[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Ecological Economics and Entropy
On 22 Nov 1996 06:57:43 GMT, jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy)
wrote:
>Since China produced 465 million tons of grain last year, a prediction
>that they will import 43 million tons in 2010 is precise to the point
>of absurdity. The year to year fluctuations in production are of that
>order of magnitude.
The estimated figure of 43m tonnes is considerable, as the entire
amount of grain traded internationally each year is around 200m
tonnes. As with any study of this type, a figure such as this
represents average long term needs outside of these fluctuations.
You bring up an important point though: if these fluctuations were to
stop being balanced from year to year, it would not likely be for the
better. Improvements in production yields are made slowly and are
quantifiable, natural and manmade disasters are not.
>Two additional data points.
>
>1. The Chinese agriculture minister insisted that China was a net
>exporter of food this year and denies that China will become a net
>importer in the next century.
I am familiar with the comments made by the Chinese minister in Rome
and elsewhere, and the fact is they are 100% rhetoric. Only those who
weren't concerned in the first place took them as fact.
IFPRI undertook their study because some people need more than
rhetorical statements, (because they saw how possible it was for China
to quickly start buying ALL grain offered on international markets). I
didn't state that the estimates given were precise, I said they were
'conservative'; there are others who believe they could end up being
much higher.
There are also some - myself included - that believe they could be
lower. In fact that they must be. Achieving this self-sufficiency as
well as addressing many other ecological, (and social), problems are
glaring arguments for the continued need for a level of socialism in
China. And elsewhere.
>2. The 1996 November Scientific American has an article about a 3 year
>tour of Chinese provinces and hundreds of interviews with Chinese
>peasants. The conclusion is that China's production of food could
>increase a lot if there were low tech investments in terracing, in
>drainage and in irrigation, and that the peasants would make these
>investments if they had security of tenure in land, i.e. if the local
>officials couldn't reassign it. The peasants want land tenure to be
>inheritable.
IFPRI took into consideration the exceptional measures that are being
taken by the Chinese to improve yields, (i.e. the investments to which
this article refers to, and not all 'low tech'), as well as expected
trade and market reforms.
>I notice that McGinnis forgot about substantiating his statement that
>the number of people facing starvation has doubled since 1989. That
>is not in accordance with anything said at the recent food conferences
>in Washington and Rome - even by Lester Brown.
I guess 550 million in 1989 increasing to 840 million in 1996 doesn't
qualify as 'almost double', but hell, you can only expect so much
progress in 7 years (sic). At least I recognize there is a problem,
and make an effort to do something about it, (I don't just follow this
stuff so I can debate about it on usenet).
I notice that McCarthy forgot about my call to admit he doesn't care
that people are starving in our times of 'plenty'.
>Perhaps McGinnis was just saying what would fit his moralistic pose.
I'm ashamed.
Jason McGinnis
References: