Letters to the Editor
-
It is callled "Peak Oil"
And judging by what is suppposed to be lull in the price per barrrel this time of year, seeing the price over $100 , I'd say we just might be there.
-
Not without other changes first
My only criticism is why did you choose Africa, instead of Mexico, where they are feeling the pinch of the Bush ethanol program, felt in rising corn prices. The Bush administration has been in talks to fold the US into a North American enterprise zone, with a single currency, and a single security umbrella for all concerned. Mexico is 3X the size of Texas, and has 12% arable land, but only 3% is irrigated.
To see Africa's problem with argriculture you need go no farther than Zimbabwe. Is the second colonial wave going to have any more last effect? None of the agricultural reforms you mention will happen without the change that would support these improvements. But right now I can hear some Archer Daniels executives dividing up their cyber-plantations, figuring out ways to control the land without a brutal occupying force, or complicit corrupt government officials.
-
E Pluribus Mejico!
Bravo! Let's have a U.S. of North America! Why do you write as if everybody assumes this would be a bad thing?
Other comentary: Zimbabwe is the worst economy in Africa. You seem sort of ridiculously ignorantly Middle-of-the-country-never-been-nowhere when you use it as an example. Have you ever been there? With new leadership, in a very few years, Zimbabwe will be okay. And Zimbabwe is MUCH prettier than Texas. (Are you from Texas? If not, Zimbabwe is much prettier than whatever state you are from.)
-
Arable Land in Mexico (fer cryin out loud!)
California, America's vegetable basket, lettuce et al. capital of the universe, used to be part of Mexico! Still probably should be. Do not write such silly, shallow stuff.
-
brighter future of Africa ultimately lies with free trade
There is little doubt that the rising prices of staples having something to do with increased trade with importing countries like China. But let's not rush to judge that trade is the reason why lots of poor African people are starving.
The perverse situation that Africa with its large endowment of arable land is unable to feed its population goes a long way back to the massive amount of agricultural subsidies provided to European and American farmers. People often don't realize that the direct result of such subsidies is an oversupply of grains and other cash crops that depress their prices in the market place. African farmers hence find themselves unable to compete, which in turn leads to inadequate investment in agriculture and further deterioration of output.
Western countries often believe that by giving away their surplus Ag output to Africa they are helping solving or alleviating the hunger problem. But the truth is more complicated than that. Africa farmers have dignities too, and they'd rather earn a living through hard work than being fed by the UN Food Program. All they want is access to the world market where prices of agricultural products reflect the true costs so that they can compete. This way poor farmers in Burkina Faso, for instance, can sell their cotton; and with the proceeds they can buy enough food and send their children to school, breaking the cycle of poverty.
As to the role GM crops and biofuel in this debate, I believe it's premature to say that they are the answer as they are still quite controversial at this stage. We can, however, work to reduce the subsidies and give Africa a better position in global market place so that they can compete and fend for themselves. The starvation in Africa depends not just on how much grain we give them in aide(that surely is important in the short run), but more importantly the solution lies with how we can give them the tool and the environment such that they can produce more food or earn enough income themselves to purchase more food. Getting rid of farm subsidies in the West should be a good place to start.