PDA

View Full Version : U.N.: 50 percent more food needed by 2030


Gio Takahashi
06-06-2008, 11:37
U.N.: 50 percent more food needed by 2030 Global summit aims to tackle skyrocketing prices sparking unrest
The Associated Press


updated 10:57 a.m. ET, Tues., June. 3, 2008

ROME - World food production must rise by 50 percent by 2030 to meet increasing demand, U.N. chief Ban Ki-moon told world leaders Tuesday at a summit grappling with hunger and civil unrest caused by food price hikes.
The secretary-general told the Rome gathering that nations must minimize export restrictions and import tariffs during the food price crisis and quickly resolve world trade talks.


"The world needs to produce more food," Ban said.
The Rome-based U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization is hosting the three-day summit to try to solve the short-term emergency of increased hunger caused by soaring prices and to help poor countries grow enough food to feed their own.


'Unacceptable'

In a message read to the delegates, Pope Benedict XVI said "hunger and malnutrition are unacceptable in a world which, in reality, has sufficient production levels, the resources, and the know-how to put an end to these tragedies and their consequences."


The Pope told the world leaders that millions of people at threat in countries with security concerns were looking to them for solutions.
Ban said a U.N. task force he set up to deal with the crisis is recommending the nations "improve vulnerable people's access to food and take immediate steps to increase food availability in their communities."
That means increasing food aid, supplying small farmers with seed and fertilizer in time for this year's planting seasons, and reducing trade restrictions to help the free flow of agricultural goods.


"Some countries have taken action by limiting exports or by imposing price controls," Ban said. "They only distort markets and force prices even higher."


Biofuels to blame?

The increasing diversion of food and animal feed to produce biofuel, and sharply higher fuel costs have also helped to shoot prices upward, experts say.


The United Nations is encouraging summit participants to start undoing a decades-long legacy of agricultural and trade policies that many blame for the failure of small farmers in poor countries to feed their own people.
Wealthy nations' subsidizing their own farmers makes it harder for small farmers in poor countries to compete in global markets, critics of such subsidies say. Jim Butler, the FAO's deputy director-general, said in an interview ahead of the gathering that a draft document that could be the basis for a final summit declaration doesn't promise to overhaul subsidy policy.


Congress last month passed a five-year farm bill heavy on subsidies, bucking White House objections that such aid in the middle of a global food crisis wasn't warranted.


The head of the summit's U.S. delegation, Agriculture Secretary Ed Schafer, insisted on Monday that biofuels will contribute only 2 or 3 percent to a predicted 43 percent rise in prices this year.


'Vulnerable' market

Figures by other international organizations, including the International Monetary Fund, show that the increased demand for biofuels is contributing by 15-30 percent to food price increases, said Frederic Mousseau, a policy adviser at Oxfam, a British aid group.
"Food stocks are at their lowest in 25 years, so the market is very vulnerable to any policy changes" such as U.S. or European Union subsidizing biofuels or mandating greater use of this energy source, Mousseau said.


Brazil is another large exporter of biofuels, and President Luiz Ignacio Lula da Silva was expected to defend biofuels at the summit.
Several participants won't even be talking to each other at the summit.
Australia's foreign minister decried as "obscene" Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe's participation in the summit. The longtime African leader has presided over the virtual transformation of his country from former breadbasket to agricultural basket case.


Zimbabweans increasingly are unable to afford food and other essentials with agriculture paralyzed by land reform and the world's highest rate of inflation.


The Dutch ministry for overseas development pledged to "ignore" Mugabe during the summit.


But on Tuesday, Mugabe defended his policy of seizing land from whites, saying he is undoing a legacy of Zimbabwe's former colonial masters.
EU sanctions against Mugabe because of Zimbabwe's poor human rights record forbid him from setting foot in the bloc's 27 nations, but those restrictions don't apply to U.N. forums.


Jewish leaders and some Italian politicians were among those denouncing Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's attendance at the meeting. On Monday, Ahmadinejad repeated his call for the destruction of Israel, which is also participating in the summit.


Asked about the presence of the Zimbabwean and Iranian leaders, Schafer told reporters in Rome that the two were welcome to attend the summit, but that U.S. delegates would not be meeting with them.


? 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24942035/

RonDo
06-11-2008, 14:48
So maybe it is a good time to be a farmer again? Eh, maybe not.

Bloodcinder
06-11-2008, 15:10
The world needs to produce less food. Decreased production means decreased population: in other words, those populations who are holding on by scraps and crumbs will be eliminated.

The world wants to produce more food. In order to sustain that starving population, we have to feed them so that they can live to produce more starving children.

There's a difference between the two, and reality lies somewhere between them.

Killer_Man_
06-11-2008, 15:14
That is why I kinda felt that we should help people either get jobs or get them on their feet and not help them be lazy bums. Kinda like that one saying.

Give man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach him to fish and he eats for a life time.

RonDo
06-11-2008, 15:16
That is why I kinda felt that we should help people either get jobs or get them on their feet and not help them be lazy bums. Kinda like that one saying.

Give man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach him to fish and he eats for a life time.

Problem is there are some, no matter how much you help them, they will always be lazy and always expect handouts. Some people can't help it..but many can.

Bloodcinder
06-11-2008, 15:24
The hunger problem in places like Africa has nothing to do with laziness. It's merely a feedback loop due to having too many children, too little food, and too corrupt and selfish of a government. I don't think the average John Doe Mbaye is quite so lazy as he is screwed by his authorities.

kell
06-11-2008, 18:51
This is my main reason to support vegetarianism.

If meat production was cut considerably, we wouldn't be feeding livestock crops that could instead be fed to humans. Were a massive switch made, world hunger issue would see a sizable decrease if not just remain kind of steady instead of snowballing.

I'm not even getting into biofuels...the fact that people are still convinced it's "ecofriendly" is insane.

The tipping point for our way of life is coming. It's fucked, but true. It's not going to end well.

...cue ominous music.

Seegtease
06-11-2008, 21:33
The world needs to produce less food. Decreased production means decreased population: in other words, those populations who are holding on by scraps and crumbs will be eliminated.

The world wants to produce more food. In order to sustain that starving population, we have to feed them so that they can live to produce more starving children.

There's a difference between the two, and reality lies somewhere between them.

Solution: make lots of food for the starving so they're full, but drug it so it sterilizes them. They're fed, and no more hungry people are born. Win/Win.

Bloodcinder
06-11-2008, 21:36
It's been planned, but nobody will commit to it because nobody wants to be the heartless individuals stripping the innocents of their right to procreate. I bet you thought you were just joking with that idea!

Seegtease
06-11-2008, 21:46
In fact, I *still* think you're joking by affirming my joke.

Bloodcinder
06-11-2008, 21:51
I assure you, I am not kidding!

Seegtease
06-11-2008, 21:55
Well, since you included the exclamation mark I am all but forced to believe you.

Bloodcinder
06-11-2008, 22:01
I know! The internet is making it hard for me to convey that I really am actually serious! The only way I can manage is by going so far over the top in my affirmation that you are forced to assume I am not being subtle enough to be kidding! And yet by pointing that out I will end up casting more doubt in your mind! But I'm really not kidding!

I learned about it in an ethics-y class.

Killer_Man_
06-12-2008, 00:02
This is my main reason to support vegetarianism.

If meat production was cut considerably, we wouldn't be feeding livestock crops that could instead be fed to humans. Were a massive switch made, world hunger issue would see a sizable decrease if not just remain kind of steady instead of snowballing.

I'm not even getting into biofuels...the fact that people are still convinced it's "ecofriendly" is insane.

The tipping point for our way of life is coming. It's fucked, but true. It's not going to end well.

...cue ominous music.

I disagree, you need meats and protein in your body. Man does not live by nuts alone!

Would you eat hay? Hay is not edible IMO.

Come on now, I heard the same stuff from PETA website that my friend linked me that if we switched from eating meat to veggies we supposedly save tons of water, food and etc.

Sorry but I like my meats and to me, I couldn't live without it in some form at least one meal a day. Most 'true' vegans(One who eat solely on none animal oils, eggs and etc.), look unhealthy and as well the sheer fact that anytime they consume something that has some sort of meat in it, they get a nasty reaction like lactose intolerate(sp?) people.

That is my take on it. You can do as you wish but seriously I don't think switching to one food source to anther would do very much.

LH, is right, Africa government fucked their people. Most of their gov'ts are military government that just took over and told them have to... Good thing they got hold of AKs and weapons some how......

Bloodcinder
06-12-2008, 00:29
Hay takes land to produce. That land could be used to produce different crops. The resources could be used to support humans directly instead of humans via animals. That is what Kell was implying.

Humans can survive without meat. There are other sources of protein. I think your claim that most vegans are sickly is kind of outlandish. And they get ill from eating meat because their bodies adapt to not processing meat.

Killer_Man_
06-12-2008, 00:41
Well the vegans I've seen, perhaps it is.

And I know what she means and implying but I'd rather have juicey meat at sometime. I couldn't live off the 'other sources' of protein. Especially since each item that contains protein have different types of amino acids or whatever. I mean, I suppose I could live if I had to but I'd rather not.

Bloodcinder
06-12-2008, 01:02
That's your choice. But you seemed to be dictating absolutes for others, which ignores their choice. I wanted to clarify those issues with you.

Seegtease
06-12-2008, 01:42
You have to eat some nasty varieties of beans to get the proper protein that you would get from some delicious varieties of meat.

The worst problem, I'd have to say, is the increasing demand for biofuel, and trying to get adequate crops for a certain amount, but the amount ends up being so high that even if the entire united states were only wheat fields, we wouldn't be able to supply it (and we'd definitely have none for us to eat). That's why bread is going up (plus gas prices). Wish I had some links to numbers, but I don't.

Charlie
06-12-2008, 06:48
Want food in times of crisis? Find it for yourself.

Otherwise, why the hell should I worry about something now that isn't even going to be relevant until I'm 42?

Bloodcinder
06-12-2008, 10:39
Zeit, the thing with biofuels is that we should not rely entirely on one energy source to sustain ourselves. We've basically done that with petroleum, and look at the problems with that. If we have varied sources of energy then we can tolerate having problems with any one of them. Biofuels are a good idea because they're renewable and can supplement our energy supply. No, we can't supply all of our needs on biofuel, but we have other renewables and cleaner sources than petroleum to share the load.

Arainach
06-12-2008, 11:59
Otherwise, why the hell should I worry about something now that isn't even going to be relevant until I'm 42?Because it's substantially easier and cheaper to fix now before it reaches the level of global crisis?



Fuck, how I hate most Americans

Gio Takahashi
06-12-2008, 12:06
Want food in times of crisis? Find it for yourself.

Otherwise, why the hell should I worry about something now that isn't even going to be relevant until I'm 42?

How ignorant. It is of major concern right NOW so we can act and fix the problem before it becomes even worse.

Bloodcinder
06-12-2008, 14:02
Fuck, how I hate most Americans

How ignorant.

Yeah, Charlie. Quit being a poopy head.

kell
06-12-2008, 16:20
Zeit, the thing with biofuels is that we should not rely entirely on one energy source to sustain ourselves. We've basically done that with petroleum, and look at the problems with that. If we have varied sources of energy then we can tolerate having problems with any one of them. Biofuels are a good idea because they're renewable and can supplement our energy supply. No, we can't supply all of our needs on biofuel, but we have other renewables and cleaner sources than petroleum to share the load.

The thing with biofuel though, unless it solely uses organic waste, is that it uses pretty much just as much oil to create as it would to just use oil instead. Until we develop more efficient means of agriculture, biofuels are in no way a solution.

All the vegans I know are the most healthy and in shape people I know. If you do it properly it is incredibly healthy.

And Charlie, do quit being a poopy head. It'll be relevant before you're 42, I can almost guarantee that for you.

Bloodcinder
06-12-2008, 16:50
(In case Charlie doesn't get it: I was making fun of the other guys for being hard on you.)

Kell, yes, we have to develop more efficient ways to produce biofuel. But developing efficient energy production is kinda what we're talking about anyway.

Seegtease
06-12-2008, 19:51
Still, the amount of crops required to make a reasonable amount of fuel is ridiculous. I don't really see it as being worth the effort, especially when it can be better used for eating.

Nuclear is where it's at until fusion becomes feasible. But people have way too many false preconceptions about it.

But as for fueling vehicles, I'm not really sure.

Bloodcinder
06-12-2008, 20:57
Hydrogen. And it's not going to explode like the Hindenburg.

Arainach
06-12-2008, 23:48
Which is totally uneconomical except when it comes from *ding* petroleum products.

Bloodcinder
06-13-2008, 02:09
Uneconomical now.

Arainach
06-13-2008, 02:53
No, uneconomical in the sense that it takes more energy to get hydrogen out of anything else than we could possibly get out of the hydrogen. There's no good solution there. Massive solar plants to do electrolysis on seawater is about the only alternative, and that's not that easy either.

Bloodcinder
06-13-2008, 10:19
Not that easy now.

You might notice the point that I am trying to make. Think like a hopeful child, not a jaded old man, when it comes to technology and the possibility to save our planet.

Arainach
06-13-2008, 11:17
I'm thinking like a CHEMIST. It's a mathematical truth that other than from Hydrocarbons we currently have no good way of getting large quantities of hydrogen. Which means that until research comes up with such a way we shouldn't be moving our infrastructure to hydrogen-based.

Bloodcinder
06-13-2008, 11:49
I'm thinking like a CHEMIST. It's a mathematical truth that other than from Hydrocarbons we currently have no good way of getting large quantities of hydrogen. Which means that until research comes up with such a way we shouldn't be moving our infrastructure to hydrogen-based.
I italicized the part where you're agreeing with me.

deathofcheese
06-13-2008, 19:23
The chemistry department head at my old school does research into hydrogen compression technology. The last time he talked about it, he described it as getting the hydrogen to naturally be attracted to and packed in carbon nanotubes and running a small (relatively) current through the tubes to release the hydrogen. I apologize for bad technical info, but I didn't pay attention. I was pissed at my school that day year.