[vtsnowedin]

How to feed 3 billion extra people — without trashing the planet

One of the daunting challenges of the coming century will be figuring out how to grow enough food for everyone on the planet. And all without destroying the planet.

That's harder than it sounds. The global population is expected to swell from 7 billion today to 9.6 billion in 2050. On top of that, countries like China and India are getting richer and eating more meat — a particularly resource-intensive type of food.

Then there's the environment to consider. Farms have become a major source of nitrogen pollution. Around the world, freshwater aquifers are dwindling. And, perhaps most crucially, countries like Brazil are trying to cut back on deforestation — which in turn makes it harder to find new cropland.

That means the world's farmers will somehow have to squeeze vastly more productivity out of existing farmland and reduce their environmental footprint. So far, they're not on track: one recent study suggested that crop yields haven't been rising fast enough to meet future food demands.

So how can countries change this? That's the subject of a new study in Science, led by Paul West of the University of Minnesota's Institute on the Environment. The authors identify just a few improvements to farms in a handful of countries that could help feed billions more.

"We were surprised that changes in just a few countries — and to a few crops — could make such a big difference," West says.

vox

They are treating the symptoms instead of the underling disease. If you solve the problem of feeding nine billion people you will have to immediately start on the problem of feeding twelve million people. Better to stop the increase in world population now and work to a non violent decline over time to a stable planet friendly four billion.

[dohboi]

There are other ways of limiting population growth than mass starvation, of course. But I still think your basic point is valid. We in the west (at least) seem to see one problem narrowly defined and then feel happy if we think we've solved it. But we have almost always created at least the possibility/probability of further 'unintended (but quite predictable) consequences.'

The same could be said about bringing improved healthcare to many regions, particularly neonatal healthcare. To do so without also having a plan to help the population limit themselves in other ways seems to me bordering on criminal, as wonderful as the immediate effects of saving babies can seem.

If you're not willing to look at least at the most predictable likely consequences of your kindly intended actions, you probably shouldn't start in the first place. You are throwing people a life saver that will, after giving brief buoyancy, eventually strangle and drown them more certainly than if it were never thrown in the first place.

[vtsnowedin]

I was not suggesting starving anyone. Birth control and sending girls to school instead of marrying them off at fourteen would be preferable. But sending food aid to countries that will not learn is something we will some day have to end.

[dohboi]

True, but then the rest of the world may someday conclude that sending ~20% of it's resources to a country with only ~4% of world population is something they will someday have to end!

[vtsnowedin]

True, but then the rest of the world may someday conclude that sending ~20% of it's resources to a country with only ~4% of world population is something they will someday have to end!

I'm sure they will as soon as we stop paying for it one way or the other. Not too worried about that as the US could get along quite well with just it's own resources and probably should.

[dinopello]

Chinese factory farms can help feed the world, as long as you don't mind some expired fox meat mixed in with your donkey meat.

The latest food scandal in China is spreading fast, dragging in U.S. coffee chain Starbucks, Burger King Worldwide Inc and others, as well as McDonald's products as far away as Japan.

On Tuesday, Starbucks said some of its cafes previously sold products containing chicken originally sourced from Shanghai Husi, a firm that was shut down on Sunday by local regulators after a TV report showed staff using expired meat and picking up meat from the floor to add to the mix.

Fast-food chain Burger King and Dicos, China's third-ranked fast food chain owned by Ting Hsin International, said they would remove Shanghai Husi food products from their outlets. Pizza chain Papa John's International Inc said on its Weibo blog that it had taken down all meat products supplied by Shanghai Husi

The incident highlights the difficulty in ensuring quality and safety along the supply chain in China. Wal-Mart Stores Inc came under the spotlight early this year after a supplier's donkey meat product was found to contain fox meat.

[KaiserJeep]

I agree that we have a problem NOW. There is only one thing I disagree about, and that is that the problem has existed since about 1830 when the world population exceeded 1 Billion.

I remember thinking as a 5th grade schoolboy in 1962 that we were truly and completely done for as the world population crossed the 3 Billion mark. I remember wondering how UN Secretary General U Thant was going to save us.

Some time later than that, I gave up on politicians.

[sparky]

.
There is no problem this year , the Northern harvest is in and is very abundant , international price are very low and end of year stock at record high ,the exeptionally good weather for corn in the US has helped
so did a severely cold winter , it kill off the insect pests and delay their number rise

the high wire act of feeding the world has gained one year more ,
industrial agribusiness works , until it doesn't

[KaiserJeep]

I read the stickers on the fruit in my fruit bowl today, and on my refrigerated melons.

Chile, Mexico, Argentina, Ecuador, and one lonely "USA" sticker on an orange, but I suspect that one is actually from Florida. Plus potatoes from Idaho and green onions from Texas.

I bought some of it at the Farmer's Market last Sunday, under the impression it was local California organic produce.

They saw me coming, obviously.

[Graeme]

Climate change increases risk of crop slowdown in next 20 years

The world faces a small but substantially increased risk over the next two decades of a major slowdown in the growth of global crop yields because of climate change, new research finds.

The authors, from Stanford University and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), say the odds of a major production slowdown of wheat and corn even with a warming climate are not very high. But the risk is about 20 times more significant than it would be without global warming, and it may require planning by organizations that are affected by international food availability and price.

"Climate change has substantially increased the prospect that crop production will fail to keep up with rising demand in the next 20 years," said NCAR scientist Claudia Tebaldi, a co-author of the study.

Stanford professor David Lobell said he wanted to study the potential impact of climate change on agriculture in the next two decades because of questions he has received from stakeholders and decision makers in governments and the private sector.

phys.org

[dohboi]

The REAL paleo-diet may be the answer to feeding the world--presenting:

PALEO-VEGAN!!!

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/gue ... getarians/

(With a few insects, the occasional frog, and perhaps a smattering of feces thrown in for good measure! )

[Graeme]

Climate Change And Air Pollution Could Join Forces To Make The World Even Hungrier

Over the next 40 years, drought, erosion, and longer growing seasons brought on by climate change will radically alter the way food is produced all over the world. But until now, climate predictions failed to consider another factor in the future of key crops: Air pollution.

A new study from researchers at MIT and Colorado State University published in Nature Climate Change shows that ground-level ozone could exacerbate the effects of climate change on staple food crops like wheat, soybeans, maize, and rice. If global industry and governance fail to reduce emissions, researchers predict that crop production could dwindle by as much as 15%.

Researchers mapped out the tandem relationship between pollution and climate change in two scenarios. As a baseline, the MIT and Colorado State researchers estimate that climate change alone will result in a 11% decrease in global crop production. If countries fail to substantially curb greenhouse gas emissions (the first scenario), the scientists’ model shows that air pollution could trigger an additional 4% of crop failures. But if countries work to decrease greenhouse gas emissions after 2040, the researchers’ model shows that reduced air pollution could actually offset other negative impacts of warming on crops. They calculate that reduced air pollution in this second scenario could actually increase yields by 3%.

"This would counter some of the effect of climate change, and shows how air-quality management could benefit both human health and global food production," writes study co-author Colette Heald in an email to Co.Exist.

fastcoexist

[dohboi]

Ground-level ozone is also really hard on trees, iirc.

[jedrider]

Why?

[dohboi]

I'll see if I can track down the studies. I believe it subtly damages many parts of the plant.

[jedrider]

"Why feed the world?" in a changing climate, is what I meant!

We should get agriculture on a sustainable basis as much as possible and only second try to feed the world. Unfortunately, agriculture is sustainable as long as the resources hold up and then it is NOT sustainable any longer.

[dohboi]

Certainly, any attempt at 'feeding the world' should be coupled with efforts at both population reduction and reduced consumption of non-renewable resources.

There is certainly still enough useful agricultural land on the planet to adequately feed all humans an adequate diet, just not with a lot of steaks and hamburger (commercial cattle production takes of about an order of magnitude more resources than any other kind of livestock), in particular, or even much other livestock or dairy.

But ultimately (and without too much dilly dallying!), the various regions of the world (I'm thinking especially of MENA right here) have to return to something close to the population levels that can be mostly sustained from local agriculture. Places like Yemen have blown past that level a good while ago.

[dohboi]

http://www.skepticalscience.com/50-perc ... -2050.html

Air pollution and climate change could mean 50% more people going hungry by 2050, new study finds

[sparky]

.
Ozone is very damaging to all biological structure animals and plants ,

normal oxygen O2 is bad enough but animal life has evolved protection against its damage and use it as a super fuel
plants tolerate it but like it not they are CO2 fans , the more the better

O3 , Ozone is toxic at 200 ppm to all life form
fortunately such concentration is about impossible to get in normal situation
the most one could get exposed to would be in the closed atmosphere of an underground transport system ,
the electric sparks of the power system create enough to generate this peculiar underground smell
no danger the concentration is about 200 ppb , that's one thousand time less that would be dangerous
it still is enough to be noticed , the molecule is that much active
on the good side , it help sterilize somewhat the germ breeding condition