Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
UNIFICATION
by Tom Laskawy
If I've hammered home any point this week, I hope it's that addressing climate change and reforming food production are pretty much the same thing. You can't do one without the other. And - as Yogi Berra might say - vice versa. The food and agriculture industries, aided and abetted by governments worldwide (not to mention by consumers), have succeeded in offloading just about all external costs involved with feeding us. Environmental issues, public health issues, natural resource utilization issues, even most economic issues related to food have all been socialized to the extent that the industry is almost totally isolated from the societal consequences of its actions. To this point few have complained as it has led to ever lower food prices in the developed world and thriving export markets in the developing world. But the costs, which for 60 years or so seemed to have been pushed back beyond the horizon, are now beginning to loom.
Many of us have high hopes that the new administration can make serious progress on reform, but it's important to focus on how serious the challenge before us actually is. In this way, it's like the global warming debate was back in the 90s. The science was pretty clear even then. There were visionaries like NASA's James Hansen and, yes, Al Gore, who understood that we needed to act. But for most Americans, hearing about climate change in the 90s was like being reminded to carry an umbrella on a sunny day. Where exactly were the portents of doom?
We're in the same position with food. The portents perhaps are a bit more present, but doom is not yet upon us. On the one hand, as food-safety lawyer (and apparently one time shortlisted candidate for food safety czar) Bill Marler said right here, "the wheels on the food safety bus have fallen off." Food prices spike and crash, which in the end hurts both farmers and consumers. The short-lived run up in fuel prices earlier this year scared the bejeezus out of everyone. On the other hand, we're not experiencing food shortages. Indeed many of us continue to eat too much rather than too little and we're positively swimming in protein. And while the rate of growth in agricultural yields is slowing, yields are still growing.
Which is why the following thought experiment from Fred Kirschenmann, Sustainable Ag expert at Iowa State University is so useful (h/t Jill Richardson). Kirschenmann - like supposed Deputy Secretary of Agriculture candidate Chuck Hassebrook - is on Food Democracy Now's Sustainable Dozen list of progressive food policy folks worthy of consideration for USDA jobs. In an op-ed, Kirschenmann asks the following question of Tom Vilsack:
[L]et’s assume that ten years from now oil will be $300 a barrel, that we only have half the fresh water resources available that we have today for our food and agriculture system and that we have twice the severe weather events. What kind of agriculture should we be designing to put on the landscape that enables farmers to thrive, invites a new generation of farmers to enter farming and that restores the economic health of our rural communities?Anyone care to take a shot at an answer? I'm all ears.
He manages to encapsulate the coming crisis better than anyone has yet (and whether that moment comes 10 years hence or 20 is, I think, irrelevant). The problem, of course, is that no one really has an answer. While we may have paths to alternative fuels for transportation, we don't have them for low-carbon solutions for fertilizer and pesticides - not for agriculture on the scale required to feed 7 billion people. And while there are lots of promising sustainable agricultural practices - there is no clear blueprint to get us from here to there on a worldwide basis. This is why we need to start preparing for this near-future right now.
And so we get to unification. The only path toward reform that I see is to force those externalized costs back onto the food system. And the best means we have of reaching that goal is - you guessed it - establishing a market price for carbon along with an end to our ad hoc, pork barrel energy policy. As Kirschenmann points out, "our food and agriculture industry is perhaps more dependent on fossil fuels than any other segment of the economy." So the sooner we get those costs accounted for, the sooner we can start facing the real choices needed for reform.
We can and should get started attacking certain areas of food policy reform. There's no excuse for doing nothing. But the fundamental transformation of food and agricultural policy that we need won't happen without addressing climate change first. I'm willing to be proven wrong, of course. But if I had to bet on which can happen first -- reforming the House Agriculture Committee or passing real climate change legislation -- I'd bet the farm on climate. So that's settled then.
That pretty much wraps up my time here at Ezra's place. Thanks, Ezra. I hope you all enjoyed Ryan, Neil, Nicholas, Dylan and Harold's great stuff as much as I did. And thanks for contributing and commenting - I enjoyed every minute. And though I may be returning Ezra's keys, I'm still around town - at Beyond Green and at Grist. Visitors are always welcome.
COMMENTS (16)
L]et’s assume that ten years from now oil will be $300 a barrel, that we only have half the fresh water resources available that we have today for our food and agriculture system and that we have twice the severe weather events.
And why would anyone assume *that*? What evidence would lead anyone to believe that is likely?
If these were normal times, inflation would double prices and income every 10 years or so. So the $300 oil is not $150 in today's dollars.
So what?
He manages to encapsulate the coming crisis...
Is this guy The Great Carnac? The poster assumes that there is a great crisis coming. A little more reasoning, please, and less fortune telling.
Posted by: El Viajero | January 30, 2009 10:09 PM
Excellent post, Tom. There is undoubtedly a nexus of problems converging on energy and fossil fuels, agriculture and climate change, as well as population growth and the changing rural landscape. Wes Jackson has described our modern industrial agricultural system as an extractive, oil based system superimposed on what has arisen organically (traditionally?).
See for instance his lecture here:
http://www.greens.org/s-r/48/48-02.html
And El Viajero, you are an ignorant, denialist troll who deserves no response, but I nonetheless offer this link:
http://www.desmogblog.com/12-trillion-reasons-get-oil
Posted by: Soil Creep | January 30, 2009 11:09 PM
It seems that population growth is the real culprit. If people would limit themselves to one kid within a few generations the earth would be at a more sustainable level population whise.
Posted by: john rove | January 31, 2009 3:02 AM
And El Viajero...
Thanks for the link, soil creep. The central planning that you like to engage in here sounds like we're in the politburo.
Look, my point is that most predictions turn out to be false for the simple reason that few can look into the future and those who do still seem to mess it up.
It's just a crock to start from your premise of $300 oil and half the water. YOUI SIMPLY DON"T KNOW THAT and there is no real evidence that would lead anyone to believe it's likely.
Our world is not static. When oil is scarce, prices will rise. When prices rise, alternatives are developed and those we already have become economically viable. If population increases, there will likely be wars, famine or disease.
Things change as....things change.
It's not that I completely disagree with you about future energy needs. What I disagree about is the mechanism that will bring about that change.
Posted by: El Viajero | January 31, 2009 9:37 AM
First, I have to say that the idea of not bothering to try to predict anything ever is sort of odd. This kind of prediction is the essence of strategic planning - exactly what every business of any size embarks on every day. It's also true that Peak Oilers have been calling the peak for over 30 years. But with the IEA and OIL COMPANY CEOS AND CFOS THEMSELVES expecting a peak within 20 years, I think it's prudent to start planning for that eventuality.
Second, the importance of all this for agriculture is exactly due to the absence of alternatives. Oil and natural gas don't just power the factories that make synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. They are the ingredients from which those products are made. The time to address these issues is now - not when the crisis is at its maximum. Panic may be a great motivator but it doesn't generally lead to clear-headed thinking.
Shrugging shoulders and figuring that things would all work out for the best got us into the environmental (not to mention financial) mess we're in now. Pitching in with alternative ideas is one thing, but just saying it's not a big deal and there's no need to actually do anything proactive strikes me as at best misguided and at worst obstruction.
Posted by: Tom Laskawy | January 31, 2009 10:00 AM
"There were visionaries like NASA's James Hansen"
wouldn't hallucinations be more accurate? Compare Hansen A, B, C predictions to either GISS or RSS and he wasn't even in the ballpark. Hansen's work has been so repudiated its not even considered science. Don't tell us you still believe in the hockey stick?
If you think forwad planning is prudent would it not also be prudent to do that planing on facts not data EVERYONE knows is propoganda?
Examples of his works accuracy;
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3354
Posted by: Nate | January 31, 2009 10:27 AM
Oh, yeah. That site. Denier central. I stick with Real Climate. By, you know, climate scientists.
Also, here's desmogblog addressing the denier attack on Hansen.
Posted by: Tom Laskawy | January 31, 2009 11:04 AM
Panic may be a great motivator but it doesn't generally lead to clear-headed thinking.
I didn't say wait until panic. What I said is things change......as things change.
However, your statement rings true when applied to the current recession. Giving large amounts of monies, financed by debt, to the National Endowment for the Arts, community organizer organizations and sod for the mall proves the point.
Posted by: El Viajero | January 31, 2009 11:14 AM
Giving large amounts of monies, financed by debt, to the National Endowment for the Arts, community organizer organizations and sod for the mall proves the point.
ElV, you're so cute when you get coked up on induced, cooked-up outrage over stuff you don't even understand but were merely told to get pissed off at today. Can you do math? Evidence indicates no.
Posted by: Tyro | January 31, 2009 12:45 PM
Shorter Tyro: "I won't discuss facts. I'll just attack my perceived enemies personally."
Perhpas Tyro can explain to us all why debt spending for the National Endowment for the Arts is an efficient means of jump-starting the economy and leads to the permanent creation of private sector jobs.
Posted by: El Viajero | January 31, 2009 2:00 PM
Whenever Viajero hears the word 'culture', he reaches for his Browning.
Still, being a good little wingnut, he's trained to bark at the prospect of .006% of the stimulus budget going to the NEA. Never mind that arts funding delivers on investment. It's not as if symphony orchestras contribute more to a city than slumlord parasites, is it?
Posted by: Viajero = Bigot | January 31, 2009 6:05 PM
...the prospect of .006% of the stimulus budget going to the NEA. Never mind that arts funding delivers on investment.
Translation: "Don't look too closely because it's mostly all like this...don't question us."
Posted by: El Viajero | January 31, 2009 11:38 PM
Too dumb to follow the link, Viajero, or too scared that what it says might upset your gut prejudices?
Posted by: Viajero = Bigot | January 31, 2009 11:56 PM
I hate my Daddy. He touches me.
Posted by: Sam | February 1, 2009 12:01 AM
..too scared that what it says might upset your gut prejudices?
Brendan,
While there may be many worthy and worthwhile programs that would be suitable to be promoted in a regular spending bill...this is a stimulus bill.
Do you really believe that spending on arts is the best and most efficient path to promoting permanent job growth in the private sector? Ya' know, jobs that don't depend on government spending and that don't go away when the government teat dries up?
Really?
Posted by: El Viajero | February 1, 2009 12:06 AM
The study's there for you to read, Jimjina. And real-estate parasites like you are the reason why the economy's in the tank.
Alternatively, keep shouting at the voices in your head. Getting locked out of Pandagon must be killing you.
Posted by: Viajero = Bigot | February 1, 2009 11:59 AM