This was from an article in the Wall Street Journal about the cost of fertilizer rising at a faster rate than that of gasoline:
Urea, a nitrogen-carrying fertilizer, is selling for around $600 a ton, twice the price a year ago, mostly because of a steep run-up in natural-gas prices.
The price of phosphate has climbed to about $1,000 a ton, up from $365 last year, according to Green Markets, a trade publication, while the price of a ton of potash is now more than $700, up from $230.
The price of gasoline has far reaching affects in the global south. High quality fertilizers, high yield seed, and drought resistant seed are not readily available in areas where extreme hunger runs rampant. When modern agricultural technology is not available to poorer countries then the problem of hunger is compounded. Gasoline is not the only culprit to the shortage of good seed and sustainable fertilizer, these shortages existed even before gas prices shot up. The gas price merel adds more problems to an already nightmarish situation. A current example is Myanmar; this time of year is called the 'hungry season'; farms have been pushed to capacity and the government is obviousloy not going to make things any easier.
I believe that providing farm technologies, (seed, fertilizers, soil education) to poorer countries would provide assistance that could really curb the hunger problem. Communities in South America and Asia that have sustainable farms have healthy communities. Now, I understand that healthy farms are not the only solution for many of these places. Corrupt governments play a huge role in corrupt and dieing communities. Giving farm aide to the poorest countries is merely one step in the right direction for hunger relief.
Unfortunatly, the first thing that would need to happen in order for the U.S. to help foreign farmers would be to quell the lobbiest, i.e. American Farm Lobby. When the topic of helping African farmers comes up, the lobbiest step in and the White House reacts and nothing ever gets done. The reason the American Farm lobby fights against helping Africa or other countries is becasue U.S. farmers depend on selling their produce to foreign countries like Africa. Getting Americans to spend more money on their food by buying locally is a daunting task; changing behavior doesnt happen over night (and neither will world hunder). This many seem idealistic or 'head in the clouds' but I believe it is at the root of the problem. The woes of global farming are not known by many people in this country. I've spent the last couple of months reading up on modern farming problems, the issue is complex and intimidating. I believe that more Americans need to be educated on this issue and public awarness could ispire a more constructive conversation about world hunger.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
5 comments:
Is there a way to get these technologies and supplies to the common farmer of another country without having to deal with its government, though? I don't know of one. Look, again, at Myanmar. We're having to go all out just to get their government to let us give them aid. And even then it's not going to the people but to the government who we are "trusting" to get to the people. I may be stealing the words from Dustin's mouth when I say that before you get to the "root of the problem" you have to get to the environment that is producing that root, i.e. corrupt and self-serving governments and dictatorships. You can't go anywhere with that kind of wall blocking your efforts. Maybe there is a way to deal with both at the same time?
Also, I agree, it's going to take a long time to get not only lobbyist but the general public's mind off of ourselves and more towards others. In this case, the government and lobbyist does reflect, I think, the majority of the American public. The priority is always us and our convenience and profit, and then maybe we'll send some aid somewhere obscure. We can do better! We have a lot of wealth and know-how and we should be sharing it.
There are other places where the governments are not blocking farm aid to their citizens. I dont think we can give up on trying to give aide and just focus on the 'environment' of corruption in all the world. We are able to get farm technologies to places in Africa. One reason we dont is because of big Ag business in the U.S. If Africans become sustainable then big Ag business here suffers. How would you suggest changing the publics mind? I'm not happy with the answer of 'let the market change it for them'?
One word: Myanmar. Governments like Myanmar prevent even the most motivated hunger relief. And its driven by self preservation and power; I love big government.
Sure, there are technologies that could be used to fight world hunger. There is also genetically modified grain that can grow almost anywhere (from a PBS special I saw). Both solutions still have the same problem, they are too expensive for practical use because of economic reason; and as of today one is oil prices.
Oil translates way beyond gasoline. Oil is part of almost all manufacturing processes. It is gas, it is lubricant, it is fuel for heaters, and yes it powers tractors with gasoline. Oil is the blood of a nation. The more expensive it is harder it is on the nation.
Does the "green" agenda add to this problem? What about "green" lobbyists?
I think that 'lobbyists' in gernarl are a problem; not just the green/environmental lobbyists. Drilling for oil in the ANWR resevoir would take about 10 years to extract anything valueable, and that depends on what they find under the tundra. Lets say we get the 118 billion barrels that are projected to be there; what then? How long will that drive energy prices down? In this conversation so far it seems that to be 'practicle' it needs to be cheap. Is drilling the cheapest solution then?
I guess my fundemetal problem with drilling specificall in ANWR is an idealogical one. I dont want to see one of the few Natural Sanctuaries we have left to be raped by humans. I know that this sounds like 'wishy washy' liberalism, but its not. I grew up in an oil family; from my great grandfather to my dad. They were and are all career oil men. For all the creative men and women that are apart of this industry, I guess I just hope that other solutions were viable. But I guess hoping isnt realistic....its not a very good bottom line...
nobody is suggesting that we trade one thing for another. My point is that poverty in many of these places is a systemic problem aggravated by natural disasters. To me, the most effective way to solve a systemic problem is with a systemic solution. You cannot allievate poverty without dealing with the government that fosters it (through action, inaction, or incompetency) and vise versa. There are proven strategies for getting a government to do what you want them to (especially if you're the USA). Its called Coercion strategy and well drafted sanctions. Complex problems require clever and complex solutions. "just get the food there" kinds of solution fail because of their inherent simplicity. So you have to be able to simultaneously deal with both.
I am not only not happy with "let the market change their minds for them" but I would go further to say that it isnt possible. If you believe that we live our lives (personally and communally) by a certain framing story or script, then isnt it logical to say that what we know and observe about the script we now follow is that it is not capable of letting us have our cake and eat it too? (I mean a plan for serious, effective foreign aid and technology that will satisfy both the real needs of starving populations and our own want for the best possible bottom line). If you agree, then the answer is that our script needs re-writing in the direction of the message that Jesus brought. Or it at least needs to find footing in the words of Christ, if only to get closer to a less selfish paradigm.
I had never heard of a genetically altered grain product, Dustin. If that's so, then I would heartily advocate for its use, and I'd strongly want to know just how expensive is too expensive if people are dying.
And Cody, from one amatuer lobbyist to another, lobbying isnt bad. It just depends on what you're lobbying for :-)
Post a Comment