How To Save The Planet

[omaghjoe]

For starters, who here eats eels? Rakes of them here and no one eating them.

What would the wimmin (and Bono) stand on then?

I thought midge and eel soup was a staple on the loughshore?

[seafoid]

I pretty sure USA idles about 10% of arable cropland.
The official reason given by the government is sustainability but the real reason is to reduce the amount of food produced to avoid a glut and its consequences like I mentioned previously.
It is also used as a diplomatic weapon in trade negotiations. Basically a nuclear option saying we can flood the global crop markets with cheap food forcing your producer out of business if you don't meet our demands.

The EU does the same thing, not sure on the amount of arable land that lays idle but I sure you can find data on it somewhere if your really interested.

Inventing an app to produce more fish would not work, software and electronic technology is unrelated to food production.
Anyway I though farmed fish were fed crop based feed not other fish?

Say food supply for 7bn based on current diet is 100. Demand is slightly less, say 99. 

Add the 10% of the US and very generously assume it adds 10% to global food supply.   100*1.1 = 110
Now say more people in Asia start demanding beef and pork . How much more grain is needed to feed the animals? Say 5 . Demand now becomes 104

And climate change. Best estimate I have seen is that it will decrease food production by 15% by 2030 . So 110 -15 = 95
Throw in another billion people . They'll want another 15 say. 110+15 = 125

Technology will have an awful lot of work to do.
It does look a bit like a Ponzi scheme
 
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a7ffe730-47a0-11e3-9398-00144feabdc0.htm

Global food production has been heading in an unsustainable direction for decades. The UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation estimates that we will need to double global food production by 2050 to feed the growing population. We continue to clear tropical forests to bring more land in to use, and we try to squeeze ever greater yields from existing land by heavy use of fertilisers and pesticides, creating vast crop monocultures. Yet our efforts are undermining the ability of land to produce food. Agricultural practices are causing soils to be rapidly eroded – washing away in rain or blowing away into the sea – so that 40 per cent of farmed soils are already degraded, and some estimates suggest many countries will have little soil left within 60 years. Aquifers used to irrigate arid soils are fast being depleted. Salt build-up, from poor irrigation practices, is affecting 320m hectares of agricultural lands – an area the size of India.

[omaghjoe]

I pretty sure USA idles about 10% of arable cropland.
The official reason given by the government is sustainability but the real reason is to reduce the amount of food produced to avoid a glut and its consequences like I mentioned previously.
It is also used as a diplomatic weapon in trade negotiations. Basically a nuclear option saying we can flood the global crop markets with cheap food forcing your producer out of business if you don't meet our demands.

The EU does the same thing, not sure on the amount of arable land that lays idle but I sure you can find data on it somewhere if your really interested.

Inventing an app to produce more fish would not work, software and electronic technology is unrelated to food production.
Anyway I though farmed fish were fed crop based feed not other fish?

Say food supply for 7bn based on current diet is 100. Demand is slightly less, say 99. 

Add the 10% of the US and very generously assume it adds 10% to global food supply.   100*1.1 = 110
Now say more people in Asia start demanding beef and pork . How much more grain is needed to feed the animals? Say 5 . Demand now becomes 104

And climate change. Best estimate I have seen is that it will decrease food production by 15% by 2030 . So 110 -15 = 95
Throw in another billion people . They'll want another 15 say. 110+15 = 125

Technology will have an awful lot of work to do.
It does look a bit like a Ponzi scheme
 
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a7ffe730-47a0-11e3-9398-00144feabdc0.htm

Global food production has been heading in an unsustainable direction for decades. The UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation estimates that we will need to double global food production by 2050 to feed the growing population. We continue to clear tropical forests to bring more land in to use, and we try to squeeze ever greater yields from existing land by heavy use of fertilisers and pesticides, creating vast crop monocultures. Yet our efforts are undermining the ability of land to produce food. Agricultural practices are causing soils to be rapidly eroded – washing away in rain or blowing away into the sea – so that 40 per cent of farmed soils are already degraded, and some estimates suggest many countries will have little soil left within 60 years. Aquifers used to irrigate arid soils are fast being depleted. Salt build-up, from poor irrigation practices, is affecting 320m hectares of agricultural lands – an area the size of India.

I don't want to start picking through your numbers but they have no basis in reality, even the 10% you added on is incorrect as it is 10% of the US total not the World's which would actually help your argument even more.
However the numbers you quoted are assuming that demand is increasing and that we have an ever reducing capacity, there is simply no evidence of this.


Take a look at this article today where India and the US agreed on food trade.

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-30033130

Basically the USA wants India to stop stockpiling food - yes stockpiling so they are producing more food than they consume... and still have some to export! Why? So that there is more opportunity for US producers to sell their products in India, by the same token Indian producers will also have the opportunity to do the same in other countries.
Stockpiling of food was a result of post WWII subsidies to food producers which helped to stabilise food markets and supply. However stockpiles have been reducing worldwide since the 70s to help introduce producers to a global market, not as claimed by some that we are running out of food.
Its similar to the thinking of a business keeping their inventory low so that they can be more adaptable to changes in demand.

I do not doubt that there are unsustainable farming practices going on and that needs to change, flooding former rice paddies with salt water for shrimp farming is the height of insanity, however as I said before damage to arable land is not an indicator of dwindling food supply.

[seafoid]

I pretty sure USA idles about 10% of arable cropland.
The official reason given by the government is sustainability but the real reason is to reduce the amount of food produced to avoid a glut and its consequences like I mentioned previously.
It is also used as a diplomatic weapon in trade negotiations. Basically a nuclear option saying we can flood the global crop markets with cheap food forcing your producer out of business if you don't meet our demands.

The EU does the same thing, not sure on the amount of arable land that lays idle but I sure you can find data on it somewhere if your really interested.

Inventing an app to produce more fish would not work, software and electronic technology is unrelated to food production.
Anyway I though farmed fish were fed crop based feed not other fish?

Say food supply for 7bn based on current diet is 100. Demand is slightly less, say 99. 

Add the 10% of the US and very generously assume it adds 10% to global food supply.   100*1.1 = 110
Now say more people in Asia start demanding beef and pork . How much more grain is needed to feed the animals? Say 5 . Demand now becomes 104

And climate change. Best estimate I have seen is that it will decrease food production by 15% by 2030 . So 110 -15 = 95
Throw in another billion people . They'll want another 15 say. 110+15 = 125

Technology will have an awful lot of work to do.
It does look a bit like a Ponzi scheme
 
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a7ffe730-47a0-11e3-9398-00144feabdc0.htm

Global food production has been heading in an unsustainable direction for decades. The UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation estimates that we will need to double global food production by 2050 to feed the growing population. We continue to clear tropical forests to bring more land in to use, and we try to squeeze ever greater yields from existing land by heavy use of fertilisers and pesticides, creating vast crop monocultures. Yet our efforts are undermining the ability of land to produce food. Agricultural practices are causing soils to be rapidly eroded – washing away in rain or blowing away into the sea – so that 40 per cent of farmed soils are already degraded, and some estimates suggest many countries will have little soil left within 60 years. Aquifers used to irrigate arid soils are fast being depleted. Salt build-up, from poor irrigation practices, is affecting 320m hectares of agricultural lands – an area the size of India.

I don't want to start picking through your numbers but they have no basis in reality, even the 10% you added on is incorrect as it is 10% of the US total not the World's which would actually help your argument even more.
However the numbers you quoted are assuming that demand is increasing and that we have an ever reducing capacity, there is simply no evidence of this.


Take a look at this article today where India and the US agreed on food trade.

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-30033130

Basically the USA wants India to stop stockpiling food - yes stockpiling so they are producing more food than they consume... and still have some to export! Why? So that there is more opportunity for US producers to sell their products in India, by the same token Indian producers will also have the opportunity to do the same in other countries.
Stockpiling of food was a result of post WWII subsidies to food producers which helped to stabilise food markets and supply. However stockpiles have been reducing worldwide since the 70s to help introduce producers to a global market, not as claimed by some that we are running out of food.
Its similar to the thinking of a business keeping their inventory low so that they can be more adaptable to changes in demand.

I do not doubt that there are unsustainable farming practices going on and that needs to change, flooding former rice paddies with salt water for shrimp farming is the height of insanity, however as I said before damage to arable land is not an indicator of dwindling food supply.

Fine , joe. Let's keep an eye on it and see what happens. I think damage to arable land is something to be concerned about btw.

[omaghjoe]

Fair enough Seafoid.

[omaghjoe]

Update: Turns out the increase in CO2 levels is actually beneficial for flora, more heat and water vapour should also benefit flora

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-36130346

 

[Jeepers Creepers]

Update: Turns out the increase in CO2 levels is actually beneficial for flora, more heat and water vapour should also benefit flora

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-36130346

Real butter man myself.

[Hereiam]

Talk about sweeping a problem under the carpet
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37978482

[laoislad]

Talk about sweeping a problem under the carpet
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37978482

Could they do the same with Tyrone?

[Never beat the deeler]

Talk about sweeping a problem under the carpet
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37978482

Did you read the article - they're covering it over to prevent radioactive material escaping while they dismantle the reactor

[omaghjoe]

Talk about sweeping a problem under the carpet
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37978482

Did you read the article - they're covering it over to prevent radioactive material escaping while they dismantle the reactor

There is train of thought out there that once nuclear power is mentioned people assume its a bad thing. Like having a nuclear bomb sitting in your back yard with a timer on it or something.
This irrational hysteria has infiltrated the mainstream now and you see seismic inactive countries like Germany declaring themselves nuclear free after Fukishima.

But the fact is its an extremely cheap and clean form of energy (probably the cleanest),  and although it does have its safety problems these are very infrequently and becoming rarer as the industry becomes more refined.