online at: http://globalpublicmedia.com/richard_heinbergs_museletter_what_will_we_eat_as_the_oil_runs_out
The article we had to read for tomorrow, written by Richard Heinberg, presents a variety of problems with fossil fuel dependency. He points out many things - some more obvious than others. Some things that are affected by our dependency are: climate, higher oil prices, increased demand for biofuels and the loss of fresh water supplies.
Although biofuel crops may seem to fix the problem of oil dependency, Heinberg points out that farmers are becoming more interested in growing crops to provide energy, rather than food - this does not help the inevitable situation of our growing population and increase demand for food.
His answer to this situation is generally organic farming. However, this requires the government to take initiative in helping people become first interested, then educated on this type of farming.
A few things to think about are:
1. "The U.S. is responsible for 70 percent of world maize exports, and countries such as Mexico, Japan, and Egypt that depend on American corn farmers use maize both as food for people and feed for animals." -- This quote is interesting because the U.S. is notorious for taking rather than giving. However, the one of the few things they give is being scrutinized for "impacting food availability in other nations both directly and indirectly, raising the price for tortillas in Mexico and disrupting the livestock and poultry industries in Europe and Africa."
2. What do you think about his scrutiny of biofuels?
Something to think about: Then, the writer goes on to say that global warming affects farmers a lot because it creates a climate chaos that can sometimes ruin a years worth of crops. To me, this would seem as a perfect opportunity to pump up the use of biofuels. Then he goes on to say that "soil erosion undermines food and water availability, as well as producing 30 percent of climate-changing greenhouse gases." Although this refutes my point, it is unclear where he got this information (there is no citation like in previous sections) and to what extent the percentage of climate-changing greenhouse gases is so easily measured. On the other hand, then why not focus more on improving farming techniques?
3. He points out that in order to improve the situation, more education in organic farming is needed. To what extent do you think the government is responsible in promoting organic farming? Are there any laws in effect or proposed within this article that you agree or disagree with?
4. The author then goes as far to say that "food policy must include population policy. We must encourage smaller families by means of economic incentives. . ." Who do you think he means by "we"? Do you agree with this quote? Why or why not.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
I think what is most interesting about this article is the fact it states that the only way to rebuild our society before / to prevent peak oil is by reverting back to agrarianism. This is ironic because the author is essentially saying we need to go back to how things were before industrialization, and even civilization in some cases. It is almost amusing to think that we will just come full circle in our stay on earth--we began as nomadic hunter-gatherers, and then turned to agriculture, and I think we will end that way. We obviously cannot sustain ourselves in an industrialized society, and need to resort back to more scaled back technology. I think this will be very disheartening to the human race and the cruel irony of the situation will not be very well received. People will be reluctant to turn to agriculture to save society and thus I think the efforts to do so will be painstaking and tedious.
I agree with Jensen saying that we might have to resort back to the agricultural life. Right now we are at a point where the global peak might be near and we have yet to find a suitable alternative energy source to supplement oil. Also, the author says that if the global peak is near, it will be a very difficult challenge for all the societies to wean away from using oil. It sounds to me like a lose-lose situation: 1) resort back to agriculture and give up on industrialization 2) face the effects of reaching peak oil and using something that's non renewable.
But on the other hand I also feel like they will use chemistry [as the author said] to find another route. Take food for an example, we use to grow crops without the use of any pesticides or any other external factors. But then came plants with pesticides. And then came genetically modified crops. With chemistry and science and the threat of the global peak approaching...I can only hope that something can be done.
We all hope something will/ can be done. Whether it is in us humans altering the way plants grow/ reproduce, and/or many of us reverting back to an agrarian lifestyle, food production will certainly use less fossil fuels to produce in the future.
I would like to see more of a move to the 'natural' methods, but some hybridization and genetic technolgies are quite impressive with their results and the results will be hard to ignore even among the purists as food shortages get more and more severe.
Although many people think that reverting to agriculture would be beneficial, I feel as though it would be detrimental to our society. The world in which in we live thrives on and is completely dependent on technological advances. By changing to using old technology, we are not only hurting the economy, but we are taking a major step backwards that will not be recieved well. I feel as though it has come to a point where the terms "industrialization" and "technology" have become so deep rooted into our culture that it would be impossible to turn back to the old ways of doing things. In reality, if we are going to achieve solutions to the oil and food shortages, the answers lie in our quickly developing technology.
True, Alan that we need to take advantage of the breakthroughs that we have made over the years. We must remember that we all must eat.
I am not sure exactly what detriment it would be to have morepeople involved in the production of food. Please eleaborate if you can.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/how-the-rising-price-of-corn-made-mexicans-take-to-streets-454260.html
I get so frustrated with America when things like this happen. Worldwide, there have been a series of food riots because the cost of grain has soared incredibly high in Mexico as well as in Iran. These new prices have made it increasingly hard to feed families and to prepare for next year’s harvest which will only create a perpetual cycle. On Friday in the cafeteria there was a massive food fight. In the brief three minutes it took to fling pizza and cold soup across the room, there were mounds of good nibbled at food resting on the floor; now awaiting to be swept away by the janitor. In America, we always assume the next meal is guaranteed. In the city there are numerous ways to get a free hot meal. On a whole, America is apathetic to daily living conditions and the lifestyles of those so close to us geographically.
I feel as though the detriment to having a more agriculturally based society applies only to a situation in which we would focus on agriculture as a society. I see no harm in more people becoming farmers, but I feel as though an entire country focusing on farming for food production is detrimental. Such a rapid change would cause economic instability; our processed foods that are made in factories are a huge part of the American economy. As a result, many companies who depend on the income from these products would lost money and possibly even go out of business. Not to mention that the elimination of these factories would cause massive layoffs. The counterarguement to this is that these layed off workers could become farmer and farmhands. However, there is simply not enough land in the U.S. for everyone to be working on farms. This reality will leave many people without jobs. These types of potential effects can't be ignored. In order to preserve the stability of this nation, we must not revert back to agriculture.
To address a couple of points of Alan's-
1. We have plenty of farmland in this country- more than 400 million acres. Granted, using industrial ag practices, it only takes us less than 1 million farmers to farm more than 95% of that land, but supposing that the tractors and chemicals begin to fade, we will need more farmers as one farmer can handle somewhere between 1 and 4 acres by themselves, depending on soil and crop choice among other factors.
2. We must also remember that the prcoessing industries that many people work in will eventually change. They are linked to cheap oil and fuels and will not be able to continue to employ as many people as they do now as these prices keep rising.
It will take careful planning to mitigate the transition without lagre losses in jobs, or more importantly, food production. I agree that there will be many left without jobs- and we can see that already.
Post a Comment