Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

The new global menace: food inflation

BARRIE MCKENNA

From Saturday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 1:49 AM EDT 29/03/08

Staple prices have doubled, fanning social, political unrest ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Antonio San from Canada writes: Yes the next step to eco-communism is: you'll pay your food according to your income. Same with sex: why should you enjoy great sex with your spouse while so many don't? They'll tax you on that too... Totalitarism is around the cornershop!
  2. Orest Zarowsky from Toronto, Canada writes: @ Antonio San: How insightful. NOT! Denial is not a river in Egypt. The longer these ecological issues are ignored in favour of business as usual, the harder and deeper the crash and burn will be. As will the social and political consequences. Always remember that Nature is absolutely neutral. It does not care if any given species or group of species survives, thrives or becomes extinct. Life will go on. The issue is very simple. How do we as a species continue to thrive?
  3. M Y from Richmond, Canada writes: Good move but still a lot to do. It is ashamed that people in developed countries have been enjoying unfair international trade for a long time. Now it's time to pay back, though just a little bit.
  4. Dr. Sartor from Victoria, Canada writes: 'The Chinese, for example, are eating a lot more meat as they move from rural areas to cities. Ms. Elliott pointed out that it takes roughly eight pounds of grain to produce a single pound of meat.'

    Meat production is destroying our planetary environment and now it's about to starve large segments of the world's population. (Before you dismiss this, google 'Rethinking the Meat-Guzzler' for the New York Times article.) Unless most people are prepared to give up eating meat -- and that's not likely -- we're all headed over the cliff. Kiss good-bye to industrial civilization.
  5. aging oldtool from Canada writes: What can you expect when the idiots only care where the next tank of gas comes from.

    I mean, we've got a couple of top level dust ups going in the middleeast just to ensure what's left of the oil supply can reach shore in Galveston.

    Grain will soon be eliminated from our food guides and I'm anticipating beans are the next play for the fuel speculators.

    If T-bone steaks could be composted, ionized, or run through a digester and turned into fuel, guess what the price of a dinner featuring T-bone would set you back.

    Ditto, for baby food, cadavers and even mother's milk.

    We've got priorities so get out of the way you lazy pedestrian.
  6. Robert Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: Good article on a very serious topic.

    Amazingly, we also seem to be doing everything possible in Canada to kill the idea of the family farm so less Canadians can now feed themselves and their families with locally grown foods...

    Every year, a huge number of PEI potato farms get converted into golf courses... A Titliest doesn't taste nearly as good and is not nearly as good for you as a PEI potato...
  7. Robert Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: As well, the 'biofuels' hoax really needs to be put to an end...

    It was cute for awhle, but those subsidies really need to stop...

    How about we start looking at viable alternative energies instead?
  8. Some Guy from Canada writes: 15 years ago, I was at a public lecture given by Dr Gwynne Dyer at UVic. A buddy of mine and I were the last to squeeze into the lecture hall before they set up a camera and broadcast the lecture into the theatre lobby. The only place we could find to sit was cross legged on the floor underneath his lectern.

    He was very optimistic at the time about the future of the world, the spread of democracy, and the lessening of war. When his lecture was over, he invited questions from the audience for about the next half hour. Sitting right in front of him I put my hand up for the next half hour and took it down again as he responded to some one else's question. Finally he took mine as his last question.

    I asked how he could be optimistic about the future when strip mining the world's oceans did not appear to be increasing food production, in fact quite the contrary. China was paving over their limited agricultural land for highways at the then rate of 1% per year and in the next 10 years the average Chinese family would be able to afford a car and beef on the table at least once a week. He said these were technical and engineering problems and we were good at solving those.

    I sure hope he's right. What this article mentions is the problems this is leading to in the developing world. It makes no mention of what is happening in the least developed world. I saw no mention of the impact on sub-Saharan Africa, for example.

    When I thought this was going to be a problem 15 years ago, I calculated we had 20 years before we hit the wall, and that was when I still rejected human driven climate change.
  9. Draza Mihailovic from Canada writes: ' Dr. Sartor from Victoria, Canada writes:
    Meat production is destroying our planetary environment and now it's about to starve large segments of the world's population. (Before you dismiss this, google 'Rethinking the Meat-Guzzler' for the New York Times article.) Unless most people are prepared to give up eating meat -- and that's not likely -- we're all headed over the cliff. Kiss good-bye to industrial civilization'

    Absolute vegan-tree hugger-shirley mclean-new age inspired propaganda.'

    The problem is the devaluation of global currencies. Read up on economic cycles.
  10. Rene Wells from Luxembourg, Luxembourg writes: In 40 or 50 years it is very likely that tens of millions will die of hunger and thirst every year, year after year. And nobody will be able to do anything about it, only to blame the stupidity and recklessness of the ‘golden years&8217;, an era that is just now inexorably coming to an end before our own eyes. It won&8217;t be the end of civilization; it will simply be the end of optimism, the end of the belief that the future will be better for most of us, because it won&8217;t, it will just get worst, a slow descent in the hell we created for ourselves.
  11. Michael Sharp from Victoria, Canada writes:

    As the planet warms there will be longer growing seasons in the northern hemisphere.
    Food production will rise.

    They don't call it the greenhouse effect for nothing.

    Warming temperatures and increasing CO2 mean only one thing for plants.

    More plants.

    I say global warming is good for humanity, not bad.
    We should encourage it.
  12. R L from Canada writes: Disgusting!

    People are dying from starvation worldwide, and we're burning food so we can haul around our huge chunks of metal to and from the suburbs.

    Wheat, rice, corn, doubling prices in one year. Biofuels are a disaster! People in some countries are so desperate that they're eating grass (indigestible) or making pastry from mud & water, and here I am seeing TV ads where the arrogant guy smirks because his black overweight SUV burns biofuels instead of gasoline.

    There should be an outlaw of using 'food' as transportion/vehicle fuel.
  13. Michael Sharp from Victoria, Canada writes:

    Mikey's foreign policy.

    Canadian colonialism.

    Save the masses from themselves.

    We have the means.

    The left does not have the will.
  14. First Name: View, Last Name: Middle from Canada writes: If the ethanol/biodesiel boom continues, all food produced all over the world will be needed to feed the autombile. Leaving nothing for people to eat. What would happen then?
    .
    Of course, by then, it would be too late to ban fuels made from food, the automobiles would vote against it.
    .
  15. First Name: View, Last Name: Middle from Canada writes: .
    The Subsidies are the problem.
    .
  16. Voltaire's Distant Cousin from Toronto, Canada writes: I have always thought that the first signs of the serious impacts of global warming will come with increased food prices caused by reduced yields. When the climate changes, this is likely to reduce crop yields. Farms require a certain amount of rain. Too much or too little will reduce yields. Significant changes of climate in agricultural areas will reduce food supplies.
  17. Robert Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: Everyone already knows that we have to change the way that we live...

    So, could we please can some of these doomsday predictions and just get on with it?

    In the words of Oliver Wendall Holmes, 'What kind of world do you want?'

    I think that food, heat and shelter would be nice for starters --

    Now, anyone got any actual ideas other than partisan rhetoric ?
  18. First Name: View, Last Name: Middle from Canada writes: Climate Change we can do little about during the next 2 or 3 years, though we could reduce consumption of food for fuel production by elimating the subsidies.
    .
    It is the subsidies that make it profitable for Ethanol/biodiesel companies to pay higher prices for crops. Without the subsidies, crop prices would fall.
    .
  19. Hugh Campbell from Canada writes: Michael Sharp from Victoria, Canada writes: 'As the planet warms there will be longer growing seasons in the northern hemisphere.'

    It will take decades for fertile soils to develop across the melting tundras. We certainly won't be able to 'fake' fertility through the use of fossil fuel-based fertilizers.

    '... increasing CO2 mean only one thing for plants.'

    And which plants grow in the upper atmosphere? Beanstalks?
  20. aging oldtool from Canada writes: First Name: View, Last Name: Middle, the subsidies are a secondary problem, that follows right behind the biggy; people such as Michael Sharp and other shills for those who think unfettered exhaustion of limited and caustic resources are progress.

    Why is it you can be fined thousands of dollars for tossing a candy bar wrapper from a car window, yet spewing toxic soups into the atmosphere, water and land is deemed just another blip on the road to Nervana?

    Draza Mihailovic, the problem is not the devaluation of global currencies. It is the proliferation of currencies.

    Long live the barter system that brings people together sans inflation and greed.
  21. First Name: View, Last Name: Middle from Canada writes: Hugh Campbell from Canada wrote:

    'It will take decades for fertile soils to develop across the melting tundras. We certainly won't be able to 'fake' fertility through the use of fossil fuel-based fertilizers.'
    .
    Corn yeilds are way up in Ont already. Corn likes heat.
    .
  22. Michael Sharp from Victoria, Canada writes:

    Look.

    Hugh Campbell?

    You stand over there with your 'The World is Ending' sign and I'll stand over here with eternal optimism.

    Your point of view sucks.
  23. Hugh Campbell from Canada writes: Robert Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: 'Now, anyone got any actual ideas other than partisan rhetoric ?'

    These groups have been trying to address the compounding problems:

    http://www.relocalise.net
    http://postcarboncities.net/
    http://www.transitiontowns.org/

    And the most coherent party platform in Canada is that of the Greens -- whichever party is chosen to implement it:

    http://www.greenparty.ca/visiongreen
  24. First Name: View, Last Name: Middle from Canada writes: .
    www//weandtherestoftheworldisindeeptroubleifwedontdosomethingaboutpollution.
    .
  25. Hugh Campbell from Canada writes: Michael Sharp from Victoria, Canada writes: 'Your point of view sucks.'

    My view is a hopeful, see-a-problem / do-something-about-it type of approach. And yours? A destructive, cut-'em-off-at-the-knees-for-trying one.
  26. Hugh Campbell from Canada writes: Where is party boy Dick Nails when you need him? Someone to brighten our day with rosy optimism and good cheer?
  27. spicydoc--That'll do, spicydoc, that'll do... from Canada writes:

    The elephant in the room is, and has always been population control.

    Voluntary birth rate control (Plan A) hasn't worked. Too bad.

    Now we are left with Plan B, which is involuntary population control from worsening starvation. Quelle surprize...

    Big question--are the GHG control measures helping or hurting the plight of the starving?
  28. Danny Boyd from Canada writes: When will the world wake up to the simple solution for most of our problems? REDUCE OVERPOPULATION! If humans are responsible for global warming then reduce the population. If there really is a shortage of food, then reduce the population. If there is a shortage of resources for people to maintain an adequate standard of living, then reduce the population. How stupid can our leaders be if they don't recognize this solution to these problems? We can't keep breeding like rabbits when God is not increasing the size of the earth. China seems to be the only country which recognizes this problem with their one child per family policy. When is the rest of the world going to wake up to this fact. Africa sure hasn't. And if there are wars caused by the desire for oil, wait until this food shortage kicks in.
  29. Carolyn Luce from Granada, Spain writes: I get so tired of hearing that the loonie has gone up and has been so strong for the past year. Anyone travelling or living around the world knows that that is not the case at all - our dollar buys less in almost any country in the world except for the U.S. Why is it only compared to the US dollar when these statements are made. Those of us living in Europe have noticed an overall decline in the value of the Canadian dollar relative to the euro over the past few years.

    It seems to be journalists and economists should get there heads out of the North American sand and look overseas now and again.
  30. Hugh Campbell from Canada writes: spicydoc--That'll do, spicydoc, that'll do... from Canada writes: 'Big question--are the GHG control measures helping or hurting the plight of the starving?'

    There aren't any GHG control measures in play at any meaningful scale yet. If you mean biofuels and theirs subsidization, those are energy-security measures.
  31. First Name: View, Last Name: Middle from Canada writes: spicydoc wrote: 'Big question--are the GHG control measures helping or hurting the plight of the starving?'
    .
    spice: in the context that ethanol/biodesiel subsidies as a GHG mitigator raises food prices, it appears that way. The automobile is the big new food consumer, competeting for the same crops.
    .
  32. spicydoc--That'll do, spicydoc, that'll do... from Canada writes:

    Hugh--

    Call them what you will. They are energy security measures mainly because the huge reserve in oilsands is unappetizing, and alternatives are being sought.

    However, if we do the Gore/Kyoto/Suzuki thing, what will be the result for global starvation?

    You know, the law of unintended consequences ...
  33. First Name: View, Last Name: Middle from Canada writes: spice, a good point you made 'You know, the law of unintended consequences ...'
    .
    The Ethanol/biodesiel industry came alive with the obective to put more money in US, European farmers hands by way of subsidizing each litre of fuel produced.
    .
    There is a small net gain in CO2 reduction using ethanol, though, .....the law of unintended consequences .......leaves the entire world with higher food costs all around.
    .
  34. spicydoc--That'll do, spicydoc, that'll do... from Canada writes:

    Orest--You lie about me (again).

    I am tired of your ridiculous insults, and have alerted an editor.

    Your infantile ad hominems have no place on these threads.
  35. First Name: View, Last Name: Middle from Canada writes: .
    Orest, @ spicydoc: You................................
    .
    get up on the wrong side of bed this morning Orest?
    .
  36. William Scott Lee III from Vancouver, Canada writes: It was an interesting article, but just a summary with little analysis. Take for example, yes the Chinese are eating more meat. Right now it is about 60-65 kg / year per person. In Taiwan it is about 75 kg. That would mean meat consumption in China is most likely to increase 15-25% increase in the next ten years. Thus, Chinese meat consumption is already plateauing. I would expect the bulk of the increase in the next ten years to come from places like Africa and India.

    Another factor not mentioned is poor people switching over to rice and wheat. The first thing really poor people in the developing world do when they become richer is switch from 'inferior' sources of carbs like cassava, barley, millet and taro to rice and wheat. Foods like cassava are poisonous if not prepared/stored properly, millet while healthy can be made into breads. For example, in the past several years a lot of poor Nigerians were switching to eating bread in the morning instead of eating cassava. Much like many rice eating East Asians during the 1960-70s switched from eating rice to bread in the morning. Why? Because like everyone else in the world, people are lazy in the morning. Who wants to wait 30-40 minutes to boil rice or cassava.
  37. First Name: View, Last Name: Middle from Canada writes: .
    William Scott Lee III from Vancouver, Canada wrote at 4:33: 'It was an interesting article.....'
    .
    Will, your comments were interesting, especially the switching habits of third world people. Africa has great potential for food production because they are so technologically behind.

    As in India, the use of fertizer, chemical or organic will cause production to soar during the 10 year plateauing of China's meat pattern, easily filling the need. Technology and knowlege about growing crops.
    .
  38. Levap K from Burlington, Canada writes: Dr. Sartor from Victoria, Canada writes:
    Meat production is destroying our planetary environment and now it's about to starve large segments of the world's population.
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I absolutely agree with your view!

    As it wouldn't be enough, just go to the nearest restaurant, food court and watch how much perfectly edible food is thrown away every day! Inflation? People don't have clue what it takes to grow a food. This inflation is man-made. Food here same as gas are too cheap! And I mean too cheap. Just look anywhere else and Europe for example.

    We are having the Earth Day! What a farce it is when in it's wake we waste so much every day!!!!!!
  39. Carl Hansen from Canada writes: I love the smell of ethanol in the morning. Smells like de feet.
  40. otto von abbatoir from Los Angeles, United States writes: Rest of the world's hungry? Too bad. You had your choice to get your act together and give us more oil. You didn't. So now we take our grain away and make fuel out of it. Eat flies or learn how to be MUCH MUCH nicer to America since we're the ONLY one with the capability to dramatically raise food production. And we even take payment in those worthless greenbacks. Time for a late night snack of Prime Rib, butter, bourbon and a Cheetos chaser.
  41. Michael Powers from Canada writes: I grew up in an urban home that always had a large garden where we grew our own vegetables. Today, we still have the garden and we still grow 90% of all of the vegetables that we consume during the growing season.

    Over the last 60 years, that garden has produced, year after year, some of the best tasting tomatoes, beans, onions, garlic, asparagus etc. that I have ever had. All organic material from the house and all the leaves from our trees are composted and along with the ashes from our fireplace, dug into the soil in the spring. I have never had a bad growing season regardless of the weather.

    At one time, all of my neighbors had these victory gardens but today, mine is the only one left.

    Perhaps with the increase in food prices, these gardens may soon reappear again.
  42. First Name: View, Last Name: Middle from Canada writes: Von, with a diet like that, you won't be much of a food competitor for long! Leaves more for others.
  43. Robert Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: otto von abbatoir from Los Angeles, United States:

    Why don't you admit that you have already been into the bourbon?

    You shouldn't mix cheetos with that stuff, eh?
  44. Robert Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: Michaels Powers from Canada:

    Good point re. post of 5:08 AM... With increasing food prices and food demand, will family farms also again be viable in North America some day.

    I wonder?
  45. Robert Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: Von, don't drink all your bourbon, you may need it to fuel your Hummer pretty soon...
  46. First Name: View, Last Name: Middle from Canada writes: Michael Powers from Canada writes: I grew up in an urban home that always had a large garden where we grew our own vegetables. Today, we still have the garden ..........Victory Gardens'
    .
    I was also raised with a gardening family, and maintain my own today. Not many in my neighborhood either. For most people, it is easier to buy.
    .
    The Victory Gardens campaign might be a way to get more people growing their own food, with a net benefit to the planet, as well as their own backyard.
    .
  47. otto von abbatoir from Los Angeles, United States writes: Remember, we just consume outrageously expensive drugs to counteract all the bad food. I'm always into the bourbon unless I'm into the mezcal or the vodka or...well then I just buy a liver from some poor starving mook, just like David Crosby. The Cheetos are just an indulgence to experience American high-technology expertise: taste so good, no nutritional value.
  48. otto von abbatoir from Los Angeles, United States writes: The bourbon never goes into the Hummer, it goes into the Ferrari. The Hummer prefers that $2 a gallon mezcal that they sell in ole' Mexico that comes in those beehive shaped bottles. I throw American made tortillas at the street urchins who try and wash my windshield.
  49. Evan Gillespie from Canada writes: The story begins and ends at population numbers, growth and allocation. The sooner we stop standing in awe of the symptoms and actually consider the base problem the better off all future generations will be.
  50. Robin Hood from Canada writes: Evan Gillespie from Canada -

    Yea just remember that much of the developing world is corrupt. Only china, being a totalitarian state can control is population.
  51. Robert Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: American swine !!

    Everyone knows that a Ferrari runs on Sambuca.... Amaretto if one is desperate !!
  52. Atlantic Geezer from Canada writes: I remember when this problem was called 'over-population', now that the overpopulation is used as cheap labour the wealthy need to call this problem something else.
  53. Jorly fuster from Canada writes: This is excellent news. perhaps this will convince people that using 3 quarters of the world's grain to feed livestock is a bad idea.
  54. L.B. MURRAY from Canada L.B. MURRAY from Canada from Canada writes: -
    Perhaps some of you might remember WHO pushed very hard, last year, for the culture of ''grain for ETHANOL''...

    Here's a clue... During a visit to South America...

    U.S. President George W. Bush.

    Enough said.

    Good day.
    -
  55. Stephen R from Canada writes: Government's need to encourage the resurgence of the family farm, Long story short, there was an episode in Halifax where a family had to rid themselves of a few chickens because of a bylaw. They were pets, but they did eat the eggs that were being produced. Actually this type of activity should be encouraged. especially in a rural setting. I don't think that it would work in an urban enviroment, of course. The fact of the matter is, veggies and hamburger are not produced at the supermarket, they must come from a farm of some type, and farming should be encouraged.
    I personnly would like to see most of my food produced in my own country.
  56. Mike Potter from Hamilton, Canada writes: Somebody left a comment saying the USA was the only country that could raise food production. Better not count on that one you need water to grow food and the States are just about out. The problem is that most governments out there that are so tightly focused on their feel good solutions that nothing ever happens to sort out the real mess.
  57. Canadian First from Canada writes: The American and European plan to grow food to make fuel is if not the dumbest the near dumbest Idea to come up in a long time. Anybody could have for cast what the outcome would be and many did. You may ask 'Why did they go ahead and do it ?' Big government or big business does not care what happens to the everyday people especially if they are not their own. I do not know if the end is nigh, but the end of cheap food is here .
  58. harry schmidt from near Shanghai, Canada writes: For decades I lament the fact that arable land is paved over and buildings put on it, especially around a city like Toronto.
    Why not built housing and commercial buildings north of the farmbelt, in Muskoka. It's Toronto's playground already. More people today, are able to work from their home, so their do not have to go daily to their office. The land up there is rocky for the most part; a good base for buildings. The forests and lakes ideal for recreation.
    Get hi-speed rail to the city, and we save the farmland. Sounds utopian perhaps, but foresight is better than hindsight.
    In China the same problem occurs, of course. Along the coast from the northern city of Qingdao to the southern province of Guangdong, the farmland gives way to factories and highrises. But to increase agricultural production that unelected clique of men in Beijing push for making the western desert arable. Like Mao's successor said, copy the dev. World, before we'll forge ahead, or words to that effect. He's still adored as a hero, until . . .
  59. usually write from Canada writes: The Chinese have already made the decision to expand GMO crops (including GMO rice) in a big way..it is the only way they will be able to feed their population on the available land, through the enhanced productivity.Also raises questions about the acceptability of low productivity food production-is it ethical given the circumstances?
  60. R. Carriere from Maritimes, Canada writes:

    'The most lasting cause of higher food prices is certainly population growth. As countries such as China and India grow and prosper, they are consuming a greater share of the world's food....'

    I wish to repeat what I have mentioned many times before. I truly do not believe that Mom Earth has the capacity to feed and fuel 6.8 Billion people and counting.

    I'll pick a number out of the hat (as the Manley report did) and make a very unscientific call that there are 2-3 BILLION too many people on this planet.

    If we look at the grouping of Chindia alone, they presently account for about 2.4 BILLION people. These countries are emerging and beginning to realize and dream about all about the western ( some would say decadent) goodies that take so much energy to BUILD and CONSUME energy to use (cars-appliances-packaged goods...)

    New population growth anywhere in the world (new consumers and direct and indirect GHG and pollution emitters) will cause a huge strain on food (look at the oceans) and create and emit the by-products mentioned above.

    Of course I have no answers (some in the US and around the world do) but over-population is THE major problem.
    .
  61. Gold Standard from Canada writes: Food inflation is a lot worst than the media is saying. Its up sky high since the summer.
  62. Gnarly Kanuck from Canada writes: The history of modern society is a tragedy of the commons...

    Everyone believes social and environmental responsibility is up to the next person.

    http://www.derrickjensen.org/
  63. P cheng from ottawa, Canada writes: R. Carriere from Maritimes, Canada writes:

    I'll pick a number out of the hat (as the Manley report did) and make a very unscientific call that there are 2-3 BILLION too many people on this planet.

    If we look at the grouping of Chindia alone, they presently account for about 2.4 BILLION people. These countries are emerging and beginning to realize and dream about all about the western ( some would say decadent) goodies that take so much energy to BUILD and CONSUME energy to use (cars-appliances-packaged goods...)

    New population growth anywhere in the world (new consumers and direct and indirect GHG and pollution emitters) will cause a huge strain on food (look at the oceans) and create and emit the by-products mentioned above.
    ====================>
    Please, what is the GHG/pollution per cap in China/India and US/Canada? It is a discrimination. Shame on You.
  64. P cheng from ottawa, Canada writes: R. Carriere from Maritimes, Canada writes:
    ====================================>
    I forgot one important point. Chinese has the one-child policy for 20 year; otherwise, they will have 1.6 billions people.
  65. Yul Nevano from Halton Hills, Canada writes: Eat the elderly.
  66. Voice of Reason from Ottawa, Canada writes: It is time food prices reflected the cost of production, for many many years the agri-producers of this country (farmers) bore the brunt of the cost of production. The numbers of bankruptcies and out migration of the agri-producers back this up. They were scorned and ridiculed for far too long by the civilized urban dwellers and even seen as peasants by many new immigrants to this country. If the civilized urban dwellers cannot afford the food they eat, they should try growing it on their own and not on the backs of others or feel inclined that there is someone out there obligated to do so. There isn’t.
  67. Larry Coulter from Canada writes: I say stop using the peoples food for ethanol. It's already apparent that ethanol isn't the ultimate replacement for fossil fuel. In fact it results in lower mileage & greater consumer cost. It would seem that the ultimate development 'hydrogen fuel' is being relegated to the back-burner. Quitting ethanol would certainly reduce corn etc./ shortages. What's more important here. Guess that depends who you ask. Certainly the people at large have no say.
  68. Tony . from Waterloo, Canada writes: First Name: View, Last Name: Middle from Canada writes: 'There is a small net gain in CO2 reduction using ethanol, though,'

    Even that is a matter of some dispute, at least for ethanol from corn. When you factor in plowing over land that is otherwise covered with forest or grasslands for corn farming, the net greenhouse gas output per kilometer driven is actually worse for ethanol vs. gasoline.

    Now add in the pollution problems associated with industrial farming (pesticides and herbicides that leach into the water stream, fertilizers made from fossil fuels, farm equipment plowing the fields), then add on to that the environmental impacts of distilling the grains (fossil fuels burned) and you start to see the true environmental cost of ethanol from corn, and it's NOT a pretty picture.

    There is absolutely ZERO reason why a single dime of government money should be spent on ethanol subsidies. It's worse for the environment then gasoline, it distorts free markets and it's done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to decrease petroleum imports in the U.S. or Canada (this is a demand-side problem, increasing supply decreases cost and increases demand negating the perceived reduction of imported fuels).

    Yet the U.S. currently spends $10 BILLION dollars a year to subsidize ethanol from corn and Harper and Baird are planning on doing the same thing in Canada (I thought these guys were supposed to be against corporate welfare? Not that I expect Dion or Layton would be any better and probably worse in this regard).
  69. R. Carriere from Maritimes, Canada writes:

    P cheng from ottawa, Canada writes: Please, what is the GHG/pollution per cap in China/India and US/Canada? It is a discrimination. Shame on You.

    Morning P cheng: Please, absolutely no discrimination intended! I was pointing out how the emerging nations were realizing an appetite for western goodies and the probable outcomes.

    Then if you read closely, I stated the folllowing;

    'New population growth anywhere in the world (new consumers and direct and indirect GHG and pollution emitters) will cause a huge strain on food (look at the oceans) and create and emit the by-products mentioned above.'

    Did you notice the word 'Anywhere?'

    So before you accuse one of 'discriminating' perhaps you may wish to read and better comprehend!
    .
  70. BiB AmomA from Canada writes: ..//

    I have an idea!!!

    Lets turn food into fuel (BIOFUEL) and make the price of food even more intolerable for the poor!

    Or Tax oil to drive the cost of food production up even more....

    there you go...

    ..//
  71. Bill H from London, Canada writes: When the lemming poplation exceeds the available food supply, they run headlong over the cliff. It is typical of all organisms that when the population exceeds available resources, the population crashes. For humans, this could mean running out of readily obtainable energy, it could be running out of food, or all of the above. But have no doubt, the human population will crash. Many believe technology will save us, but technology is a two-edged sword. After all, it is technology that has created our problems regarding energy consumption. Medical technology has enabled population growth. The list goes on. Nature has ways for controlling population, but human ingenuity and inventiveness has been able to circumvent normal controls like starvation and disease -- up to a point! It has been evident for years that global warming is not the problem - it is only a symptom of the far more fundamental problem of exploding population of a species that is too smart for its own good.
  72. BiB AmomA from Canada writes: Spicy Doc... set us all an example and cut off your... reproductive organ...
  73. Woody Forrest from Out in the Sticks, Canada writes: Hasn't this problem been around since forever? People keep living on the edge while technology and crop yields improve, but the world population increases eat up the slack.

    Maybe this problem will help to highlight how rich Canadians are. We will pretty much be on the sidelines for this one.

    Without immigration, Canada's population would be shrinking. China has done their bit with the one-child-per-family policy. What to do about other countries where upwards of 5 children per family are still the norm, regardless of their ability to feed themselves?

    Isn't their a link between a woman's education level and the number of children she has? The higher the education level, the smaller the number of kids? So wouldn't programs that improve women's education help solve the problem?

    If improved education is a meaningful way to deal with this, I find it hard to get worked up about Canada's role in helping the world. How many countries out there are asking for our advice or trying to copy our behaviour? (And I mean the good bits and not the energy hog stuff.)
  74. old Curmudgeon From Ottawa from Canada writes: Bill H says: 'global warming is not the problem - it is only a symptom of the far more fundamental problem of exploding population of a species that is too smart for its own good.'

    I agree except I would change the sentence to: too dumb to use its brains for its own good!
  75. paul degen from Canada writes: There are thousands of acres of land that have been left abandoned in recent years here in Alberta due to the low prices of grain and the beef crisis .One thing allot of you don't realize about cattle production , is that a large number of our beef cows are raised on pasture that isn't suitable for grain production or isn't economical to farm grain which makes good use of land that otherwise would sit idle. Remember Canada is a net exporter of beef and grain, we're not ever going to be short of these commodities any time soon. Even on a world scale It's mostly politics that cause people to starve not world food shortages.
    As for the price of food doubling. I think the media and the markets are over hyping this to ,again put fear into people for yet more control and to pocket more money. As I stated Farmers have been having surplus crops for years and couldn't give their grain away now this all of a sudden? Something smells fishy here.
  76. bob london from Canada writes: 75% Off.Going to the farmers market. Lowblaws buy's international and repackages them and say's cdn. And who's the billionaire?

    50 bucks today vs 200 at loblaws
  77. John Ishmael from Brampton ON, Canada writes: Over the decades I have commented on this Chosen World.

    The corporatization of countries, supervised by the inseminator IMF and the midwife World Bank, has turned food sufficient countries into 'cash crop' economies. Instead of food for the locals they are massive factory farms for tea, coffee, corn, flowers, soy .... This Rosemary's Baby is a vorcious cash feeder and the native parents are forced to work for minimum wages in this 'cash economy' and buy food from their international supermarket chains.

    Canada has also sold off its farmlands for housing developers and now relies for much of its food on imports that are trucked over the USA. We are ripe for a political blockade if we don't, for example, live up to the blood for trade that was again revealed by the US's McCain re NAFTA's security addenda. US INVASION OF CANADA AND ITS ABSORPTION tells the story of such a blockade and the eventual dissolution of Canada.

    What also will worsen our plight is the conversion of food farms worldwide into gasoline factories. Corn to ethanol. Our GDP will be delightful while we suufer from food escalation. Our agri marketing boards may well save us from shortages of imported food but our prices will rise to the external market prices, nevertheless. Perhaps our free market, globalization posters will take our GDP to the check out. It is the rich who are part of the corporatization of our lives who have no fears. p> Perhaps they should advocate that we turn all of Canada's farmland into corn for fuel enterprises or for agri-pharma medical products. Then we can import our food from... where? The Liberal-Conservative concoction will not help you since they are financed by the corporatization of countries interests. Meanwhile, every single family in a house or apartment should immediately start growing vegetables and herbs to offset the food cartels that will suck their wallets dry.

  78. Saskatchewan Seal Hunter Club from Canada writes: The farmer gets approx. 4 cents per bushel for the wheat in a loaf of bread........talk about middle man rip off. 1 bushel of barley, will make 144 bottles of beer.......talk about middle man rip off. A $5.00 box of cereal has about 4 cents of oats or corn or other grain in it........talk about middle man rip off. I'm not saying a baker is ripping us off, but he should pay triple for his flour, and a loaf of bread should be at least triple the price........after all, I've seen people pay 2.00 for a liter of water, or some women pay 10.00 or more for a tube of lipstick that has 1 cent worth of oil and wax in it.
  79. Saskatchewan Seal Hunter Club from Canada writes: Voice of Reason from Ottawa, Canada writes: It is time food prices reflected the cost of production, for many many years the agri-producers of this country (farmers) bore the brunt of the cost of production. The numbers of bankruptcies and out migration of the agri-producers back this up. They were scorned and ridiculed for far too long by the civilized urban dwellers and even seen as peasants by many new immigrants to this country. If the civilized urban dwellers cannot afford the food they eat, they should try growing it on their own and not on the backs of others or feel inclined that there is someone out there obligated to do so. There isn’t. Very well said The farmer gets approx. 4 cents per bushel for the wheat in a loaf of bread........talk about middle man rip off. 1 bushel of barley, will make 144 bottles of beer.......talk about middle man rip off. A $5.00 box of cereal has about 4 cents of oats or corn or other grain in it........talk about middle man rip off. I'm not saying a baker is ripping us off, but he should pay triple for his flour, and a loaf of bread should be at least triple the price........after all, I've seen people pay 2.00 for a liter of water, or some women pay 10.00 or more for a tube of lipstick that has 1 cent worth of oil and wax in it.
  80. Mike McFae from Canada writes: JMJ, a lot of university profs online this morning promulgating various abstract theories. The present situation is simply called Agflation and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out. It is partly due to rising costs ( i.e. fuel ) and partly due to eating habits . In the latter case - and this only applies to certain foods - consumers are more aware of what they eat and are willing to pay more for what they perceive to be better . As they say , a rising tide lifts all ships/foodstuffs. Of course , there is also the element of stupidity where consumers are coerced into paying more for foods that are supposedly good for the environment which in many cases is simply a con job ...a la many organic foods and ' transfat free ' foods. I'm in the food processing business and it astounds me what consumers believe these days . Too much hype, not enough simple facts.
  81. Sue W from Canada writes: I would think for North America a Food Inflation Crisis would be a good thing in helping to fight the Obesity Crisis.
  82. paul degen from Canada writes: Well put John and Seal hunter!! You nailed it.
  83. Woody Forrest from Out in the Sticks, Canada writes: Mike McFae, you seem to have a good handle on some of the problems in North America and Europe. But I have to ask; Do we really have to be concerned about consumers in Bangladesh or Sudan 'Falling for the hype'?

    Another poster mentioned how poor countries are encouraged to grow cash crops (like cotton) that will allow them to pay off bank loans, but not help feed their population. Now that's a real problem that might be fixable.
  84. EarthHour OurEarth from Canada writes: re: 'Canadians might be forgiven for not noticing. The remarkable rise of the loonie has so far largely insulated them from the kind of rampant inflation that is hitting much of the rest of the world.'
    >>>SCARY>>> when value of loony has to be pushed down to simulate/repatriate manufacturing which will likely happen if we follow in the path of deficit lead by Bush administration. We should vote for the party that will ban the use of grain for biofuel and put in place programs that will draw the finest minds domestically and globally to search for ways to harness controlled nuclear fusion or cold fusion, FasTracFatTax, and limit garbage to 1 kg per person so that people limit the amount of food they put on their plate and eat all that they put on their plate.
  85. Dr. Doolittle from Queen's Park, Canada writes:

    The price of the world's three main grains – rice, wheat and corn – have all more than doubled in the past year, affecting just about everything people eat, and fanning social unrest in some of the most unstable corners of the world.

    Canadians might be forgiven for not noticing
    Canadians might be forgiven for not noticing
    Canadians might be forgiven for not noticing

    ----------

    As a country which loves to moralize and judge the moral ineptness of the Great Satan ( read Linda McQuaig or Haroon Siddiqui for example ) and boo the junior American national hockey team when they played in British Columbia and Quebec, I full expect this moral juggernaut of a country, land of the great do-gooder, to make all necessary sacrifices to help the world's poor.
  86. Don Wells from Canada writes: Shades of the Club of Rome's 'Limits to Growth'! Manufactured crisis!
  87. diana diana from Toronto, Canada writes: North Korea threatened the world with a nuclear bomb if we didn't provide them with food and fuel. We did. This will be the future - war will be fought for food and water. Refugees by the millions will continue to travel to the North to survive. Governments seem to have this as the lowest priority and of course will not take action until it is too late. There was no mention in the article about all the nations suffering from war - people don't plant when they are holding a gun. How many farmers are Taliban?
  88. Jake Smith from Saskatoon, Canada writes: For the past ten years the global food companies have fought a price war on the backs of farmers. Despite low wheat inventories they have paid farmers subsistence returns and this has meant that they didn't grow enough of it to increase inventories. According the the Candian Wheat Board only 5.3% of the value of a loaf of bread relates to the wheat. The rest is processing and transportation and profits to companies beyond the farm gate.

    We do not lack capacity in terms of food production - there have been programs in the US and Europe that paid land owners not to put land into production. Biofuels have brought some of this land back into production but biofuels themselves are not the problem. This is a myth that is perpetrated by environmentalist wannabees who function with a veneer of knowledge of the issues.

    The problem, which amazingly few people have keyed into - is oil prices. Throughout the 1990's the inflation adjusted average price of oil was only $25. At the farm level, fuel makes up 30% of the variable cost of production and then you have to add the cost of petroleum based fertilizers and chemicals. But the real cost comes from transporting the food from the farm gate to the consumer.
  89. harry schmidt from near Shanghai, Canada writes: The one child policy only works partially. If you're a farmer can breed until a son arrives. If couples have another they'll pay a thousand bucks and problem solved.
    What should really happen is that gvt.'s provide a lottery of how many kids in a year it will allow to be born.
    Start with the most populous one's like China, India and so on. China is running out of water. 50 years ago most houses didn't have the use of indoor toilets or showers.
    Now they still pollute lakes or rivers big time. Uneducated or educated folks dump garbage anywhere, to save depositing it where it belongs, to save money.
    It may be the oldest surviving civilization, but not for long, if the they push the production of goods higher while they run out of clean air or water. But they insist on copying the West.
  90. Dr. Doolittle from Queen's Park, Canada writes:

    Here's an example of Ontarian moral superiority:

    Do you plan on turning off your lights Saturday evening for Earth Hour?

    Yes 36%
    No 64%


    Total Votes for this Question: 2916
  91. Paul Jay from Canada writes: From the harmony demonstrated on this comment board to the wisdom of our leaders on issues from Iraq to investment banking to climate change, how can anyone think that the future of the world is anything but rosy?
  92. Hendrick Larose from Calgary, Canada writes: For the posters who see the growing population in the world as a problem, what would be a fair solution? Most solutions to this infringe heavily on personal freedom. Sterilization, forced abortion, termination of the elderly.

    Why would we infringe on the basic freedom to life before we infringe on the freedom to over consume. If fuel is sucking up the food supply, where is the ban on large vehicles? Where is the mandatory use of low watt light bulbs?

    How selfish have we gotten that we would challenge nations on population before we address our excesses in North America and Europe?

    If we need to take some personal freedoms away to fix this problem, lets remove the SUVs, the excessive power users and using food for energy consumption.

  93. Woody Forrest from Out in the Sticks, Canada writes: Great to see that Orest's offensive comment directed last