Showing posts with label Peak Food. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Peak Food. Show all posts

The Big Picture

SUBHEAD: Each day of relative normalcy that remains is an occasion for opportunity and action.

By Richard Heinberg on 17 December 2018 for Resilience -
(https://www.resilience.org/stories/2018-12-17/the-big-picture/)


Image above: This Hubble Space Telescope image by NASA of the cluster Westerlund 2 and its surroundingswas been released in 2015 to celebrate Hubble's 25th year in orbit. From (http://time.com/3833015/hubble-telescope-photo/).

Humanity has a lot of problems these days. Climate change, increasing economic inequality, crashing biodiversity, political polarization, and a global debt bubble are just a few of our worries.

None of these trends can continue indefinitely without leading to a serious failure of our civilization’s ability to maintain itself. Taken together, these metastasizing problems suggest we are headed toward some kind of historic discontinuity.

Serious discontinuities tend to disrupt the timelines of all complex societies (another name for civilizations—that is, societies with cities, writing, money, and full-time division of labor).

The ancient Roman, Egyptian, and Mayan civilizations all collapsed. Archaeologists, historians, and systems thinkers have spent decades seeking an explanation for this pattern of failure—a general unified theory of civilizational collapse, if you will.

One of the most promising concepts that could serve as the basis for such a theory comes from resilience science, a branch of ecology (the study of the relationship between organisms and their environments).

Why Civilizations Collapse: The Adaptive Cycle
Ecosystems have been observed almost universally to repeatedly pass through four phases of the adaptive cycle: exploitation, conservation, release, and reorganization. Imagine, for example, a Ponderosa pine forest.

Following a disturbance such as a fire (in which stored carbon is released into the environment), hardy and adaptable “pioneer” species of plants and small animals fill in open niches and reproduce rapidly.

This reorganization phase of the cycle soon transitions to an exploitation phase, in which those species that can take advantage of relationships with other species start to dominate. These relationships make the system more stable, but at the expense of diversity.

During the conservation phase, resources like nutrients, water, and sunlight are so taken up by the dominant species that the system as a whole eventually loses its flexibility to deal with changing conditions.

These trends lead to a point where the system is susceptible to a crash—a release phase. Many trees die, dispersing their nutrients, opening the forest canopy to let more light in, and providing habitat for shrubs and small animals. The cycle starts over.

Civilizations do roughly the same thing. In their early days, complex societies are populated with generalist pioneers (people who do lots of things reasonably well) living in an environment with abundant resources ready to be exploited. These people develop tools to enable them to exploit their resources more effectively.

Division of labor and trade with increasingly distant regions also aids in more thorough resource exploitation. Trading and administrative centers, i.e., cities, appear and grow. Money is increasingly used to facilitate trade, while debt enables a transfer of consumption from the future to the present. Specialists in violence, armed with improved weaponry, conquer surrounding peoples.

Complexity (more kinds of tools, more social classes, more specialization) solves problems and enables accumulation of wealth, leading to a conservation phase during which an empire is built and great achievements are made in the arts and sciences.

However, as time goes on, the costs of complexity accumulate and the resilience of the society declines. Tax burdens become unbearable, natural resources become depleted, environments become polluted, and conquered peoples become restless.

At its height, each civilization appears stable and invincible. Yet it is just at this moment of triumph that it is vulnerable to external enemies and internal discord. Debt can no longer be repaid. Conquered peoples revolt. A natural disaster breaks open the façade of stability and control.
Collapse often comes swiftly, leaving ruin in its wake.

But at least some of the components that made the civilization great (including tools and elements of practical knowledge) persist, and the natural environment has opportunity to regenerate and recover, eventually enabling reorganization and a new exploitation phase—that is, the rise of yet another civilization.

Energy Is Everything
Global industrial civilization shows significant signs of being in its conservation phase. Our accomplishments are mind-boggling, but our systems are overstretched, and problems (including climate change, inequality, and political dysfunction) are accumulating and worsening.

However, our civilization is different from any of its predecessors. Unlike the ancient Romans, Greeks, Egyptians, Shang Dynasty Chinese, Incas, Aztecs, and Mayans, we have built a civilization that is global in scope.

We have invented modes of transportation and communication previously unimaginable. Thanks to advances in public health and agriculture, the total human population has grown to many times its size when Roman armies marched across North Africa, Europe, and Britain. Have we perhaps outgrown the adaptive cycle and escaped natural checks to perpetual expansion?

In order to answer the question, we must first inquire why modern civilization has been so successful. The rise of technology, including advances in metallurgy and engineering, certainly played a part. These provided better ways of obtaining and harnessing energy.

But it’s the rapid shift in qualities and quantities of energy available to us that really made the difference.

Previously, people derived their energy from annual plant growth (food and firewood), and manipulated their environment using human and animal muscle power. These energy sources were inherently limited. But, starting in the 19th century, new technologies enabled us to access and harness the energy of fossil fuels. And fossil fuels—coal, oil, and natural gas—were able to provide energy in amounts far surpassing previous energy sources.

Energy is everything. All terrestrial ecosystems and all human societies are essentially machines for using (and dissipating) solar energy that has been collected and concentrated through photosynthesis. We like to think that money makes the world go ’round, but it is actually energy that enables us to do anything at all—from merely getting up in the morning to launching a space station. And having lots of energy available cheaply can enable us to do a great deal.

Fossil fuels represent tens of millions of years’ worth of stored ancient sunlight. They are energy-dense, portable, and storable sources of power. Accessing them changed nearly everything about human existence.

They were uniquely transformative in that they enabled higher rates of harvesting and using all other resources—via tractors, bulldozers, powered mining equipment, chainsaws, motorized fishing trawlers, and more.

Take just one example. In all previous agrarian civilizations, roughly three-quarters of the population had to farm in order to supply a food surplus to support the other 25 percent—who lived as aristocrats, traders, soldiers, artisans, and so on. Fossil fuels enabled the industrialization and automation of agriculture, as well as longer-distance distribution chains.
 Today only one or two percent of the U.S. population need to farm full-time in order to supply everyone else with food. The industrialization of food systems has freed up nearly all of the former peasant class to move to cities and take up jobs in manufacturing, marketing, finance, advertising, management, sales, and so on.

Thus urbanization and the dramatic expansion of the middle class during the 20th century were almost entirely attributable to fossil fuels.

But fossil fuels have been a bargain with the devil: these are depleting, non-renewable resources, and burning them produces carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, changing the climate and the chemistry of the world’s oceans.

These are not small problems. Climate change by itself is far and away the most serious pollution dilemma any human society has ever faced, and could lead to crashing ecosystems, failing food systems, and widespread forced human migration.human needs and desires can be satisfied by self-reproducing machines.

Denial comes in shades, some of them quite benign. Many thoughtful and informed people acknowledge the threats of climate change, species extinctions, soil depletion, and so on, and insist that we can overcome these threats if we just try harder. They are often on the right track when they propose changes.

Elect different, more responsible politicians. Donate to environmental nonprofit organizations. Drive an electric car.

Put solar panels on our roofs. Start solar co-ops or regional non-profit utility companies that aim to source all electricity from renewable sources. Eat organic food. Shop at local farmers markets.

These are all actions that move society in the right direction (that is, away from the brink of failure)—but in small increments. Perhaps people can be motivated to undertake such efforts through the belief that a smooth transition and a happy future are possible, and that renewable energy will create plentiful jobs and lead to a perpetually growing green economy.

There is no point in discouraging such beliefs and their related actions; quite the contrary: they should, if anything, be encouraged. Such practical efforts, however motivated or rationalized, could help moderate collapse, even if they can’t prevent it (a point we’ll return to below). But an element of denial persists nonetheless—denial, that is, of the reality that the overall trajectory of modern industrial society is beyond our control, and that it leads inexorably toward overshoot and collapse.

What to Do?
All of the above may help us better understand why the world seems to be running off the rails. But the implications are horrific. If all this is true, then we now face more-or-less inevitable economic, social, political, and ecological calamity. And since industrial civilization is now global, and human population levels are multiples higher than in any previous century, this calamity could occur on a scale never seen before.

Although no one can possibly predict at this point just how complete and awful collapse might actually be, even human extinction is conceivable (though no one can say with any confidence that it is likely, much less inevitable).

This is more than a fragile human psyche can bear. One’s own mortality is hard enough to contemplate. A school of psychology (“terror management theory”) proposes that many of our cultural institutions and practices (religion, values of national identity) exist at least in part to help us deal with the intolerable knowledge of our inevitable personal demise.

How much harder must it be to acknowledge signs of the imminent passing of one’s entire way of life, and the extreme disruption of familiar ecosystems? It is therefore no wonder that so many of us opt for denial and distraction.

There’s no question that collapse is a scary word.

When we hear it, we tend to think immediately of images from movies like Mad Max and The Road. We assume collapse means a sudden and complete dissolution of everything meaningful. Our reasoning shuts down. But this is just when we need it most.

In reality, there are degrees of collapse, and history shows that the process has usually taken decades and sometimes centuries to unfold, often in stair-steps punctuated by periods of partial recovery. Further, it may be possible to intervene in collapse to improve outcomes—for ourselves, our communities, our species, and thousands of other species.

After the collapse of the Roman Empire, medieval Irish monks may have “saved civilization” by memorizing and transcribing ancient texts. Could we, with planning and motivation, do as much and more?

Many of the things we could do toward this end are already being done in order to avert climate change and other converging crises.

Again, people who voluntarily reduce energy usage, eat locally grown organic food, make the effort to get to know their neighbors, get off the consumer treadmill, reduce their debt, help protect local biodiversity by planting species that feed or shelter native pollinators, use biochar in their gardens, support political candidates who prioritize addressing the sustainability crisis, and contribute to environmental, population, and human rights organizations are all helping moderate the impending collapse and ensure that there will be more survivors. We could do more.

Acting together, we could start to re-green the planet; begin to incorporate captured carbon not only in soils, but in nearly everything we make, including concrete, paper, and plastics; and design a new economic system based on mutual aid rather than competition, debt, and perpetual growth. All of these efforts make sense with or without the knowledge that civilization is nearing its sell-by date.

How we describe the goals of these efforts—whether as ways of improving people’s lives, as ways to save the planet, as fulfilling the evolutionary potential of our species, as contributing to a general spiritual awakening, or as ways of moderating an inevitable civilizational crash—is relatively unimportant.

However, the Big Picture (an understanding of the adaptive cycle, the role of energy, and our overshoot predicament) adds both a sense of urgency, and also a new set of priorities that are currently being neglected.

For example, when civilizations collapse, culturally significant knowledge is typically lost. It’s probably inevitable that we will lose a great deal of our shared knowledge during the coming centuries. Much of this information is trivial anyway (will our distant descendants really suffer from not having the ability to watch archived episodes of Let’s Make a Deal or Storage Wars?).

Yet people across the globe now use fragile storage media—computer and server hard drives—to store everything from music to books to instruction manuals. In the event that the world’s electricity grids could no longer be maintained, we would miss more than comfort and convenience; we could lose science, higher mathematics, and history.

It’s not only the dominant industrial culture that is vulnerable to information loss. Indigenous cultures that have survived for millennia are being rapidly eroded by the forces of globalization, resulting in the extinction of region-specific knowledge that could help future humans live sustainably.
Upon whom does the responsibility fall to curate, safeguard, and reproduce all this knowledge, if not those who understand its peril?

Act Where You Are: Community Resilience
We at Post Carbon Institute (PCI) have been aware of the Big Picture since the founding of the organization 15 years ago. We’ve been privileged to meet, and draw upon the insights of, some of the pioneering ecologists of the 1960s, ’70s, and ’80s who laid the basis of our current understanding of resilience science, systems thinking, climate change, resource depletion, and much more. And we’ve strived to convey that understanding to a younger generation of thinkers and activists.

Throughout this time, we have continually grappled with the question, “What plan for action makes the most sense in the context of the Big Picture, given our meager organizational resources?”
After protracted discussion, we’ve hit upon a four-fold strategy.
Encourage resilience building at the community level. 

Resilience is the capacity of a system to encounter disruption and still maintain its basic structure and functions. When it is in its conservation phase, a system’s resilience is typically at its lowest level throughout the entire adaptive cycle. If it is possible at this point to build resilience into the human social system, and ecological systems, then the approaching release phase of the cycle may be more moderate and less intense.

Why undertake resilience building in communities, rather than attempting to do so at the national or international level? It’s because the community is the most available and effective level of scale at which to intervene in human systems.

National action is difficult these days, and not only in the United States: discussions about nearly everything quickly become politicized, polarized, and contested. It’s at the community level where we most directly interact with the people and institutions that make up our society. It’s where we’re most affected by the decisions society makes: what jobs are available to us, what infrastructure is available for our use, and what policies exist that limit or empower us.

And critically, it’s where the majority of us who do not wield major political or economic power can most directly affect society, as voters, neighbors, entrepreneurs, volunteers, shoppers, activists, and elected officials.

PCI has supported Transition Initiatives since its inception as one useful, locally replicable, and adaptable model for community resilience building.

Leave good ideas lying around.
Naomi Klein, in her book The Shock Doctrine, quotes economist Milton Friedman, who wrote:
“Only a crisis—actual or perceived—produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable.”
Friedman and other neoliberal economists have used this “shock doctrine” for decades to undermine regional economies, national governments, and indigenous cultures in order to further the project of corporate-led economic globalization. Klein’s point is that the key to taking advantage of crises is having effective system-changing plans waiting in the wings for the ripe moment.

And that’s a strategy that makes sense as society as a whole teeters on the brink of an immensely disruptive shift.
What ideas and skills need to be lying around as industrial civilization crumbles?

One collection of ideas and skills that’s already handily packaged and awaiting adoption is permaculture—a set of design tools for living created by ecologists back in the 1970s who understood that industrial civilization would eventually reach its limits. Another set consists of consensus group decision-making skills. The list could go on at some length.

Target innovators and early adopters.
Back in the 1960s, Everett Rogers, a professor of communications, contributed the theory of the Diffusion of Innovations, which describes how, why, and at what rate new ideas, social innovations, and technology spread throughout culture.

The key to the theory is his identification of different types of individuals in the population, in terms of how they relate to the development and adoption of something new: innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority, and laggards.

Innovators are important, but the success of their efforts depends on diffusion of the innovation among early adopters, who tend to be few in number but exceptionally influential in the general population.

At PCI, we have decided to focus our communications on early adopters.

Help people grasp the Big Picture.
Discussions about the vulnerability of civilization to collapse are not for everyone. Some of us are too psychologically fragile. All of us need a break occasionally, and time to feel and process the emotions that contemplating the Big Picture inevitably evokes.

But for those able to take in the information and still function, the Big Picture offers helpful perspective. It confirms what many of us already intuitively know. And it provides a context for strategic action.

Pro-Social, Nonpartisan
I’m frequently asked if I have hope for the future. My usual reply is along these lines: hope is not just an expectation of better times ahead; it is an active attitude, a determination to achieve the best possible outcome regardless of the challenges one is facing. PCI Fellow David Orr summed this up best when he wrote, “Hope is a verb with its sleeves rolled up.”

However, if that’s as far as the discussion goes, merely redefining “hope” may seem facile and unsatisfying. The questioner wants and needs reasonable grounds for believing that an outcome is possible that is something other than horrific. There is indeed evidence along these lines, and it should not be ignored.

Steven Pinker, in his book The Better Angels of Our Nature, argues that we humans are becoming more peaceful and cooperative. Now, it could be argued that any decline in violence during the past few decades can be seen as yet another indication that civilization is in a conservation phase of the adaptive cycle: we have attained a balance of power, facilitated by the wealth flowing ultimately from fossil fuels; perhaps violence is simply being held in abeyance until the dam breaks and we head into the release phase of the cycle. Nevertheless, evolution is real, and for humans it occurs more rapidly via culture than through genes. It is entirely possible, therefore, that we humans are rapidly evolving to live more peacefully in larger groups.

Earlier I explained how the findings of neuroscience help us understand why so many of us turn to denial and distraction in the face of terrible threats to civilization’s survival. Neuroscience also offers good news: it teaches us that cooperative impulses are rooted deep in our evolutionary past, just like competitive ones.

Self-restraint and empathy for others are partly learned behaviors, acquired and developed in the same way as our capacity for language. We inherit both selfishness and the capacity for altruism, but culture generally nudges us more in the direction of the latter, as parents are traditionally encouraged to teach their children to share and not to be wasteful or arrogant.

Disaster research informs us that, in the early phases of crisis, people typically respond with extraordinary degrees of cooperation and self-sacrifice (I witnessed this in the immediate aftermath of wildfires in my community of Santa Rosa, California). But if privation persists, they may turn toward blame and competition for scarce resources.

All of this suggests that the one thing that is most likely to influence how our communities get through the coming meta-crisis is the quality of relationships among members. A great deal depends on whether we exhibit pro-social attitudes and responses, while discouraging blame and panic. Those of us working to build community resilience need to avoid partisan frames and loaded words, and appeal to shared values. Everyone must understand that we’re all in this together.

The Big Picture can help here, if it aids people in grasping that the collapse of civilization is not any one group’s fault. It is only by pulling together that we can hope to salvage and protect what is most intrinsically valuable about our world, and perhaps even improve lives over the long term.

Hard times are in store. But that doesn’t mean there’s nothing we can do. Each day of relative normalcy that remains is an occasion for thankfulness and an opportunity for action.

.

Trade Deals to boost CO2

SUBHEAD: Despite Paris talks the TPP and TTIP will increase worldwide fossil fuel use and deforestation.

By Staff on 26 October 2015 for Grain.org -
(https://www.grain.org/article/entries/5317-trade-deals-boosting-climate-change-the-food-factor)


Image above: Commercial combines work industrial scale wheat field at sunset. From original article.

The climate talks in Paris in December this year are viewed as a last chance for the world's governments to commit to binding targets that might halt our march towards catastrophe.

But in the countdown to Paris, many of these same governments have signed or are pushing a raft of ambitious trade and investment deals that would pre-empt measures that they could take to deal with climate change (see box 1).

What we know of these deals so far, from the few texts that have leaked out of the secretive negotiations, is that they will lead to more production, more trade and more consumption of fossil fuels – at a time of global consensus on the need for reductions.1 In particular, the EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) and the EU-US Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) are expected to result in increased EU reliance on fossil fuel imports from North America, as well as a restriction of policy space to promote low carbon economies and renewables.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a mega-pact involving 14 countries in Asia and the Americas that was concluded earlier this month, is expected to result in more gas exports from the US to the Pacific Rim countries. The new deals will also extend investor-state dispute settlement provisions which companies are already using through the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) to reverse moratoriums on fracking and other popular environmental measures implemented by governments.2

Less has been said about how the provisions dealing with food and agriculture in these deals will affect our climate. But the question is vital, because food and farming figure hugely in climate change.

From deforestation to fertiliser use, and from factory farms to supermarket shelves, producing, transporting, consuming and wasting food account for around half of all greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs).3 Since creating new channels for the flow of farm goods and changing regulatory and investment regimes for agribusiness and the food industry are high priorities in the current deals, there will undoubtedly be impacts on climate change – and likely negative ones, unless we do something about it.

We see seven main ways through which the food and agriculture components of today's trade and investment deals will make the climate crisis worse.

1. Increasing production,  and consumption of foods that are big emitters of greenhouse gases
Trade deals, on the face of it, are meant to increase trade. This includes trade in food.
The foods that make the biggest contribution to climate change are: red meat (worst: beef, lamb and pork), dairy (worst: butter and cheese, followed by milk and eggs), fish (worst: wild caught or industrially farmed), poultry, palm oil and highly processed foods (worst: those that are airfreighted). Of course, these are sweeping generalisations.

 There are a lot of studies that try to measure the precise GHG emissions from different foods depending on where and how they are produced.4 But roughly, the picture is what we see in graph 1.

In terms of agricultural production, meat and dairy are the biggest contributors to climate change (see box 2).

Only 11% of all meat produced is traded internationally, but globally speaking, meat production and consumption are projected to rise by 17% by 2024 and outright double by 2050.5 Increased trade is expected to a play a role in that growth and some of this will come from the newest trade agreements, which could shift current meat trade dynamics quite a bit.6

Of course, we cannot predict how much trade and consumption will grow as a direct result of these deals, but the tariff cuts and lower standards are expected to lead to increased supplies and therefore consumption in importing countries. That, after all, is what the industry lobbies are aiming for.

Take, for example, the TTIP. If it is signed, it is going to expand the European market for US beef, both high- and low-quality. (Quotas for hormone-free beef will go up, while sanitary restrictions are going down.7) European quality beef may not be able to compete, leading to a displacement of production to the US.

Under CETA, Canada will be sending more pork, beef and dairy to Europe, while the EU will be exporting more cheese to Canada.

The recently concluded China-Australia free trade agreement (ChAFTA) is expected to play an important role in increased dairy production and trade in the Asia-Pacific region. China imports about 20% of its dairy products and those imports are steadily rising.8

Until now, because of the China-New Zealand trade deal, New Zealand dominated China’s foreign dairy supply. Now Australia is expected to take some of that market.

At the same time, Chinese companies themselves are investing heavily in offshore dairy production in Australia for export back to China.9 They are also expanding their beef production base in New Zealand for export home.10

China’s surging beef imports, which currently are permitted from just a handful of countries, grew by 18% in the first half of 2015.11 Australia now accounts for nearly half of that market because of ChAFTA.12 Thanks to the China-New Zealand deal, China is the biggest buyer of New Zealand lamb and the second biggest buyer of New Zealand beef.

Dairy trade was a very contentious issue in the TPP negotiations – one that reportedly held up the conclusion of the deal. Now that the deal has been concluded, Washington calls the US farm industry “the big winner” in the TPP, as not only US dairy exports are expected to grow significantly but also US beef and pork.

Tariffs and quotas aside, markets are also expected to grow for certain agribusiness companies and their investors due to the watering down of food safety regulations and labelling laws as a result of these new deals.13

This is an important concern for farmers and consumers in quite a number of countries whose governments are negotiating.

Unfortunately, despite statements from political leaders that nothing will change, many of the regulatory changes being pushed for by agribusiness giants involve lowering standards for chemicals, opening markets to cloned meat or genetically modified foods, and dropping disease-related barriers against poultry (avian flu) and beef (mad cow).

Under the TPP, we now know that the US government secured the right to challenge other countries’ food safety standards and to set new norms for the presence of genetically modified organisms in foods.14 This will surely expand the US food industry’s reach, globally.

2. Promoting industrial farming for export over local farms and food systems
 
Expansion of markets for European poultry and milk powder has long been a key facet of the EU’s trade liberalisation agendas, as African farmers and livestock keepers know. They have been mobilising to stop the dumping of highly subsidised chicken and excess dairy from Europe since years. These struggles are now more and more connected to climate change.

Industrial poultry, after all, are an important source of greenhouse gas emissions. Broilers, which are raised for their meat, produce seven times more GHG emissions than backyard birds. And layers, which are raised for their eggs, produce four times more.15
 
Chicken consumption is rising in many countries because it is a low-cost meat, and therefore global poultry trade is expected to increase. All of this trade comes from industrial poultry farms, which are higher emitting than backyard or small-scale operations.

Brazilian and EU poultry farms are relatively highest on the climate-unfriendliness scale, mostly attributed to their reliance on soybeans.16 Even in China, where exports are just a small fraction of the country’s production, trade deals are leading to increased imports of feed materials which serve the factory farms that are built with increased levels of foreign investment.

Beyond poultry, experts now say that over the next ten years, increased global meat consumption will raise overall greenhouse gas emissions regardless of improved feed-to-meat conversion ratios in industrial production systems.17

3. Boosting global supermarkets and highly processed foods
The biggest names in food retail are aiming for growth in Asia, as well as Africa and Latin America, through several of today’s new trade agreements. The expansion of global supermarkets brings with it the expansion of processed food production, trade and consumption.

For example, under NAFTA, processed food consumption has skyrocketed in Mexico, bringing with it serious public health problems, and the country’s retail sector has been taken over by large global chains.18

Processed foods – produced by Mondelez, Nestle, Pepsico, Danone, Unilever and the like – are important greenhouse gas emitters, not only because of all the energy used in packaging, processing and transporting the foods, but also because of the emissions generated on the farm.

Processed foods are constructed out of the cheapest raw materials that companies can source from around the globe. One package of standard supermarket food can contain powdered milk from New Zealand, maize from the US, sugar from Brazil, soybeans from Argentina and palm oil from Indonesia – all foods that are high on the emissions scale.

One recent study of a box of Kellogg's breakfast cereal found that eating a 100 gramme serving generates the equivalent of 264 grammes of CO2. Add milk to the cereal and the emissions go up by two to four times. The ingredients accounted for about half the total emissions form the cereal, while manufacturing, packaging and transport contributed the rest.

The researches identified over 20 countries from which the ingredients were sourced, including maize from Argentina, milk powder from the EU, rice from Egypt and Thailand, wheat from Spain and sugar from the US.19
The growth of supermarkets and processed foods also means increased deforestation, and other changes in land and water use, to produce more sugar, maize, soybeans and palm oil – four products that form the backbone of the processed food sector.

For example, in Nigeria, Wilmar, the largest palm oil trading company in the world, plans to expand its oil palm plantations in Cross River State and this, groups on the ground say, will inevitably mean new deforestation.

Through its trade agreements with the Association of Southeast Asia Nations (ASEAN), India has become a major market for Indonesian and Malaysian palm oil, displacing coconut, mustard, groundnut, sesame and other traditional Indian vegetable oils, which were far less damaging to the climate. The same goes for China, the second largest market for ASEAN palm oil after India.

The just-concluded TPP may bring an important upswing in palm oil production, trade and use. “I expect there to be quite a stampede of foreign investment in Southeast Asia when the final text of the agreement is published,” Deborah Elms, executive director of the Asian Trade Centre, told The Wall Street Journal.20

Specifically, Malaysia's palm oil sector is supposed attract a lot of this stampede, as investors jump in to lock down a new cheap source of oil for the US fast food industry.21

4. Climate cheating: the outsourcing of emissions
One of the effects of trade deals is that manufacturing is being outsourced to low wage countries with few environmental restrictions. The countries where these products are consumed thus appear to have reduced emissions when really those emissions have simply been transferred to the countries where the goods are now produced.

As we see in the case of the US and China, neither country then wants to take responsibility. The same happens with foods.

Trade agreements favour food production in countries with low cost and/or heavily subsidised production, with high emissions levels. These countries have powerful industrial agriculture lobbies (US, Brazil, New Zealand, Europe) and are often heavily reliant on agriculture exports for their foreign revenues (US, Brazil, New Zealand, Ireland, Indonesia, New Zealand, Vietnam). It is highly unlikely that these countries will implement any measures to reduce emissions that might impinge on the competitiveness of their agricultural commodities.

Already we see these countries moving with their companies to head off international efforts to make significant emissions cuts to agriculture, for instance with the Global Alliance for Climate Smart Agriculture.

The emissions imported with the foods are not likely to be accounted for by the importing country either. Even if an importing government were to try, measures to reduce imports of certain high greenhouse gas emitting commodities could be challenged as unfair trade restrictions under the new deals.

5. More biofuels
Biofuels are another form of polluting energy which, along with fossil fuels, may get a boost from the latest trade deals. This is especially when investment chapters of trade deals try to “level the playing field” for foreign investors by establishing rules on “national treatment” and “most favoured nation”, which makes access to land for the production of biofuels much easier.

New patenting rules imposed through these deals also make it easier for corporations to engage in technology transfer, knowing that they will enjoy monopoly rights in the signatory countries. Already, EU climate policies have bolstered massive land grabbing in Africa for the production of ethanol for European markets.

China, which currently sources ethanol from so-called free trade agreement partners Pakistan and Vietnam, is also investing heavily now in Brazil for this very purpose (a first ever shipment of Brazilian ethanol for China just left South America).

The Canadian biofuel industry expects to gain a new C$50 million market opening in the EU thanks to CETA.22 Many biofuel crops – sugar cane, sugar beet, sweet potato, oil palm, maize, sorghum, oilseed rape – can be interchangeably used in the food industry, too.

If the TTIP agreement between the US and the EU goes through, modellers say that the US will see a big increase in bioethanol and biodiesel production and exports to the EU who, conversely, will see a big rise in its sugar production and exports to the US.23 The knock-on effects in Brazil, Argentina and China will be important, too.

Despite its poor scorecard in terms of human rights, land rights and carbon emissions, biofuel production is expected to be increasingly promoted as a renewable energy under climate mitigation strategies, and trade and investment deals will be facilitating this.

6. The promotion of local food economies undermined
“Buy national” or “buy local” programmes as well as country-of-origin labelling regulations, are generally considered discriminatory and trade distorting under so-called free trade doctrine.

The World Trade Organisation (WTO) did little to discourage these initiatives, but new fangled bilateral and regional trade deals could go much further. The EU particularly wants to gain much more access, for European companies, to US public markets at all levels (federal, state, local) under TTIP.

Food sovereignty advocates and practitioners see this as a potential threat to local food economies that groups have been painstakingly building over the last decades (e.g. food policy council initiatives to support the use of local foods in public services like schools and hospitals).24

Any moves to make “go local” or “use local” illegal in the food sector will automatically result in increased climate destabilization.25

The same is true of initiatives to support “green” purchasing or programmes to require purchasing from small- and medium-sized enterprises in the name of mitigating climate change. Both of these types of effort can be contested by companies as discriminatory.

Free trade agreements and investment treaties typically have an investor-state dispute mechanism that allows companies to challenge governments policies like these. Sometimes the challenge results in huge financial compensation for the company on the losing end of such laws. Sometimes it causes governments to change policy to avoid such lawsuits.

Just like in the energy sector, we need to address consumption to address climate change. Increasing production and trade, or just making it greener, will not alleviate the problem. Since governments agree that 15% of all global greenhouse gas emissions come from livestock and that 74% of these come from beef and dairy, we have a great opportunity to positively eliminate a big part of the climate problem through local initiatives.

But to do this, we need to defeat the trade deals and ideology that claim that promoting “local” economies is anti-free market and somehow bad for us. (It is only bad for the multinationals!)

7. Food security measures made illegal
In 2013, governments prodded by corporate interests, mainly coming from the US, tried to make it a WTO rule that public procurement of food stuffs in times of crisis should be considered a form of trade-distorting farm subsidy.

Many governments purchase farm products from farmers to stabilise markets, provide guaranteed prices and run stockpiles or distribution systems in the public interest. The ravages cause by climate change – floods, drought, typhoons, etc – in a world of deregulation and corporation concentration make food shocks more common and more threatening.

That means these basic food security measures and strong public procurement programme are more and more needed. Ironically, as soon as the Paris climate talks end in December, governments will fly to Nairobi for a WTO ministerial meeting to decide whether such measures will be considered lawful or not under the global trade regime.

Time to stop destabilizing the climate!
Food consumption patterns are shifting. The Western diet is spreading, particularly in the global South, bringing with it problems of health but also increasing climate pressure. (Some people say we need diet change, not climate change.)

Commodity traders, agribusiness firms, retail chains, private equity groups and other kinds of corporations that finance and run the industrial food system have a keen interest in expanding business in those very markets.

Trade agreements are a great tool to do that, but it’s not just a North-South affair. Brazilian companies are competing with Thai counterparts for emerging market shares in Africa, Russia or the Middle East. Australia wants a bigger part of the action in China who is doing more business with the US. And so on.

We have to wake up and do the math. If we want to deal with climate change, we have to cut consumption of some foods and that means cutting production and trade as well. Luckily, it is quite do-able.

But it does require a structural scaling back of “Big Food” and “Big Retail” and those who finance them. Instead, small- and medium-sized farms, processing and markets, supported by public procurement and financing, could do the job better. It requires a push, and bringing the different struggles around climate change together with the struggles for food sovereignty and against corporate-driven trade agreements.

What to do?
  • Join the growing campaigns against major trade deals like TTIP, TPP, RCEP, TiSA and CETA. See bilaterals.org for links to key groups and more information.
  • Start a focused campaign on trade, climate and food, to show how trade deals your government is negotiating will specifically affect greenhouse gas emissions from food and get them stopped.
  • Raise the issue of food and food trade in local discussions and actions you’re involved in to battle climate change. Come to Paris for the mobilisations outside the COP21. There will be a “trade” bloc in the street march, demanding a stop to TTIP and CETA and other newfangled trade deals. And there will be a day of action on 9 December dedicated entirely to food, agriculture and climate change.
  • Use your imagination to develop concrete initiatives to reduce (y)our reliance on the industrial food system and shrink demand for their products. Start a boycott action – this is what food industry leaders fear most.
  • Get more aware about the climate impact of the foods you eat and initiate, join or strengthen a local food initiative, be it a coop, school programme, an AMAP (Association for the maintenance of peasant agriculture), a CSA (Community-supported agriculture scheme), farmers’ market...


1 See forthcoming reports from Corporate Europe Observatory, http://corporateeurope.org, as well as previous reports from Sierra Club, the Friends of the Earth network, CEO and others compiled at http://www.bilaterals.org/?+-climate-+
2 Peter Rossman, "Against the Trans-Pacific Partnership," Jacobin, 13 May 2015: https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/05/trans-pacific-partnership-obama-fast-track-nafta/

3 See La Via Campesina and GRAIN, “Food sovereignty: 5 steps to cool the planet and feed its people”, 5 December 2014, https://www.grain.org/e/5102

4 We are not in a position to assess that data here, but hope to do so soon.

5  See OECD-FAO, Agricultural Outlook 2015, 1 July 2015, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/agr_outlook-2015-10-en. Seafood trade has already doubled in the last five years and become the most widely traded protein. For more info, see Rabobank, http://rabobank-food-agribusiness-research.pr.co/98495-seafood-a-myriad-of-globally-traded-aquatic-products

6 See the “expanded” meat chapter in OECD-FAO, op cit.

7 The allowed tonnage for hormone-free beef might be raised by perhaps 50,000 tonnes per year. This is a hypothetical that analysts are working with, reflecting what the EU offered Canada under CETA. http://capreform.eu/ttip-and-the-potential-for-us-beef-imports/

8 Ed Gannon and Simone Smith, China FTA: Australian dairy to win share from New Zealand”, Weekly Times, 26 May 2015, http://www.weeklytimesnow.com.au/agribusiness/dairy/china-fta-australian-dairy-to-win-share-from-new-zealand/story-fnkeqg0i-1227369585925; “China dairy sector”, CLAL.it, http://www.clal.it/en/?section=stat_cina

9 Chinese investors are not the largest foreign landholders in Australia but are buying or bidding for some of the country’s most significant cattle and dairy farm operations. See farmlandgrab.org.

10 See for example, Naomi Tajitsu and Charlotte Greenfield, China's Bright to buy 50 pct stake in NZ meat processor, Reuters, 14 Sep 2015, http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/15/newzealand-silverfern-merger-idUSL4N11L1E820150915

11  “China's agricultural imports in disarray”, Dimsums, 15 Aug 2015, http://dimsums.blogspot.fr/2015/08/chinas-agricultural-imports-in-disarray.html

12 ”Pengxin may buy two cattle farms in Australia”, China Daily, 2015-8-29, http://www.ecns.cn/business/2015/08-29/179146.shtml

13 See GRAIN, “Food safety in the EU-US trade agreement: going outside the box”, 10 Dec 2013, https://www.grain.org/e/4846 and FoEE, GRAIN, IATP and others, “EU-US trade deal threatens food safety”, 5 Feb 2015, https://www.grain.org/e/5129

14 Matthew Weaver, “Vilsack: TPP text available in next 30 days”, Capital Press, 6 October 2015, http://www.capitalpress.com/Nation_World/Nation/20151006/vilsack-tpp-text-available-in-next-30-days

15 Data are from FAO Global Livestock Environmental Assessment (GLEAM) report, “Greenhouse gas emissions from pig and chicken supply chains”, 2013, http://www.fao.org/docrep/018/i3460e/i3460e.pdf

16 Idem, Figure 36, page 55.

17  Idem.

18  See GRAIN, “Free trade and Mexico’s junk food epidemic”, 2 March 2015,https://www.grain.org/e/5170

19 Harish Kumar Jeswani, Richard Burkinshaw, Adisa Azapagic, “Environmental sustainability issues in the food-energy-water nexus: Breakfast cereals and snacks”, Science Direct, April 2015, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352550915000238

20 Jake Maxwell Watts, Kathy Chiu and Celine Fernandez, “Company stampede to Southeast Asia seen on Trans-Pacific Partnership trade pact,” Wall Street Journal, 7 October 2015, http://www.wsj.com/articles/company-stampede-to-southeast-asia-seen-on-trade-pact-1444230531

21 Bernama, “TPP broadens market scope in US, say palm oil experts”, 7 October 2015, http://www.themalaymailonline.com/money/article/tpp-broadens-market-scope-in-us-say-palm-oil-experts

23 John Beghin, Jean-Christophe Bureau,and Alexandre Gohin, “The impact of an EU-US Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership agreement on biofuel and feedstock markets”, J Working Paper 14-WP 552, November 2014, http://www.card.iastate.edu/publications/dbs/pdffiles/14wp552.pdf

24 See Karen Hansen-Kuhn, “Local economies on the table: TTIP procurement update”, IATP, 13 November 2014, http://www.iatp.org/documents/local-economies-on-the-table

25 Not all “go local” initiatives in the food sector are better for the climate. But a lot are.

26 FAO, “Major cuts of greenhouse gas emissions from livestock within reach, Key facts and findings” 26 Sep 2013, http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/197623/icode/

.

Peak Coconuts

SUBHEAD: While demand rises coconut crisis looms as postwar palm trees age and are not replaced.

By Supunnabul Suwannakij on 3 November 2013 for Bloomberg News -
(http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-03/coconut-crisis-looms-as-postwar-palm-trees-age-southeast-asia.html)


Image above: Proposed Longs Drugs paving over the remnants of the eastsides once extensive coconut orchards next to failing Coconut Glove mall. From (http://thegardenisland.com/business/local/longs-drugs-plans-waipouli-store/article_eaaeb146-d267-11e2-b2be-0019bb2963f4.html?mode=jqm_gal).

Asia’s coconut palms, which mark the landscape from the Philippines to India, face a crisis as aging groves become less productive, with harvests that are a source of food and income for millions being outstripped by demand.

The trees, many of which were planted about 50 to 60 years ago, no longer yield enough to meet rising demand, according to the Rome-based Food & Agriculture Organization. There’s an urgent need for replanting, said Hiroyuki Konuma, regional representative for Asia and the Pacific at the UN agency, which is coordinating a response to the challenge. While world consumption of coconut products is growing more than 10 percent a year, production is increasing by only 2 percent, it said.

At stake is the productivity of a core part of the rural economy in the Asia-Pacific, which accounts for about 85 percent of the global supply of the commodity that goes into food, fuel, soaps and cosmetics. In the Philippines, among the three biggest growers, one in five people depends on the crop to some extent, according to the Asian and Pacific Coconut Community. The Jakarta-based group, which represents growers, predicts that harvests could be increased to benefit millions of smallholders.

“We have a lot of aging trees,” Yvonne Agustin, executive director of the United Coconut Association of the Philippines, said in an interview, adding some local palms are already 100 years old. “The government recognizes that and has embarked on a planting and replanting program,” Agustin said by phone.

Slender Trees
The slender trees that are a staple image for tourists’ postcards are productive for between 50 years and a century, with the highest yields in the first three decades, according to the FAO. The harvest in the Asia-Pacific is now about 40 nuts per tree a year, compared with a potential yield of 75 to 150, it estimates, saying replanting is advisable after 60 years.

India, Asia’s third-largest economy, is the top producer, harvesting 17 billion nuts last year, followed by Indonesia, which gathered 15.4 billion, and the Philippines, with 15.2 billion, according to the Asian and Pacific Coconut Community. The global coconut area was about 12.3 million hectares (30.3 million acres), yielding 64.3 billion nuts, it said.

While the expansion of services and manufacturing spurs economic growth in Asia, farming remains important. In India, agriculture accounted for 17 percent of gross domestic product last year, according to the Washington-based World Bank. In Indonesia, agriculture was 15 percent of GDP in 2011, while in the Philippines it was 13 percent. The FAO estimates the coconut industry accounts for as much as 5 percent of Philippine GDP.


Image above: Photo of existing aging coconut trees to be taken down and replaced with parking lot . From (http://thegardenisland.com/business/local/longs-drugs-plans-waipouli-store/article_eaaeb146-d267-11e2-b2be-0019bb2963f4.html?mode=jqm_gal).

Philippine Yield
In the Philippines, an estimated 340 million trees cover 26 percent of farmland, yielding 43 nuts per tree a year, data from the Philippine Coconut Authority show. Shipments of coconut products in the first eight months of the year rose 10 percent to $1 billion, data from the statistics agency show. The industry is the country’s largest agricultural exporter, said Euclides Forbes, the authority’s administrator.

Kerala is the top producer in India, followed by Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh, according to the Coconut Development Board, under the Ministry of Agriculture. While a trial program in Kerala to replace aged palms has boosted productivity, yields are still dropping in the three other states, sometimes by as much as third, Sugata Ghose, the board’s chief coconut development officer, said in an interview.

“We have removed disease-ridden and old palms for replanting,” said Ghose, who’s based in Kochi, Kerala. “Last year, we had a big problem with the price, as farmers were not getting a good price. This year farmers are happy because production is less plus demand has gone up.”

Bangkok Consultation
Not all farmers face difficulties. Aging trees aren’t an issue in Vietnam’s Ben Tre, according to Tran Van Hung, deputy director of the agriculture department in the province that’s the biggest grower. Yields are stable at about 100 nuts per tree a year in most areas, up from about 60 a few years ago after prices rose and farmers used more fertilizer, Hung said.

The FAO, a United Nations agency, hosted a consultation in Bangkok last week to address the yield issue, drawing representatives from states including the three top growers as well as Fiji and the Solomon Islands. While yields are low and most trees are old, scientists are working to raise output, said Siriwat Kajornprasart, Thailand’s deputy minister of agriculture and cooperatives.

“Coconut is a traditional crop in India, with more than 2,000 years of history,” K. Muralidharan, director of the Coconut Development Board, said on the sidelines of the gathering in Bangkok. Every part of the palm can be used, and the industry contributes more than 83 billion rupees ($1.3 billion) a year to India’s GDP (INQGGDPY), he said.

Often Overlooked
New trees can start producing in as few as two or three years, according to Romulo Arancon, executive director of the Asian and Pacific Coconut Community. With replanting and improved farm practices, output can be raised by 50 percent to 100 percent within a few years, said Arancon, who estimated that a mature palm can produce as many as 400 nuts a year.

More than half of Indonesia’s 4 million hectares of palms are aging, or over 50 years old, said Irawadi Jamaran, chairman of the Indonesian Coconut Board, which groups producers, processors and sellers. The main problem for the industry is a lack of government attention, with greater concern for bigger plantations, especially oil palm, Irawadi said. The country is the largest producer of palm oil, which is grown on estates.

“Coconut is often overlooked by many people because we’re always looking at rice and oil palm, and people don’t think coconut is an important one: this is not true,” the FAO’s Konuma said in an interview. “It contributes to economy, culture and livelihood.”


.

Supreme Court Monsanto seed case

SUBHEAD: US Supreme Court appeared likely to side with Monsanto in claim an Indiana farmer violated the company's patents.

By Mark Sherman on 19 February 2013 for Huffington Post -
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/19/us-supreme-court-monsanto_n_2719335.html)


Image above: Vernon Bowman, at his farm in Sandborn, Indiana, will face off against Monsanto in Supreme Court. From (http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_22617165/vernon-hugh-bowman-will-take-monsanto-supreme-court)

The Supreme Court appeared likely Tuesday to side with Monsanto Co. in its claim that an Indiana farmer violated the company's patents on soybean seeds that are resistant to its weed-killer.

None of the justices in arguments at the high court seemed ready to endorse farmer Vernon Hugh Bowman's argument that cheap soybeans he bought from a grain elevator are not covered by the Monsanto patents, even though most of them also were genetically modified to resist the company's Roundup herbicide.

Chief Justice John Roberts wondered "why in the world would anybody" invest time and money on seeds if it was so easy to evade patent protection.

To protect its investment in their development, Monsanto has a policy that prohibits farmers from saving or reusing the seeds once the crop is grown. Farmers must buy new seeds every year.

The case is being closely watched by researchers and businesses holding patents on DNA molecules, nanotechnologies and other self-replicating technologies.

The issue for the court is how far the patents held by the world's largest seed company extend. More than 90 percent of American soybean farms use Monsanto's "Roundup Ready" seeds, which first came on the market in 1996.

The 75-year-old Bowman bought the expensive seeds for his main crop of soybeans, but decided to look for something cheaper for a risky, late-season soybean planting.

He went to a grain elevator that held soybeans it typically sells for feed, milling and other uses, but not as seed.

Bowman reasoned that most of those soybeans also would be resistant to weed killers, as they initially came from herbicide-resistant seeds too. He was right, and he repeated the practice over eight years. In 2007, Monsanto sued and won an $84,456 judgment.


Across the court's conservative-liberal divide, justices expressed little sympathy for Bowman's actions.

Justice Stephen Breyer said Bowman could make many uses of the soybeans he bought from the grain elevator. "Feed it to the animals. Feed it your family or make tofu turkey," Breyer said.

But patent law makes it illegal for Bowman to plant them. "What it prohibits here is making a copy of the patented invention and that is what he did," Breyer said.

Mark Walters, Bowman's Seattle-based lawyer, tried to focus the court on the claim that Monsanto has used patent law to bully farmers.

"What they are asking for is for the farmer to assume all the risk of farming, but yet they can sit back and control how that product is used," Walters said.

Monsanto lawyer Seth Waxman said the company put 13 years and hundreds of millions of dollars into developing herbicide-resistant seeds.

"Without the ability to limit the reproduction of soybeans containing this patented trait, Monsanto could not have commercialized its invention and never would have produced what is now the most popular patented technology" in farming, Waxman said.

The Obama administration also is backing the company.

Consumer groups and organic food producers have fought Monsanto over genetically engineered farm and food issues in several settings. They lost a campaign in California last year to require labels on most genetically engineered processed foods and produce. Monsanto and other food and chemical companies spent more than $40 million to defeat the ballot measure.

A decision is expected by June.

The case is Bowman v. Monsanto Co., 11-796.
.

Era of Food Scarcity

SUBHEAD: We are entering a time of chronic food scarcity, leading to intense competition for control of land and water.

By Lester Brown on 8 February 2013 for TreeHugger -
(http://www.treehugger.com/sustainable-agriculture/new-era-food-scarcity-echoes-collapsed-civilizations.html)


Image above: 1930's Dust Bowl photo by Dorthea Lange in the Library of Congress. From original artcle.

The world is in transition from an era of food abundance to one of scarcity. Over the last decade, world grain reserves have fallen by one third. World food prices have more than doubled, triggering a worldwide land rush and ushering in a new geopolitics of food. Food is the new oil. Land is the new gold.

This new era is one of rising food prices and spreading hunger. On the demand side of the food equation, population growth, rising affluence, and the conversion of food into fuel for cars are combining to raise consumption by record amounts. On the supply side, extreme soil erosion, growing water shortages, and the earth’s rising temperature are making it more difficult to expand production. Unless we can reverse such trends, food prices will continue to rise and hunger will continue to spread, eventually bringing down our social system.

Can we reverse these trends in time? Or is food the weak link in our early twenty-first-century civilization, much as it was in so many of the earlier civilizations whose archeological sites we now study?

This tightening of world food supplies contrasts sharply with the last half of the twentieth century, when the dominant issues in agriculture were overproduction, huge grain surpluses, and access to markets by grain exporters. During that time, the world in effect had two reserves: large carryover stocks of grain (the amount in the bin when the new harvest begins) and a large area of cropland idled under U.S. farm programs to avoid overproduction. When the world harvest was good, the United States would idle more land.

When the harvest was subpar, it would return land to production. The excess production capacity was used to maintain stability in world grain markets. The large stocks of grain cushioned world crop shortfalls.

When India’s monsoon failed in 1965, for example, the United States shipped a fifth of its wheat harvest to India to avert a potentially massive famine. And because of abundant stocks, this had little effect on the world grain price.

When this period of food abundance began, the world had 2.5 billion people. Today it has 7 billion. From 1950 to 2000 there were occasional grain price spikes as a result of weather-induced events, such as a severe drought in Russia or an intense heat wave in the U.S. Midwest. But their effects on price were short-lived. Within a year or so things were back to normal.

The combination of abundant stocks and idled cropland made this period one of the most food-secure in world history. But it was not to last. By 1986, steadily rising world demand for grain and unacceptably high budgetary costs led to a phasing out of the U.S. cropland set-aside program.

Today the United States has some land idled in its Conservation Reserve Program, but it targets land that is highly susceptible to erosion. The days of productive land ready to be quickly brought into production when needed are over.

Ever since agriculture began, carryover stocks of grain have been the most basic indicator of food security. The goal of farmers everywhere is to produce enough grain not just to make it to the next harvest but to do so with a comfortable margin. From 1986, when we lost the idled cropland buffer, through 2001, the annual world carryover stocks of grain averaged a comfortable 107 days of consumption.

This safety cushion was not to last either. After 2001, the carryover stocks of grain dropped sharply as world consumption exceeded production. From 2002 through 2011, they averaged only 74 days of consumption, a drop of one third. An unprecedented period of world food security has come to an end. Within two decades, the world had lost both of its safety cushions.

In recent years, world carryover stocks of grain have been only slightly above the 70 days that was considered a desirable minimum during the late twentieth century. Now stock levels must take into account the effect on harvests of higher temperatures, more extensive drought, and more intense heat waves.

Although there is no easy way to precisely quantify the harvest effects of any of these climate-related threats, it is clear that any of them can shrink harvests, potentially creating chaos in the world grain market. To mitigate this risk, a stock reserve equal to 110 days of consumption would produce a much safer level of food security.

The world is now living from one year to the next, hoping always to produce enough to cover the growth in demand. Farmers everywhere are making an all-out effort to keep pace with the accelerated growth in demand, but they are having difficulty doing so.

Food shortages undermined earlier civilizations. The Sumerians and Mayans are just two of the many early civilizations that declined apparently because they moved onto an agricultural path that was environmentally unsustainable. For the Sumerians, rising salt levels in the soil as a result of a defect in their otherwise well-engineered irrigation system eventually brought down their food system and thus their civilization.

For the Mayans, soil erosion was one of the keys to their downfall, as it was for so many other early civilizations. We, too, are on such a path. While the Sumerians suffered from rising salt levels in the soil, our modern-day agriculture is suffering from rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. And like the Mayans, we too are mismanaging our land and generating record losses of soil from erosion.

While the decline of early civilizations can be traced to one or possibly two environmental trends such as deforestation and soil erosion that undermined their food supply, we are now dealing with several. In addition to some of the most severe soil erosion in human history, we are also facing newer trends such as the depletion of aquifers, the plateauing of grain yields in the more agriculturally advanced countries, and rising temperature.

Against this backdrop, it is not surprising that the United Nations reports that food prices are now double what they were in 2002–04. For most Americans, who spend on average 9 percent of their income on food, this is not a big deal. But for consumers who spend 50–70 percent of their income on food, a doubling of food prices is a serious matter. There is little latitude for them to offset the price rise simply by spending more.

Closely associated with the decline in stocks of grain and the rise in food prices is the spread of hunger. During the closing decades of the last century, the number of hungry people in the world was falling, dropping to a low of 792 million in 1997. After that it began to rise, climbing toward 1 billion. Unfortunately, if we continue with business as usual, the ranks of the hungry will continue to expand.

The bottom line is that it is becoming much more difficult for the world’s farmers to keep up with the world’s rapidly growing demand for grain. World grain stocks were drawn down a decade ago and we have not been able to rebuild them. If we cannot do so, we can expect that with the next poor harvest, food prices will soar, hunger will intensify, and food unrest will spread.

We are entering a time of chronic food scarcity, one that is leading to intense competition for control of land and water resources—in short, a new geopolitics of food.

Adapted from Full Planet, Empty Plates: The New Geopolitics of Food Scarcity by Lester R. Brown (New York: W.W. Norton & Co.). Supporting data, video, and slideshows are available for free download at www.earth-policy.org/books/fpep.


.

Genetic Engineering Doomed

SUBHEAD: We will have to be responsible for our own food in our own places by abandoning the corporate teat.

By Juan Wilson on 13 January 2013 for Island Breath  -
(http://islandbreath.blogspot.com/2013/01/genetic-engineering-doomed.html)


Image above: A midwest GMO corn field scorched by drought in 2012. From (http://teachhumane.org/heart/2012/09/11/the-midwest-drought-and-humane-education/).

The Bad News
For the last two days we have concentrated on posting articles relating to Climate Change as it relates to globalized industrialization and its effects on food production and ultimately bio-diversity on Earth life. It's a dark and depressing subject. Much of the living Earth, as we have known her for tens-of-thousands of years, is threatened.

Fellow bloggers like Guy McPherson are going so far as to say that all life on Earth is now about to be extinguished. His latest article Climate Change Update projects that we will make life here inhospitable to humans in the lifetimes of the current generation... and it will only get worse as feedback loops releasing atmospheric methane and adding acidifying CO2 to the oceans really kick in. Cue soundtrack - Doom-Di-Doom-Doom!

Yet Some Will Survive
Well it's not quite as bad as that. Humans could not kill all life on Earth even if we really tried... for example detonating all the nuclear devices in our trembling hands. Why?
  • Because more than 90% of the Earth's biomass in the oceans is single celled animals. 
  • Because ten-times more single celled (or more primitive) life forms exist under ground than above its surface. 
  • Because simple life forms can be generated from underwater steam vents in the darkest depths of the ocean without light or air.
  • Because we are greatly out numbered by simple forms that can wait us out as we choke on our own poisons.
Scientists with knowledge of biology, radiation, physics and evolution will tell you that although the "accidental" release of large amounts of radioactivity locked in nuclear fuel and weapons would be a terminal disaster for humans, that "in the long run" it would accelerate microbial evolution resulting in a new era of biodiversity. By "long run", of course, we mean in millions of years. The bottom line is that humans cannot destroy all life, even if they wanted to. Gaia will prevail until more planetary events prevail.


Human Nature
However, what humans will likely do is ruin the habitat of the remaining megafauna on planet Earth. As you probably know, " megafauna" means the big animals. That would include tuna, whales, kodiak bears, moose, lions, tigers, elephants, gorillas and of course ourselves.

Megafauna are fussy. They need large, complicated and stable habitats.  Those kinds of environments can become delicate when their resources are damaged or depleted. They can be wrecked if those conditions persist. And hey! Nobody can tell us we're not good at wrecking habitats.

As humans spread out across the world as hunter-gatherers,  just about the first thing they did was hunt out the top megafauna in any environment they encountered. In North America that included giant sloths, mastodons, saber-toothed tigers, giant camels and anything else big enough to chase into a pit and spear.

We continue pushing back all other forms of life as we spread the industrialized human habitat (and its growing cloud of miseries) across the globe.

GMO Corn Everywhere
Our domesticated sources of meat and protein are almost entirely dependent on GMO corn, and that GMO corn is 90% of the corn grown. And that corn is the primary source of feed for meat that humans consume - includes beef, pork, poultry and even fish. Because of federal subsidies for corn and cheap oil and monopoly protection for big-ag, GMO corn is the cheapest thing to feed any animal; including our cats and dogs (just check the ingredients of any bagged pet foods).

The percentage of prepared and packaged food that contains GMO corn has grown to the point where it is no longer possible to buy a bottle of ketchup in a Big Save Supermarket on Kauai that does not contain GMO High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS). Almost all fruit and soda drinks are sweetened with GMO HFCS making them alone a significant percentage of daily caloric intake. A typical McDonald's meal of a cheeseburger, medium fries and a medium soda is about 890 calories.

The 16 ounce soda contributes about 25% of the calories of that meal in the form of GMO HFCS. Of course the nearly 300 calories of fat from cheese and beef are the result of GMO corn feed. That makes almost 50% of the calories in that McDonald's meal derived directly from GMO corn.

The results are obesity, diabetes, heart disease as well as possible relationships to depression, autism and a host of other problems.

Our dependence on mono-culture genetically-modified food to feed the masses has morphed into a form of mass suicide. 

Running on Empty
Our ability to continue the level of damage we are capable of, through continued industrialization of natural resources, is quickly coming to an end. The cheap energy is about burned up, the deep topsoil is exhausted and the fresh water is depleted. Our ability to feed our vast numbers with modern agriculture is being degraded at an alarming rate.

The bogeyman of global warming is certainly playing his part. The interior of large continents are increasingly unfriendly to modern farming.  With rising temperatures, depleted soil and loss of topsoil the desertification of the corn-belt of North America is underway.

The record drought this summer in the corn country of America this summer resulted in a significant decrease in yield and increase in price. And what we eat in America has become hostage to GMO corn yield because only a few patented strains of GMO corn make up 90% of the corn grown - thanks to the monopoly practiced by Monsanto and a few other global corporations.

The cornbelt is fueled by the Ogallala aquifer and topsoil:
"The Ogallala supplies water to 176,000 square miles of land in parts of eight states from the Texas panhandle to southern South Dakota. That amounts to about 27 percent of all irrigated land in the nation, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.

The volume of water in the aquifer stood at about 2.9 billion acre feet in 2009, a decline of about 9 percent since 1950, according to the Geological Survey. About two-and-a-half times as much water was drawn out in the 14 years ended 2009 as during the prior 15-year period, data shows.

The water may run out in 25 years or less in parts of Texas, Oklahoma and southwest Kansa
s." (NBC News 12/30/12)
 The cornbelt soil is washing away to the Gulf of Mexico:
Iowa’s soil is washing away at rates far higher than anyone realized... For Iowa — and other Corn Belt states facing similar problems — this means an increasing loss of fertility that has to be replaced chemically...  And every particle that washes away causes problems downstream, including sedimentation — which can increase the risk of flooding — and the alarming dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico, the result of runoff of the chemical fertilizers farmers apply to make up for lost fertility...

The Agriculture Department says that a “sustainable” rate of topsoil loss for most of Iowa is 5 tons per acre per year, and the actual average soil erosion is 5.2 tons. But using Iowa State University statistics and an aerial survey, the Environmental Working Group concluded that average annual soil loss in much of Iowa is double the federal government’s estimates. (NY Times 5/4/11)
As long as you've read this far
These and other factors are making it ever more difficult to rely on the big-ag industrialization that has bloated our population since the "The Green Revolution" of mechanized farming, synthetic fertilizer, pesticides and easy transportation that was enabled by petroleum products. The following technology of GMO is now only exacerbating the problems.

I think the "powers that be" already smell the smoke of their smoldering ruin. Although they won't talk about it, those running things know climate change due to global warming means the jig is up. They will have to mitigate the nature of their own activities - and nature will be far harder to control.That doesn't mean their won't be desperate thrashing from dying dinosaurs like Monsanto. Watch out! Those bastards are capable of any perfidy.

The Good News
People in many roles are "getting it". It may have started with the enthusiasm in organic farming, but resistance to big-ag GMO based agriculture has spread among the locovore movement, Transition Towns, sustainability advocates, urban farmers and end-of-suburbia doomster preppers.

We are all realizing that our modern food delivery system is bad for us and the planet. Energy is food and food is energy. And we've been using the wrong kind of both.

We will have to be responsible for our own food in our own places by abandoning the corporate teat. It is too poisonous to suck on anymore. Goodbye Monsanto!

Hawaii is where the GMO research is done. We here on Kauai are at the fountain head of genetic engineering industrial agriculture. One of our island's responsibilities is to push back on Syngenta, Dow Agroscience, DuPont-Pioneer, Monsanto and the others as we did with the military's Super Ferry. They will go in peace or with resistance, but ultimately we will have to deny them access to our land and water. 

We are going to do this to live.

See also:
Ea O Ka Aina: Monsanto Empire Protested 1/13/13
Ea O Ka Aina: Dust Bowl Redux 1/13/13
Ea O Ka Aina: Global Warning 1/12/13
Ea O Ka Aina: Climate Change Update 1/12/13
Ea O Ka Aina: Vandana Shiva on Kauai 1/5/13 (to be here on 1/17/13)

.

No More Sushi

SUBHEAD: Pacific wild bluefin tuna overfishing has led to 96% population reduction, study says.

By Joe Satran on 10 January 2013 for Huffington Post -
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/10/pacific-bluefin-tuna-overfishing_n_2448967.html)


Image above: Wild bluefin tuna caught. From original article.

The latest stock assessment of Bluefin tuna in the Pacific released on Wednesday indicates that overfishing has pushed the stock of the giant fish down by a shocking 96.4 percent compared to unfished levels, flying in the face of the conventional wisdom about Bluefin tuna, which says that the Pacific population is much healthier than the Atlantic population.

The assessment, which was released by the International Scientific Committee for Tuna and Tuna-Like Species in the North Pacific Ocean (ISC), pins some of the blame for the precipitous decline on fishermen's propensity for taking juvenile tuna out of the water before they've had a chance to reproduce. About 90 percent of the bluefin caught in the Pacific are juveniles, according to the ISC's report.

Pacific bluefin -- actually a distinct species from their counterparts in the Atlantic -- are fished mostly for use in sushi restaurants in Japan, with some going to sushi restaurants in other parts of the world as well. They fetch extremely high prices, making them attractive to fishermen. Just last week, the first bluefin tuna of the season was sold at auction in Tokyo's famous Tsukiji Fish Market for a record $1.76 million. (That tuna, of course, fetched many times more than a normal one would, as the first specimen of the season always does.)

It's long been known that Pacific bluefin were overfished, but the species has never been placed on the IUCN's list of endangered species, in part because the officials in charge of conserving bluefin tuna in the Pacific have been unable to agree on one stock assessment. Some have always suspected that Japanese officials, eager to protect a valuable industry and a cultural touchstone, were systematically underestimating the extent to which Bluefin had been overfished -- and this study certainly supports that idea.

In any case, if the news in November that Atlantic bluefin tuna were starting to recover had you thinking it was OK to eat toro, this should go a ways toward changing your mind.
.