by CarlosFerreira » Fri 12 Dec 2008, 17:17:07
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mos6507', 'T')opic's driving. I was talking about wasting the food before it's sold, not table scraps. I find it sad that we can't inject a little more computerized efficiency in matching food supply with food demand to minimize the waste, and we can't find better things to do with the waste than let it rot and relase methane directly into the atmosphere. No biogas reactors, no ethanol, no large-scale composting, nothing. There is so much that can be done if we gave a crap.
I see what you mean. You refer to the problem of rotting food, no matter where along the supply chain. I've given the example of Africa. 40% waste because of bad management/supply chain disruptions is the number here. Very worrying in a continent where millions of people are malnourished.
The point I'd like to make here is that the fact that 25% of food produced rots before reaching the consumer in the developing countries both gives me hope and makes me doomerish.
What I am about to say might shock some of the doomer crowd around. Please feel free to pelt my post after reading through it.
We have a problem of supply and demand. There is excess supply for the total demand, which drives the price of foodstuffs down and discourages efficiency. Agriculture, subsidized and otherwise, produces too much food for the world to eat. Distributors buy excessively cheap food, that does not account in its price for the subsidies and the environmental impact of over-intensive agriculture, and when demand does not catch up, the better way is to allow the food to rot instead of cutting down prices even further.
Apples going bad? Throw them away, we're selling them so cheap that if we lower prices further we'll lose more money. We sell so much anyway, we'll just add a little to evrything we sell to account for losses of those 24%. Grandma used to make apple jam, sure, and apple juice is great too; we could make both out of the apples going bad. But that means taking them further to a distribution centre and assign them to production plants. However, there's no incentive for that: the over-production is so much, the apple jam and the apple juice producers get apples from the same place supermarkets do. Good ones. The extra 3 trips and the administrative work needed to accomplish this "re-usage" would be so great, it would be more expensive for everyone.
It wouldn't be so bad if ag wasn't so terrible for the environment. Ag is probably the most impacting human activity in the ecosystem. Alone, it accounts for 30 of all GHG emissions worldwide. One third. Mind boggling!
So, never mind the fear of die-off because of lack of ag production. Sure, fertilizers and whatnot, there are and will be alternatives. Production holds. Climate change might have a larger impact on food production than peak oil. We'll just meed to be more efficient, produce a bit less, pay a little more, throw a lit less away. Most gains could come from efficiency, just as in energy usage. It's a perfect example of our throw-away economy.
The African situation, with disruptions in the supply-chain, scares me more. If we get to that, it might hurt. But, as long as production in the West holds well, and even with Climate Change it is supposed to hold well, we will be better off than present-day Africa. But they won't.
