Policy

December 15, 2009December 15, 2009

Where is agriculture

It was barely in evidence in the original text for the Copenhagen Climate change meeting, though there are hopeful signs that it may be creeping in. Now comes further evidence that the world at large, or at least the rich, well-fed world, basically doesn’t give a stuff about agriculture. 2010 is the official United Nations International Year of Biodiversity. And it must be important, because it has a couple of Facebook pages and a Facebook group.

You’re wondering, do either of those mention agriculture, even fleetingly? would I be here if they did?

December 14, 2009December 14, 2009

Nibbles: Forests, Climate change, Campaign, Water chestnuts, Research, Fruit

“Countries can clear massive amounts of forest and still claim that deforestation had not occurred“. Wha?
Biodiverse agriculture to meet climate challenge. Really?
Diversity for Life campaign launches, but Official Site links to wrong Offical Site. This is where it should go.
Water chestnuts. Fascinating.
No sign of agricultural biodiversity in agricultural research masterplan.
Vital Christmas supplies of Crataegus mexicana — aka Tejocote — no longer illegal in the US. h/t Rachel.

December 12, 2009December 12, 2009

Agriculture hits limelight in Copenhagen. Maybe.

Today’s the big day for agriculture in Copenhagen. A lot is riding on it, because there hasn’t been much sign of interest at UNFCCC COP15 up to now in the subject of how agriculture is going to adapt to climate change. You can follow Cary Fowler’s Notes from Copenhagen on Facebook.

December 11, 2009December 11, 2009

Nibbles: Hunger, Stereotypes

Farm workers most food insecure. For shame.
Forget the stereotype of the ignorant Farmer John, riding on a tractor spewing black fumes and chewing on a piece of straw. Whose stereotype would that be?

December 9, 2009December 9, 2009

Waste promotes organic food?

David Zetland has an interesting take on that 40% of American food is wasted paper.

[I]t seems possible to switch all production to organics:

We can have enough, even with 40 percent lower yields.

Higher prices would reduce demand for food, and thus obesity. (They may cause people to switch to cheaper foods, but those tend to be better for you — rice vs meat — if you ignore the idea that steakhouse diners will switch to McDs.)

Of course, this will not happen through regulation or a wholesale change in people’s demand for food. It could happen if water or carbon use was taxed: that waste uses 25 percent of fresh water and 300 million bbl oil; that’s not even counting methane resulting from rot.