Small Revolutions: Voluntary Simplicity in Devon

Food Crisis: The Silent Tsunami

I've been meaning to write more about the food crisis, but I've been studying for my massage exams coming up soon, so it's bee a little quite on this front.

The next thing I was going to mention in my exploration of food was something Mahatma Gandhi espoused. He said that people should try to look after themselves. If they could not, then the family should look after them. And if the family cannot look after them, the village should. And if the village couldn't the region should etc.

In short, he espoused self-reliance and autonomy at the most local level possible.

Particularly in the developing world, I believe that developing countries are better off developing their internal economies and their internal level of affluence at the most local level. Because the globalised market is pitted against them.

Take supermarkets sourcing vegetables for example. They don't buy from poor individuals, they buy from large companies that pay lots of workers small wages. The trickle down effect of wealth is negligible particularly if individuals and families, becoming landless through the process of industrialisation - then sink below the level of subsistence because they can no longer grow their own food or forage on common land.

These people would be far better off if they had some land on which they could grow food, and  be able participate in small scale economic activities and production on a local level as part of a local economy, rather than being employed by large companies and the smallest and least powerful units in a massive globalised industrial complex.

Globalisation was supposed to make everyone richer.

My professional insight and analysis of this is this: bollocks. It was designed to leverage open national economies across the world to the clutches of large companies seeking new markets, cheaper labour with fewer human rights, supporting their transnational expansion.

Globalisation was supposed to work because of "comparative advantage theory". In short, we all do what we're best at. On a superficial level, it sounds quite smart. I mean, no-one can be good at everything so it;s good to share jobs out.

That's as may be in a town or a city with people, but on a global level it doesn't work for a number of reasons - prior accumulation of capital and information advantage through colonisation of countries; inequal distribution of world resources (forests, minerals, raw materials); different weather patterns etc. etc.

So it ends up being like this: one country which has already got the money and resources, technical knowledge and capital, starts producing computer chips. Then another country without the benefit of similar development and support and resources, gets to be good at making bananas. Who do you think is going to turn out to be richest?

I think that in the long term (and this is quite apart from the forthcoming necessity as a condition of peak oil) we are all better off by becoming more local. Because local economies are going to be what matters in the post carbon age.

In the age of peak oil and resource depletion, efficiency is key. And with spiralling fuel and food prices, globalised economics will actually come to be seen as a bloated, wasteful and inefficient means of meeting our real, basic needs.

To meet the coming challenges, we need to localise our food production, and localise to the closest possible unit - like Mahatma Gandhi's sentiments above. This has happened with Cuba in its (albeit artificial) experience of peak oil. Something like 50% of Havana's vegetable food is produced within Havana itself.

The best way of maintaining food security will be for it to be produced as close to home as possible. Local independence and self-reliance unhitches people from the trials and the uncertainty of global food economics.

Which is why I think we should all be growing our own, and participating localised food economies.

Although it's more contingent for people in developing countries to start moving towards food independence, it's only slightly less relevant for us here in the UK because we're richer. The changes will certainly hit us where it hurts sooner or later.

And I've wondered for a long time whether all this isn't just crazy thinking and maybe I'm some crazed doomster survivalist just itching for societal breakdown.

But then I read this evening on the BBC that the results of a UNESCO report cites a healthy proportion of what I'm saying here. The WTO chief says aid should focus on improving agriculture.

It's late and I'm not sure I have an easy conclusion to all of this. Perhaps I'll just leave it there for tonight.

But I am interested in your opinions. What do you think about food crises being reported around the world? What's the solution? I'd love to hear from you.

 

Food, Biofuel and Peak Oil: No-one gets left behind.

This is about the coming food shortages.

Well, I say coming. What I actually mean is that it is already happening for some.

There were the Mexico Corn riots where hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets because the price of corn had gone up 400%.

Because the price of oil is so high, it is more profitable for farmers to produce and sell corn for the biofuel market where it fetches higher prices.

That's land not being used to feed people.

The rush to produce corn has caused the world price of fertiliser to double in 2007 meaning that the poor farmers in sub saharan Africa who really need the fertiliser to grow stuff, may well not be able to afford it - producing less food in that region.

The price of wheat has rocketed too. Kazakhstan, Argentina and Russia have all put export restrictions on wheat. Source: BBC

The World Food Programme has outlined stark choice of getting more money, or rationing and feeding fewer people (this isn't luxury stuff, we're talking about the basics to simply stay alive and maintain a basic level of health to escape disease and malnutrition). Source: BBC

According to Independent Bangladesh, wheat is up more than 180%, soybeans are up 82% and rice has doubled in the past year. In America, 16% of land formerly planted with wheat and soybeans is now growing corn, most of it going into biofuel.

The price of rice doubling means that a 2kg bag of rice now costs half a day's wages. This is about the margin of survival, not luxuries. (Independent Bangladesh)

We're beginning to see a convergence in food and energy prices. Right now, it's not just because of biofuel, but at heart I believe, we are seeing the beginning effects of peak oil with oil at $100 plus per barrel being the main trigger for all of this.

There are other reasons of course which I will briefly spell out here:

• Inundations in some parts of the world, drought in others (shifting weather patterns are a feature of global warming
• Meat production - growing affluent markets such as China are increasing the demand for beef and more grain is needed to feed the beef animals

If, as I suspect (and I am not an educated commentator, I surf and find things out in my spare time) that peak oil has in fact hit and this is the frontier of what is to come, then it shows a haunting overture to what is to come.

And here’s the central point:

I really absolutely believe that we can all get through it. I really do.

But it's going to be much bigger than a battle for food. It's going to be a showdown between the twin forces selfishness and fear (in all its manifestations, including denial) on the one hand, and love and compassion on the other.

There is a classic line in the kids cartoon movie Lilo & Stitch: "no-one gets left behind" and that's the policy we have to take.

No-one gets left behind. Whatever happens we’ve got to make sure everybody is fed.

How do we do that, and how does it relate to our individual actions, how does it relate to what I can do every day to be part of that change right here?

That’s what I am going to explore in my blog over the next few weeks.

Blatant plagiarist that I am, I am going to call it Digging for Victory.
.