Food prices spike--again

Alan Bjerga examined, in his excellent book "Endless Appetites," the behavior of markets during the food price spikes of 2007-8 and 2010.

Well, as expected, it's happening again . US droughts and excessive UK rainfall have damaged grain crops in both nations.

In our October 20 blog entry, we gave a link to a BBC story centered on the US drought. The price rises are essentially inevitable in the near term.

What direction on climate?

The talks starting in Doha are looking like they're going to stumble . To me, that's not surprising. There is more recognition now than at Kyoto that aggressive measures to curb carbon emissions are also likely to curb economies--and this might not be the best time for that. Also, some energy moves are happening independent of Kyoto, like a big shift to natural gas . Two things to know about natural gas: (1) it's actually economical, unlike renewables, and (2) for the same energy output, there's 60% less CO2 emitted--not perfect but a big improvement.

It's worth pondering this quote from MIT Technology Review:

"UCSD's David ­Victor, for one, estimates that a modern gas-fired power plant emits roughly two-fifths as much carbon as even a new coal plant. According to his calculations, the United States is saving about 400 million metric tons of carbon emissions annually in the recent switch to natural gas from coal. That's roughly twice as much progress as the European Union has made in complying with the Kyoto Protocol through policy efforts. 'There is no single event that has had as large and sustained an impact on carbon emissions as the gas revolution,' he says."

So climate negotiators need to get their heads around these things. They need to figure out how to support technologies that are ready for prime time. And carbon control measures need to support economies, not hamstring them.

Doing more with no more

One of the challenges of providing adequate food in the 21st century will be the development of new agricultural land. A ten-year-old publication of UN FAO estimated that 120 million hectares of new farmland would be required. It is hard to see how that could be achieved without an increase in the destruction of ecosystems such as rainforests.

One of the challenges of combatting hunger is preventing malnutrition caused by insufficient micronutrients in the diet. This letter in Science magazine suggests that the micronutrient problem could be addressed using available croplands. It is critical that its recommendations are implemented fully.

Creating some momentum after Rio+20

The palpable disappointment following the Rio+20 sustainable development conference cast a pall on sustainability thinking in general. What does it take to motivate nations to change?

One thinker, Edward Barbier, has put forward three near-term actions in an article in Science magazine. Since many of you probably don't subscribe to Science, I'm giving it a tiny amount of added publicity.

Basically Barbier, at the University of Wyoming, is saying that sustainability and development have been separate and cannot remain so; that sustainability has no priority in the thinking of governments; and that even the UN has no body to push sustainability initiatives. He cites the World Health Organization and the International Labor Organization as UN bodies that are effective because they have mandates.

But perhaps the most exciting thing in Barbier's piece was a discussion about how to raise funds for development. He cited a Gates Foundation study of which I was unaware. Bill Gates discusses in great detail how to finance global development using several untapped and largely painless sources.

A nice summary

The BBC has put together a nine-minute video , centered around the US drought, that nicely pulls together all of the resource issues facing the world in this century.

A very small war

There are some flashpoints in the world that could involve major powers. Numerous resource-rich islands in the Western Pacific, for instance, have recently fueled tensions between China and its neighbors.

But large nations have diplomatic sophistication, and numerous reasons not to allow their conflicts to escalate to the point of violence. Not so on a smaller scale. Where people live near the edge of starvation anyway, the use of violence to gain access to resources is often the only option.

Today, clashes in rural Kenya have killed at least 38 people . Over 50 more were killed last month. Some goat-herds needed grazing land and water that farmers want for their crops. That's all. 88 deaths as a result.

The connection between resource scarcity and war has the potential to grow beyond impoverished zones of developing nations. As this century progresses, will larger nations find the need to feed their people and power their countries so compelling that they will resort to war? Solving resource challenges solves a bigger problem as well: it reduces the threat of military conflict. And in a world with weapons of mass destruction, that is vitally important.

Carbon, renewables and resource scarcity

European governments took the lead, several years ago, in establishing penalties for releasing carbon dioxide into the air, and creating a scheme for "carbon trading." It was a way of tackling a perceived environmental threat that attempted to take into account the complexity of the issue.

Australia has followed suit, and implemented one of the most aggressive carbon taxes, at $26 a tonne. Living here, there has been no lack of opinions and whining about the impact that the tax will have on the Australian economy. Even though the tax has been in place for only a month, there have been scams, cheats and accusations. Recently, almost $50 billion in capital projects have been cancelled by the mining industry here, and some have blamed the tax. It's a much more convenient whipping boy, clearly, than the fact that the Chinese economy has stalled.

But the larger question is: does carbon trading actually enhance sustainability? And does it improve the lot of the massively expanding human population?

Carbon trading would be unnecessary were carbon-neutral processes for energy generation economically viable. But they are not. Various nations and corporations have invested in some of these processes--solar power, wind power, fuel cells--but they have primarily been used for high-tech photo opportunities. Solar power still costs four times what carbon-based power does. Someone has to pay the difference. Small amounts of uneconomical practice can be absorbed, but not large amounts. In addition to the cost issue, there are other, unsolved technical problems, such as the variability of the "renewable" sources, which play havoc with the reliable delivery of electricity. So far, there has been zero improvement to the sustainability of world energy production.

Many developing nations want, and deserve, the higher quality of life that results from affordable energy sources, particularly for electricity and transportation. Can they be given access to this, even given the risk of increased global atmospheric temperatures? In this Century Of Scarcity, one principle must remain inviolate: no amount of carbon policing must be allowed to interfere with the production and distribution of food.