, Mark W.
Koo, Jawoo
Robertson, Richard
Sulser, Timothy
Zhu, Tingju
Ringler, Claudia
Msangi, Siwa
Palazzo, Amanda
Batka, Miroslav
Magalhaes, Marilia
Valmonte-Santos, Rowena
Ewing, Mandy
Lee, David
Published date:
2009
Publisher:
International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI)
2009
International Food Policy Research Institute. IFPRI Briefs, 2020 Focus
http://www.ifpri.org/ourwork
CLIMATE CHANGE: IMPACT ON AGRICULTURE AND COSTS OF ADAPTATION
• Report (updated October 1, 2009)
• Appendix 1: Methodology (updated October 7, 2009)
• Appendix 2: Results by World Bank Regional Grouping of Countries
The Challenge
Agricultural Adaptation to Climate Change in the Developing World: What will it Cost?
IFPRI Policy Seminar.
October 5, 2009
Video now available
The unimpeded growth of greenhouse gas emissions is raising the earth’s temperature. The consequences include melting glaciers, more precipitation, more and more extreme weather events, and shifting seasons. The accelerating pace of climate change, combined with global population and income growth, threatens food security everywhere.
Agriculture is extremely vulnerable to climate change. Higher temperatures eventually reduce yields of desirable crops while encouraging weed and pest proliferation. Changes in precipitation patterns increase the likelihood of short-run crop failures and long-run production declines. Although there will be gains in some crops in some regions of the world, the overall impacts of climate change on agriculture are expected to be negative, threatening global food security.
Populations in the developing world, which are already vulnerable and food insecure, are likely to be the most seriously affected. In 2005, nearly half of the economically active population in developing countries—2.5 billion people—relied on agriculture for its livelihood. Today, 75 percent of the world’s poor live in rural areas.
This Food Policy Report presents research results that quantify the climate-change impacts mentioned above, assesses the consequences for food security, and estimates the investments that would offset the negative consequences for human well-being.
This analysis brings together, for the first time, detailed modeling of crop growth under climate change with insights from an extremely detailed global agriculture model, using two climate scenarios to simulate future climate. The results of the analysis suggest that agriculture and human well-being will be negatively affected by climate change:
• In developing countries, climate change will cause yield declines for the most important crops. South Asia will be particularly hard hit.
• Climate change will have varying effects on irrigated yields across regions, but irrigated yields for all crops in South Asia will experience large declines.
• Climate change will result in additional price increases for the most important agricultural crops–rice, wheat, maize, and soybeans. Higher feed prices will result in higher meat prices. As a result, climate change will reduce the growth in meat consumption slightly and cause a more substantial fall in cereals consumption.
• Calorie availability in 2050 will not only be lower than in the no–climate-change scenario—it will actually decline relative to 2000 levels throughout the developing world.
• By 2050, the decline in calorie availability will increase child malnutrition by 20 percent relative to a world with no climate change. Climate change will eliminate much of the improvement in child malnourishment levels that would occur with no climate change.
• Thus, aggressive agricultural productivity investments of US$7.1–7.3 billion are needed to raise calorie consumption enough to offset the negative impacts of climate change on the health and well-being of children.
Author:
Nelson, Gerald C.
Rosegrant, Mark W.
Koo, Jawoo
Robertson, Richard
Sulser, Timothy
Zhu, Tingju
Ringler, Claudia
Msangi, Siwa
Palazzo, Amanda
Batka, Miroslav
Magalhaes, Marilia
Valmonte-Santos, Rowena
Ewing, Mandy
Lee, David
Published date:
2009
Publisher:
International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI)
Hunger is on the rise
Hunger is on the rise
Millennium Development Goals Report is available at:
http://www.unfpa.org/webdav/site/global/shared/documents/publications/2009/mdg_report_09.pdf
Millennium Development Goals Report is available at:
http://www.unfpa.org/webdav/site/global/shared/documents/publications/2009/mdg_report_09.pdf
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
imprtant reading: Lester Brown
Lester R. Brown
" Could Food Shortages Bring Down Civilization?"
Scientific American, May 2009 p 50-57.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=civilization-food-shortages
From the May 2009 Scientific American Magazine
The biggest threat to global stability is the potential for food crises in poor countries to cause government collapse
By Lester R. Brown
Key Concepts
Food scarcity and the resulting higher food prices are pushing poor countries into chaos.
Such “failed states” can export disease, terrorism, illicit drugs, weapons and refugees.
Water shortages, soil losses and rising temperatures from global warming are placing severe limits on food production.
Without massive and rapid intervention to address these three environmental factors, the author argues, a series of government collapses could threaten the world order.
Buy the Digital Edition.One of the toughest things for people to do is to anticipate sudden change. Typically we project the future by extrapolating from trends in the past. Much of the time this approach works well. But sometimes it fails spectacularly, and people are simply blindsided by events such as today’s economic crisis.
For most of us, the idea that civilization itself could disintegrate probably seems preposterous. Who would not find it hard to think seriously about such a complete departure from what we expect of ordinary life? What evidence could make us heed a warning so dire—and how would we go about responding to it? We are so inured to a long list of highly unlikely catastrophes that we are virtually programmed to dismiss them all with a wave of the hand: Sure, our civilization might devolve into chaos—and Earth might collide with an asteroid, too!
For many years I have studied global agricultural, population, environmental and economic trends and their interactions. The combined effects of those trends and the political tensions they generate point to the breakdown of governments and societies. Yet I, too, have resisted the idea that food shortages could bring down not only individual governments but also our global civilization.
I can no longer ignore that risk. Our continuing failure to deal with the environmental declines that are undermining the world food economy—most important, falling water tables, eroding soils and rising temperatures—forces me to conclude that such a collapse is possible.
The Problem of Failed States
Even a cursory look at the vital signs of our current world order lends unwelcome support to my conclusion. And those of us in the environmental field are well into our third decade of charting trends of environmental decline without seeing any significant effort to reverse a single one.
In six of the past nine years world grain production has fallen short of consumption, forcing a steady drawdown in stocks. When the 2008 harvest began, world carryover stocks of grain (the amount in the bin when the new harvest begins) were at 62 days of consumption, a near record low. In response, world grain prices in the spring and summer of last year climbed to the highest level ever.
As demand for food rises faster than supplies are growing, the resulting food-price inflation puts severe stress on the governments of countries already teetering on the edge of chaos. Unable to buy grain or grow their own, hungry people take to the streets. Indeed, even before the steep climb in grain prices in 2008, the number of failing states was expanding [Purchase the digital edition to see related sidebar]. Many of their problems stem from a failure to slow the growth of their populations. But if the food situation continues to deteriorate, entire nations will break down at an ever increasing rate. We have entered a new era in geopolitics. In the 20th century the main threat to international security was superpower conflict; today it is failing states. It is not the concentration of power but its absence that puts us at risk.
States fail when national governments can no longer provide personal security, food security and basic social services such as education and health care. They often lose control of part or all of their territory. When governments lose their monopoly on power, law and order begin to disintegrate. After a point, countries can become so dangerous that food relief workers are no longer safe and their programs are halted; in Somalia and Afghanistan, deteriorating conditions have already put such programs in jeopardy.
Failing states are of international concern because they are a source of terrorists, drugs, weapons and refugees, threatening political stability everywhere. Somalia, number one on the 2008 list of failing states, has become a base for piracy. Iraq, number five, is a hotbed for terrorist training. Afghanistan, number seven, is the world’s leading supplier of heroin. Following the massive genocide of 1994 in Rwanda, refugees from that troubled state, thousands of armed soldiers among them, helped to destabilize neighboring Democratic Republic of the Congo (number six).
Read Comments (174)
" Could Food Shortages Bring Down Civilization?"
Scientific American, May 2009 p 50-57.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=civilization-food-shortages
From the May 2009 Scientific American Magazine
The biggest threat to global stability is the potential for food crises in poor countries to cause government collapse
By Lester R. Brown
Key Concepts
Food scarcity and the resulting higher food prices are pushing poor countries into chaos.
Such “failed states” can export disease, terrorism, illicit drugs, weapons and refugees.
Water shortages, soil losses and rising temperatures from global warming are placing severe limits on food production.
Without massive and rapid intervention to address these three environmental factors, the author argues, a series of government collapses could threaten the world order.
Buy the Digital Edition.One of the toughest things for people to do is to anticipate sudden change. Typically we project the future by extrapolating from trends in the past. Much of the time this approach works well. But sometimes it fails spectacularly, and people are simply blindsided by events such as today’s economic crisis.
For most of us, the idea that civilization itself could disintegrate probably seems preposterous. Who would not find it hard to think seriously about such a complete departure from what we expect of ordinary life? What evidence could make us heed a warning so dire—and how would we go about responding to it? We are so inured to a long list of highly unlikely catastrophes that we are virtually programmed to dismiss them all with a wave of the hand: Sure, our civilization might devolve into chaos—and Earth might collide with an asteroid, too!
For many years I have studied global agricultural, population, environmental and economic trends and their interactions. The combined effects of those trends and the political tensions they generate point to the breakdown of governments and societies. Yet I, too, have resisted the idea that food shortages could bring down not only individual governments but also our global civilization.
I can no longer ignore that risk. Our continuing failure to deal with the environmental declines that are undermining the world food economy—most important, falling water tables, eroding soils and rising temperatures—forces me to conclude that such a collapse is possible.
The Problem of Failed States
Even a cursory look at the vital signs of our current world order lends unwelcome support to my conclusion. And those of us in the environmental field are well into our third decade of charting trends of environmental decline without seeing any significant effort to reverse a single one.
In six of the past nine years world grain production has fallen short of consumption, forcing a steady drawdown in stocks. When the 2008 harvest began, world carryover stocks of grain (the amount in the bin when the new harvest begins) were at 62 days of consumption, a near record low. In response, world grain prices in the spring and summer of last year climbed to the highest level ever.
As demand for food rises faster than supplies are growing, the resulting food-price inflation puts severe stress on the governments of countries already teetering on the edge of chaos. Unable to buy grain or grow their own, hungry people take to the streets. Indeed, even before the steep climb in grain prices in 2008, the number of failing states was expanding [Purchase the digital edition to see related sidebar]. Many of their problems stem from a failure to slow the growth of their populations. But if the food situation continues to deteriorate, entire nations will break down at an ever increasing rate. We have entered a new era in geopolitics. In the 20th century the main threat to international security was superpower conflict; today it is failing states. It is not the concentration of power but its absence that puts us at risk.
States fail when national governments can no longer provide personal security, food security and basic social services such as education and health care. They often lose control of part or all of their territory. When governments lose their monopoly on power, law and order begin to disintegrate. After a point, countries can become so dangerous that food relief workers are no longer safe and their programs are halted; in Somalia and Afghanistan, deteriorating conditions have already put such programs in jeopardy.
Failing states are of international concern because they are a source of terrorists, drugs, weapons and refugees, threatening political stability everywhere. Somalia, number one on the 2008 list of failing states, has become a base for piracy. Iraq, number five, is a hotbed for terrorist training. Afghanistan, number seven, is the world’s leading supplier of heroin. Following the massive genocide of 1994 in Rwanda, refugees from that troubled state, thousands of armed soldiers among them, helped to destabilize neighboring Democratic Republic of the Congo (number six).
Read Comments (174)
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Rome Food Summit 2009-10-12
Agriculture to 2050 – the challenges ahead 12-10-2009
Diouf opens High-Level Forum on food’s future
Director-General Jaques Diouf opening the High-Level Expert Forum
http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/36193/icode/
12 October 2009, Rome - Agriculture must become more productive if it is to feed a much larger world population while responding to the daunting environmental challenges ahead, FAO Director-General Jacques Diouf said here today.
Opening a two-day High-Level Expert Forum on How to Feed the World in 2050 Diouf told the 300 delegates that over the next 40 years:
"The combined effect of population growth, strong income growth and urbanization ... is expected to result in almost the doubling of demand for food, feed and fibre."
"Agriculture will have no choice but to be more productive," Diouf added, noting that increases would need to come mostly from yield growth and improved cropping intensity rather than from farming more land despite the fact that there are still ample land resources with potential for cultivation, particularly in sub-Sahara Africa and Latin America. He also noted that "while organic agriculture contributes to hunger and poverty reduction and should be promoted, it cannot by itself feed the rapidly growing population."
World population is projected to rise to 9.1 billion in 2050 from a current 6.7 billion, requiring a 70-percent increase in farm production.
Growing scarcity
In addition to a growing scarcity of natural resources such as land, water and biodiversity "global agriculture will have to cope with the effects of climate change, notably higher temperatures, greater rainfall variability and more frequent extreme weather events such as floods and droughts," Diouf warned.
Climate change would reduce water availability and lead to an increase in plant and animal pests and diseases. The combined effects of climate change could reduce potential output by up to 30 percent in Africa and up to 21 percent in Asia, the FAO Chief noted.
"The challenge is not only to increase global future production but to increase it where it is mostly needed and by those who need it most," he stressed. "There should be a special focus on smallholder farmers, women and rural households and their access to land, water and high quality seeds... and other modern inputs."
Water challenge
Diouf noted the special challenge posed by water as climate change would make rainfall increasingly unreliable. Investment in improved water control and water management should be considered a priority.
It is also important to bridge the technology gap between countries through knowledge transfer using North-South, South-South and triangular cooperation to achieve sustainable increases in agricultural production and productivity.
Competition from bioenergy
Food production would also face increasing competition from the biofuel market "which has the potential to change the fundamentals of agricultural market systems", with production set to increase by nearly 90 percent over the next 10 years to reach 192 billion litres by 2018.
At the Forum, about 300 eminent experts from around the world will review and debate the investment needs, technologies and policy measures needed to secure the world's food supplies on horizon 2050. It is calculated that $44 billion a year of official development assistance (ODA) will need to be invested in agriculture in developing countries - against the $7.9 billion that is being spent now. Higher investments, including from national budgets, foreign direct investment and private sector resources, should be made for better access to modern inputs, more irrigation systems, machinery, storage, more roads and better rural infrastructures, as well as more skilled and better trained farmers.
Through its conclusions and recommendations the Forum will contribute to the debate and outcome of the World Summit on Food Security scheduled at FAO headquarters on November 16-18, to be attended by Heads of State and Government from FAO's 192 Member Nations. It is hoped the Summit will agree then on the complete and rapid eradication of hunger so that every human being on Earth can enjoy the most fundamental of all human rights - the "right to food" and thus to decent life.
Diouf opens High-Level Forum on food’s future
Director-General Jaques Diouf opening the High-Level Expert Forum
http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/36193/icode/
12 October 2009, Rome - Agriculture must become more productive if it is to feed a much larger world population while responding to the daunting environmental challenges ahead, FAO Director-General Jacques Diouf said here today.
Opening a two-day High-Level Expert Forum on How to Feed the World in 2050 Diouf told the 300 delegates that over the next 40 years:
"The combined effect of population growth, strong income growth and urbanization ... is expected to result in almost the doubling of demand for food, feed and fibre."
"Agriculture will have no choice but to be more productive," Diouf added, noting that increases would need to come mostly from yield growth and improved cropping intensity rather than from farming more land despite the fact that there are still ample land resources with potential for cultivation, particularly in sub-Sahara Africa and Latin America. He also noted that "while organic agriculture contributes to hunger and poverty reduction and should be promoted, it cannot by itself feed the rapidly growing population."
World population is projected to rise to 9.1 billion in 2050 from a current 6.7 billion, requiring a 70-percent increase in farm production.
Growing scarcity
In addition to a growing scarcity of natural resources such as land, water and biodiversity "global agriculture will have to cope with the effects of climate change, notably higher temperatures, greater rainfall variability and more frequent extreme weather events such as floods and droughts," Diouf warned.
Climate change would reduce water availability and lead to an increase in plant and animal pests and diseases. The combined effects of climate change could reduce potential output by up to 30 percent in Africa and up to 21 percent in Asia, the FAO Chief noted.
"The challenge is not only to increase global future production but to increase it where it is mostly needed and by those who need it most," he stressed. "There should be a special focus on smallholder farmers, women and rural households and their access to land, water and high quality seeds... and other modern inputs."
Water challenge
Diouf noted the special challenge posed by water as climate change would make rainfall increasingly unreliable. Investment in improved water control and water management should be considered a priority.
It is also important to bridge the technology gap between countries through knowledge transfer using North-South, South-South and triangular cooperation to achieve sustainable increases in agricultural production and productivity.
Competition from bioenergy
Food production would also face increasing competition from the biofuel market "which has the potential to change the fundamentals of agricultural market systems", with production set to increase by nearly 90 percent over the next 10 years to reach 192 billion litres by 2018.
At the Forum, about 300 eminent experts from around the world will review and debate the investment needs, technologies and policy measures needed to secure the world's food supplies on horizon 2050. It is calculated that $44 billion a year of official development assistance (ODA) will need to be invested in agriculture in developing countries - against the $7.9 billion that is being spent now. Higher investments, including from national budgets, foreign direct investment and private sector resources, should be made for better access to modern inputs, more irrigation systems, machinery, storage, more roads and better rural infrastructures, as well as more skilled and better trained farmers.
Through its conclusions and recommendations the Forum will contribute to the debate and outcome of the World Summit on Food Security scheduled at FAO headquarters on November 16-18, to be attended by Heads of State and Government from FAO's 192 Member Nations. It is hoped the Summit will agree then on the complete and rapid eradication of hunger so that every human being on Earth can enjoy the most fundamental of all human rights - the "right to food" and thus to decent life.
Saturday, October 3, 2009
agricultural knowledge
International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science
and Technology for Development
Summary for Decision Makers of the Global Report
http://agassessment.org/docs/IAASTD_GLOBAL_SDM_JAN_2008.pdf
(ref. Harriet Friedmann)
and Technology for Development
Summary for Decision Makers of the Global Report
http://agassessment.org/docs/IAASTD_GLOBAL_SDM_JAN_2008.pdf
(ref. Harriet Friedmann)
contraception and climate change
Contraception is almost five times cheaper as a means of preventing climate change than conventional green technologies, according to research by the London School of Economics.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/6161742/Contraception-cheapest-way-to-combat-climate-change.html
By Richard PindarPublished: 12:05PM BST 09 Sep 2009
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/6161742/Contraception-cheapest-way-to-combat-climate-change.html
By Richard PindarPublished: 12:05PM BST 09 Sep 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)