Raj Patel, an author and fellow at the Institute of Food and Development Policy, argues that climate change is the greatest cause of the food crisis in our world, including high prices, supplies, and distribution. The last few decades of globalization have caused local safety net surpluses and emergency storages to become less important as the global market has become increasingly able to provide for areas that cannot in their times of crisis. Global warming has led to natural disasters in the last two decades whose impact has been felt across the globe. Patel implies that in these instances, we regret the lack of investment we’ve put into these emergency sources of food and resources. Patel addresses the seemingly contradictory move we have made by focusing on fighting food inflation at the expense of entitlement programs for the poor. Inflation of prices prevents the poor from being able to afford food, but fighting poverty in one sphere by increasing it in another is not a viable option.
Kay McDonald, writer for Big Picture Agriculture, discusses reasons for a price increase in corn, a necessary staple in our world. 2/3 of corn in the US is put toward ethanol production, so a smaller food supply is driving up the price. Although ethanol decreases our dependency on oil-producing countries and makes us more locally sustainable, it still leaves a larger carbon footprint than many would think. Many that prescribe to McDonald’s argument agree that providing food at a more affordable price for the poor in our world is more important than increasing our production of ethanol. But, the question is, can the allotment of corn for the production of ethanol have a better long-term effect on the poor? Although we may not see its benefits now, can it lessen the impact of global warming, potentially creating fewer large-scale natural disasters? Can it lead to lower prices of food in the long run? I definitely don’t feel qualified to make a judgment either way. McDonald, however, completely fails to even address these issues.
Interestingly, neither author directly answers the question of the discussion: is the world producing enough food? Sure, these articles come from the opinion section, but I’d think that writers for the New York Times would have more well-rounded arguments addressing both their own case and the opposition. Does their failure to answer the real question imply that its answer is more complex than yes or no, or that the so-called experts are too biased and only seek to promote their own ideas and solutions? Sometimes it seems as if the issue of food can never be solved, but giving up is not an option, and in order to fully enter into this discussion, we need to be both real and open-minded about our world in today’s times.
No comments:
Post a Comment