2008 Woodie Awards
Food crisis product of a flawed system
Daniel Potter
Issue date: 4/10/08 Section: Opinions
Paul Krugman is a smart man. A professor of economics at Princeton and bi-weekly columnist for The New York Times, Krugman wields considerable credibility and influences many, this writer included.
So it was frustrating to read his column Monday, in which he made several trenchant points about world hunger, but stopped short of indicting the system that guarantees thousands will continue to starve to death daily.
Let's start with what Krugman got right.
"The effects of bad policy are clearest ... in the rise of demon ethanol and other biofuels.
"The subsidized conversion of crops into fuel was supposed to promote energy independence and help limit global warming. But this promise was, as Time magazine bluntly put it, a 'scam.'"
Krugman elucidates the way biofuels not only fail to offset our dependence on fossil fuels or their environmental effects, but simultaneously drive up prices for food, particularly in conjunction with the increasing cost of oil, which is key to modern agriculture.
He also notes the effects of countries like China growing economically strong enough to imitate the American way of life, diet included. "Since it takes about 700 calories' worth of animal feed to produce a 100-calorie piece of beef, this change in diet increases the overall demand for grains," he writes.
Admirably, Krugman doesn't flinch in recognizing that politics as usual are failing on world hunger. "People are starving in Africa so that American politicians can court votes in farm states.
"Oh, and in case you're wondering: all the remaining presidential contenders are terrible on this issue," he writes.
Sadly, Krugman fails to identify the real solution - a full-on paradigm shift - perhaps because, like many, he is unwilling to yet confront the reality that our linear system can't persist much longer on this finite planet.
Let me paraphrase another influential writer, Daniel Quinn:
A fundamental law in any food chain is that an increase in a species' food supply will lead to an increase in that species' population. Eventually that population grows to an unsustainable level, and is thus checked when its food supply dwindles as a result. With fewer consumers remaining, the food supply is again able to increase, and this cycle naturally repeats in periodic waves.
So it was frustrating to read his column Monday, in which he made several trenchant points about world hunger, but stopped short of indicting the system that guarantees thousands will continue to starve to death daily.
Let's start with what Krugman got right.
"The effects of bad policy are clearest ... in the rise of demon ethanol and other biofuels.
"The subsidized conversion of crops into fuel was supposed to promote energy independence and help limit global warming. But this promise was, as Time magazine bluntly put it, a 'scam.'"
Krugman elucidates the way biofuels not only fail to offset our dependence on fossil fuels or their environmental effects, but simultaneously drive up prices for food, particularly in conjunction with the increasing cost of oil, which is key to modern agriculture.
He also notes the effects of countries like China growing economically strong enough to imitate the American way of life, diet included. "Since it takes about 700 calories' worth of animal feed to produce a 100-calorie piece of beef, this change in diet increases the overall demand for grains," he writes.
Admirably, Krugman doesn't flinch in recognizing that politics as usual are failing on world hunger. "People are starving in Africa so that American politicians can court votes in farm states.
"Oh, and in case you're wondering: all the remaining presidential contenders are terrible on this issue," he writes.
Sadly, Krugman fails to identify the real solution - a full-on paradigm shift - perhaps because, like many, he is unwilling to yet confront the reality that our linear system can't persist much longer on this finite planet.
Let me paraphrase another influential writer, Daniel Quinn:
A fundamental law in any food chain is that an increase in a species' food supply will lead to an increase in that species' population. Eventually that population grows to an unsustainable level, and is thus checked when its food supply dwindles as a result. With fewer consumers remaining, the food supply is again able to increase, and this cycle naturally repeats in periodic waves.
Viewing Comments 1 - 4 of 6
Earl Whipshaw
posted 4/10/08 @ 3:26 AM CST
If you would instead refer to "food supply" as "carrying capacity," Quinn would become irrelevant, as you'd just be paraphrasing the glossary of any ecology textbook; that seems preferable. (Continued…)
Matthew
posted 4/11/08 @ 7:41 AM CST
We should be laying off the biofuels made from corn. We should be focusing on other sources for the fuel, like sugar and grasses.
Daniel Bridges
posted 4/12/08 @ 5:43 PM CST
Good article. I wish I saw more comments here, indicating that more people read it ...
So how do we go about changing our system, and stopping overpopulation? It seems the only way to curb population growth is to limit the amount of children everyone has, and everyone seems to be adamantly against both this idea and ending world hunger. (Continued…)
Jerry Scovel
posted 4/24/08 @ 11:52 PM CST
The problem is atmospheric carbon, the solution is water, some places have
too much and others too little. If we pump the water from areas that have
too much water to the arid regions for irrigation we could actually lower
the concentration of atmospheric carbon. (Continued…)
Post a Comment