Yesterday I quoted Stephen J. Dubner’s criticism of Michael Pollan and the local food movement and concluded, generously, that “Dubner’s contribution to the [food] debate is to keep it real.”
Then I listened to his appearance (mp3) on The Takeaway. Dubner apparently hardly even bothered to prepare for the show. Said he, straight off, when the interviewer assumed he had “actually been investigating the impulse…to grow it yourself and you’ve come up with some hard cold reality-based conclusions:”
Well, investigating is a generous word for what I’ve been doing but I’ve poked around a little bit, right, so it’s a complex problem which is part of the issue here. The minute we talk about food miles… the math gets pretty complicated.
Yes, it does, Stephen. That’s what we need you for!
Dubner goes on to tell us that “the grocery store is the end product of a couple centuries of food production research.” Ipso factso the food coming from it “ends up having probably a smaller footprint than a hundred people growing locally.” In case you missed it, the emphasis on that probably is mine! It would have been helpful had Stephen done some research prior to coming on the show, and maybe cited some of it!
He goes on to cite his personal farm experience, as if to suggest that childhood experience is evidence of anything other than the single instance it represents. (Like the ice cream anecdote I quoted yesterday that was so ably dismissed by my commenter, thank you GreenDreams!) Anecdotes without standards and testing do not add up to evidence, Stephen.
The last of the whoppers is his notion of “the average grocery store” providing variety and freedom of choice. He says, “If I don’t want to buy the agribusiness, I don’t have to.” In fact, it’s very important to understand that we can only choose from the choices presented. The entire discussion on that program was a missed opportunity for the worthwhile discussion this nation wants to have. We’re hungry for it, that’s why they booked you Stephen!
Many factors influence the carbon footprint of a product: water use, cultivation and harvesting methods, quantity and type of fertilizer, even the type of fuel used to make the package. Sea-freight emissions are less than a sixtieth of those associated with airplanes, and you don’t have to build highways to berth a ship. Last year, a study of the carbon cost of the global wine trade found that it is actually more “green” for New Yorkers to drink wine from Bordeaux, which is shipped by sea, than wine from California, sent by truck. That is largely because shipping wine is mostly shipping glass. The study found that “the efficiencies of shipping drive a ‘green line’ all the way to Columbus, Ohio, the point where a wine from Bordeaux and Napa has the same carbon intensity.”
The environmental burden imposed by importing apples from New Zealand to Northern Europe or New York can be lower than if the apples were raised fifty miles away. “In New Zealand, they have more sunshine than in the U.K., which helps productivity,” Williams explained. That means the yield of New Zealand apples far exceeds the yield of those grown in northern climates, so the energy required for farmers to grow the crop is correspondingly lower. It also helps that the electricity in New Zealand is mostly generated by renewable sources, none of which emit large amounts of CO2.
Researchers at Lincoln University, in Christchurch, found that lamb raised in New Zealand and shipped eleven thousand miles by boat to England produced six hundred and eighty-eight kilograms of carbon-dioxide emissions per ton, about a fourth the amount produced by British lamb. In part, that is because pastures in New Zealand need far less fertilizer than most grazing land in Britain (or in many parts of the United States). Similarly, importing beans from Uganda or Kenya—where the farms are small, tractor use is limited, and the fertilizer is almost always manure—tends to be more efficient than growing beans in Europe, with its reliance on energy-dependent irrigation systems.
I get that it’s tricky problem. But the answer’s not glib bromides about the history of supermarkets!
June 12th, 2008 by SWARAAJ CHAUHAN, International Columnist
We often hear that the world is now a “global village” and “globalization” is inevitable. But there are warning signs we cannot overlook. Two experts point out that “for the first time in more than 200 years we are moving into a world not wholly dominated by the West.
“If we want to influence this environment rather than be held to ransom by it, and if we want to take hold of some of the worrying features of globalisation, then real, practical multilateralism is a strategic necessity, not a liberal nicety…
“Today’s security agenda is often presented as a long list of threats: international terrorism, transnational crime, the threat of a new pandemic, energy insecurity and the dangers of climate change. These are all pressing issues but it is too easy to present them as disparate and unconnected…”
The two experts are Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, a former General-Secretary of Nato, and Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon, formerly the High Representative of the International Community in Bosnia & Herzegovina. They are co-chairmen of the IPPR Commission on National Security in the 21st century.
Stephen J. Dubner wonders, do we really need a few billion locavores? And with that wonder he skewers the notion that the local food movement can really enhance the economic, environmental and social health of our planet as much as some Michael Pollan adherents might hope. His piece starts out with this anecdote:
We made some ice cream at home last weekend. Someone had given one of the kids an ice cream maker a while ago and we finally got around to using it. We decided to make orange sherbet. It took a pretty long time and it didn’t taste very good but the worst part was how expensive it was. We spent about $12 on heavy cream, half-and-half, orange juice, and food coloring — the only ingredient we already had was sugar — to make a quart of ice cream. For the same price, we could have bought at least a gallon (four times the amount) of much better orange sherbet. In the end, we wound up throwing away about three-quarters of what we made. Which means we spent $12, not counting labor or electricity or capital costs (somebody bought the machine, even if we didn’t) for roughly three scoops of lousy ice cream.
As we’ve written before, it is a curious fact of modern life that one person’s labor is another’s leisure. Every day there are millions of people who cook and sew and farm for a living — and there are millions more who cook (probably in nicer kitchens) and sew (or knit or crochet) and farm (or garden) because they love to do so. Is this sensible? If people are satisfying their preferences, who cares if it costs them $20 to produce a single cherry tomato (or $12 for a few scoops of ice cream)?
I am both a Pollan fan and a Freakonomics fan. We need both Pollan’s aspirational hope — as expressed most recently in his April 20 NYTimes Magazine, Why Bother?, which urged us all to start vegetable gardens in our backyards as a means to both battle climate change and combat consumerism — and the gritty statistical reality Dubner provides:
…specialization (which Michael Pollan mostly dislikes, and which has been around for a long, long time) is ruthlessly efficient. Which means less transportation, lower prices — and, in most cases, far more variety, which in my book means more deliciousness and more nutrition. The same store where I blew $12 on ice cream ingredients will happily sell me ice cream in many flavors, dietetic options, and price points.
Dubner spoke more on the topic yesterday on The Takeaway, available for download here. Having read both of Pollan’s mostrecent books, I agree completely with his critique of nutritionism — that reducing food to its component parts takes away some of its vital essence — and I have to think that even Dubner would believe there’s a middle ground between the locavores and an industrial food system that has produced the kind of horrific waste lagoons exposed in this December 2006 Rolling Stone story.
While industrialization of the food system has brought about the specialization Dubner praises, deadly tomatoes from Connecticut to California underscore that it’s long past time for food reform. There is clearly room for real and needed improvement. Michael Pollan has done a good job of making us more aware of the harmful commoditization of food. Dubner’s contribution to the debate is to keep it real.
Heightened international competition for the planet’s scarce resources has begun, and it’s emerging nations that stand to lose the most, warns O Globo of Brazil’s chief international columnist, William Waack.
“The first is contained in a report from the respected International Energy Agency , which assumes that geological and geopolitical reasons will inevitably lead to an oil supply crisis. … The other interpretation follows the same scenerio (price inflation, competition for scarce resources) but arrives at a far different conclusion. The rising cost of a barrel of oil will lead to a slowdown in the global economy, which will prevent the emergence of a crisis in supply.”
“The emerging nations will have to compete, perhaps for the first time, for the same resources available to the already rich and developed.”
By William Waack
Translated By Brandi Miller
May 23, 2008
Brazil - O Globo - Original Article (Portuguese)
The immediate consequence of the explosion in oil prices is clear and irreversible in the short term. It’s the global inflation that has manifested itself in higher prices for food, airfares, freight costs, consumables and finished products in many sectors.
But for the medium term, there are two conflicting interpretations. The first is contained in a report from the respected International Energy Agency , which assumes that geological and geopolitical reasons will inevitably lead to an oil supply crisis. This interpretation was the immediate cause of nervousness on oil markets this Thursday (May 22).
The other interpretation for the medium-term follows the same scenerio (price inflation, competition for scarce resources) but arrives at a far different conclusion. The rising cost of a barrel of oil will lead to a slowdown in the global economy, which will prevent the emergence of a crisis in supply.
It’s difficult to resolve this “battle” of interpretations at the moment. Other similar episodes of rising oil prices show that higher prices spur new technologies and the better use of fuel. In the decade of the seventies, the “shocks” in price and supply (caused by geopolitical, not geological reasons) were absorbed by a fantastic technological revolution - the information age.
READ ON AT WORLDMEETS.US, along with continuing translated foreign press coverage of the United States and the global energy and food crisis.
May 23rd, 2008 by SWARAAJ CHAUHAN, International Columnist
We bloggers/journalists love to chase political stories, while our response to the critical economic issues is generally similar to those related to climate change. I wonder when our fraternity would realise that environmental and economic issues are as much “political” and important as the ones perceived as the “real political” ones.
I was again reminded of this when I read a report in a recent issue of The Economist that “double-digit price rises are about to afflict two-thirds of the world’s population”. At times I wonder what right the media/blogs have to criticise the political leadership when the former itself triviliazes (or fails to understand) the real and important issues.
“Ronald Reagan once described inflation as being ‘as violent as a mugger, as frightening as an armed robber and as deadly as a hit-man’. Until recently, central bankers thought that this thug had been locked up for life. Thanks to sound monetary policies, inflation worldwide had stayed low in recent years. But the mugger is back on the prowl.
“Even though America is close to recession and growth in other developed economies has slowed, inflation is rising. Jean-Claude Trichet, president of the European Central Bank, this week gave warning about the mistakes of the 1970s, when inflation was let loose at huge cost to growth. His words were aimed at rich-country central banks, but policymakers in emerging economies are the ones who should most take heed.
“In countries such as China, India, Indonesia and Saudi Arabia even the often dodgy official statistics show prices have risen by 8-10% over the past year; in Russia the rate is over 14%; in Argentina the true figure is 23% and in Venezuela it is 29%. If you measure the numbers correctly, two-thirds of the world’s population will probably suffer double-digit rates of inflation this summer (see article).
“Taken as a whole (and using official figures), the average world inflation rate has risen to 5.5%, its highest since 1999. The main cause has been the surge in the prices of food and oil, which briefly soared above $135 a barrel this week. But Mr Trichet’s concern is that higher headline rates could push up inflation expectations, leading to bigger pay demands, and so trigger a wage-price spiral, as in the 1970s.” More here…
Government’s Economic Misinformation Campaign Peaks
Americans are pretty used to getting bogus economic information from their government and the barons of Wall Street. But today, May 14, 2008, this misinformation campaign may well have peaked. We were informed that inflation during April was “modest,” and only increased a piddling .02 percent.
How is this possible, you might ask? Or at least, you might ask that if you lived in the real world rather than Economist Land. Here’s the answer. A truly incredible one.
Food prices went up more than at any time in the last 18 years during April. Housing, medical care and clothing costs were also all up substantially. Natural gas prices shot up, too. But gasoline, according to the number crunchers charged with feeding us economic data, gasoline prices dropped by a hefty 2 percent during April and that was the prime cause of the overall modest inflation increase for the month.
Gas dropped 2 percent, you exclaim? Are they nuts. It was way up. Anyone who bought gas during April knows that.
Well, yes. The average price of gas did, in fact, increase by a whopping 5.6 percent during April. But, according to the Commerce Department, which is charged with fudging numbers in this realm, on a seasonal basis it really dropped 2 percent. Got that?
Far be it from me to gainsay the wisdom in this statistical approach. Personally, I don’t know anyone who buys gas on a seasonal basis, only on a daily basis. It might be worth noting, however, that this kind of thing makes the people playing so very, very cute with official numbers look like con artists. And generally speaking, this is not a good way for supposedly professional economists to look.
Or Americans will begin taking them even less seriously than is already the case.
The outrage in India over President Bush’s recent comments, which appeared to blame that country’s growing middle class for rising food prices, shows no sign of subsiding.
For those who may have missed it, President Bush has enraged much of the nation of India, by appearing to blame its growing middle class for rising food prices.
In addition to a series of articles on this subject, WORLDMEETS.US just posted this tongue-in-cheek warning to President Bush, about the growing demand for pet food among new members of India’s middle class.
U.S. President George W Bush should be a worried man. Not only are Indians eating more and better and driving up food prices, their dogs and cats are eating better, too … Read the rest of this entry »
The world’s second most populous nation is up-in-arms over remarks recently made by President Bush, as he attempted to explain rising food and energy prices to an audience in Maryland.
The president said the following:
“There are 350 million people in India who are classified as middle class. That’s bigger than America. Their middle class is larger than our entire population,” said Bush. “And when you start getting wealth, you start demanding better nutrition and better food. And so demand is high, and that causes the price to go up.”
Minister of State for Commerce, Jairam Ramesh: “George Bush has never been known for his knowledge of economics. And he has just proved once again how comprehensively wrong he is.”
West Bengal’s Chief Minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee: “It is preposterous for anyone to say that global food crisis, including the crisis in America, is because Indians are eating more. It is needless to say what the Indians get to eat or what they (Americans) eat. This only shows how he has lost his senses” … he added that Bush’s remark was nothing more than a “cruel joke.”
But striking a conciliatory note, Surojit Chatterjee writes for the Business Times: “Being well-informed or choosing words carefully are not his specialty. … Let’s be forgiving to the U.S. President. … Let us stop pointing fingers at one another and receive Bush’s remark with a pinch of salt and a hearty laugh.” Read the rest of this entry »
