a warming planet struggles to feed itself

[bcbm]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/05/science/earth/05harvest.html?_r=1&ref=business

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Because as we all know, food prices are a perfect mirror of actual food availability or production, right?

It might also help if we stopped trying to grow temperate crops like wheat in fucking deserts. At least until we can genetically engineer a wheat crop that can grow in a desert without unsustainable irrigation. Something which they thankfully appear to be working on, and no thanks to anti-GM types.

Of course, if we had an up-and-running fissionables-based energy economy, then we'd have plenty of energy for seawater desalination, which would at least mean that coastal cities would not be supping too deeply from the local water table.

Another insanity we should be stopping is crop-derived biofuels. Feeding people is more important than fueling SUVs.

[pranabjyoti]

Actually, the basic problem is lack of availability of modern agriculture machinery and method and other know-how to most farmers in the world, specially for third world farmers. In India, my own country, most farmers still do agriculture in a method slightly advanced than stone age. They at present use improved seeds and fertilizers and pesticides, but their method of ploughing, planting and cutting has been done in primitive way mainly by human labor, that's make the grains costly.
Moreover, modern irrigation methods like drip irrigation, sprinklers are also non-available to most farmers around the world and that's the biggest barrier to increase productivity of the agriculture at present.

[bcbm]

Because as we all know, food prices are a perfect mirror of actual food availability or production, right?"Consumption of the four staples that supply most human calories — wheat, rice, corn and soybeans — has outstripped production for much of the past decade, drawing once-large stockpiles down to worrisome levels."


It might also help if we stopped trying to grow temperate crops like wheat in fucking deserts."Many of the failed harvests of the past decade were a consequence of weather disasters, like floods in the United States, drought in Australia and blistering heat waves in Europe and Russia"
"Farmers everywhere face rising difficulties: water shortages as well as flash floods. Their crops are afflicted by emerging pests and diseases and by blasts of heat beyond anything they remember."
"a rice farmer named Ram Khatri Yadav offered his own complaint about the changing climate. “It will not rain in the rainy season, but it will rain in the nonrainy season,” he said. “The cold season is also shrinking.”'


At least until we can genetically engineer a wheat crop that can grow in a desert without unsustainable irrigation. Something which they thankfully appear to be working on, and
"new crop varieties and new techniques are required, far beyond those available now, scientists said. Despite the urgent need, they added, promised financing has been slow to materialize, much of the necessary work has yet to begin and, once it does, it is likely to take decades to bear results. "


no thanks to anti-GM types

yes, what kind of asshole would oppose monsanto controlling one of the most important aspects of life on our planet



Of course, if we had an up-and-running fissionables-based energy economy, then we'd have plenty of energy for seawater desalination, which would at least mean that coastal cities would not be supping too deeply from the local water table.if wishes were horses...


Another insanity we should be stopping is crop-derived biofuels. Feeding people is more important than fueling SUVs.yep

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

"Consumption of the four staples that supply most human calories — wheat, rice, corn and soybeans — has outstripped production for much of the past decade, drawing once-large stockpiles down to worrisome levels."

There is still more room for maneuvre. Europe and Russia are still net exporters of grains, Africa is criminally undeveloped, and irrigation the world over can be vastly improved.


"Many of the failed harvests of the past decade were a consequence of weather disasters, like floods in the United States, drought in Australia and blistering heat waves in Europe and Russia"
"Farmers everywhere face rising difficulties: water shortages as well as flash floods. Their crops are afflicted by emerging pests and diseases and by blasts of heat beyond anything they remember."
"a rice farmer named Ram Khatri Yadav offered his own complaint about the changing climate. “It will not rain in the rainy season, but it will rain in the nonrainy season,” he said. “The cold season is also shrinking.”'

Seasonal growth patterns are altering as a result of climate change, yes. Something I did not deny. Obviously if we are to keep food production at the high levels it should be, then we should be assisting as many farmers in adapting to this change as possible, for our own sake as much as theirs.

In any case, what does that have to do with the foolish decision to grow crops on land that is just unsuitable from the get-go?


"new crop varieties and new techniques are required, far beyond those available now, scientists said. Despite the urgent need, they added, promised financing has been slow to materialize, much of the necessary work has yet to begin and, once it does, it is likely to take decades to bear results.

Ah yes, the ever-authoritative "scientists said". Which scientists? How did they come to their conclusions? How are we to establish the difference between a genuine concern and trolling for funding and grants?


yes, what kind of asshole would oppose monsanto controlling one of the most important aspects of life on our planet

So you think the right response is to oppose GM research, rather than opposing Monsanto?

A beginner's genetic engineering lab will set you back about a million dollars (http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100819080443AAPIDpQ). That's a lot of money for an individual to raise, but for a dedicated organisation it's perfectly possible.

Establishing a genetics lab and "open" (as opposed to proprietory like Monsanto) lines of seeds requires education and hard work, something that anti-GM orgnanisations seem allergic to, if their fondness for scary-looking white suits and media-friendly publicity stunts is anything to go by. It's always easier to break down things rather than build them up.

Of course, there are already non-corporate bodies engaged in GM crop research, but they are starved of both attention and funds. I've yet to see or hear of a green organisation even attempting to rectify such oversights.


if wishes were horses...

It's called advocacy. Maybe that's a strange concept to you, but you see, when somebody thinks that a technological application should see more widespread use, they promote it. A robust fissionables economy that makes extensive use of breeder reactors and fuel reprocessing would form an essential part of energy abundance.

If energy is abundant, then we can spend more of it on desalinating seawater rather than rapidly depleting aquifers that take centuries or more to refill and depleting local groundwater.

Sure, some parts of the world currently do not have the infrastructure or technical know-how to take advanatage of fission, but that is something that proper development can fix.

[bcbm]

There is still more room for maneuvre. Europe and Russia are still net exporters of grains, Africa is criminally undeveloped, and irrigation the world over can be vastly improved.

certainly, but the point was that your quip about food prices wasn't really the issue.


Seasonal growth patterns are altering as a result of climate change, yes. Something I did not deny. Obviously if we are to keep food production at the high levels it should be, then we should be assisting as many farmers in adapting to this change as possible, for our own sake as much as theirs.

In any case, what does that have to do with the foolish decision to grow crops on land that is just unsuitable from the get-go?

the problem is much bigger than growing crops on deserts, as more and more suitable land becomes less so due to climate change.


Ah yes, the ever-authoritative "scientists said". Which scientists? How did they come to their conclusions? How are we to establish the difference between a genuine concern and trolling for funding and grants?

if you happen to look at the actual article, they quote from a number of scientists, even identifying them by name and organization...


So you think the right response is to oppose GM research, rather than opposing Monsanto?

oppose monsanto and remain skeptical of gm. i think more independent research is needed before we depend entirely on gm foods.


Establishing a genetics lab and "open" (as opposed to proprietory like Monsanto) lines of seeds requires education and hard work, something that anti-GM orgnanisations seem allergic to, if their fondness for scary-looking white suits and media-friendly publicity stunts is anything to go by. It's always easier to break down things rather than build them up.

Of course, there are already non-corporate bodies engaged in GM crop research, but they are starved of both attention and funds. I've yet to see or hear of a green organisation even attempting to rectify such oversights.

yes its all the greens fault


It's called advocacy. Maybe that's a strange concept to you, but you see, when somebody thinks that a technological application should see more widespread use, they promote it. A robust fissionables economy that makes extensive use of breeder reactors and fuel reprocessing would form an essential part of energy abundance.

If energy is abundant, then we can spend more of it on desalinating seawater rather than rapidly depleting aquifers that take centuries or more to refill and depleting local groundwater.

Sure, some parts of the world currently do not have the infrastructure or technical know-how to take advanatage of fission, but that is something that proper development can fix.

forgive me if i don't hold my breath