<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Worldwatch gets $1.3 million Gates grant to look at sustainable ag in Africa]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by AndyO http://www.grist.org/article/2009-07-10-worldwatch-gates-africa-agriculture/ Mon, 13 Jul 2009 09:43:42 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/2009-07-10-worldwatch-gates-africa-agriculture/1 Thanks for covering this promising development. However, it does present an opportunity to flag a serious problem with the Indirect Land Use Costs theory that you support.

Those who believe indirect land use from biofuels production is real, significant, measurable and a top problem in our climate debate make the claim, either overtly or by implication, that we must keep international commodity prices low to avoid deforestation.

This policy advice, besides feeding agricultural opposition to climate action, is also directly at odds with international efforts to fight hunger. For years, dumping of cheap food commodities on world markets has been at odds with efforts to develop local food production in developing worlds and get away from the reliance on food imports.

So, if most environmentailsts (count me out) want to keep commodity prices low, then you're working at odds with the goals of good hunger policy.

This is just one of a long list of problems I see with ILUC theory. But it's one worth addressing. If low commodity prices are part of your global warming solution, then aren't you thereby supporting dumping policies with their impacts for local food production globally?

 

 

]]> Thanks for covering this promising development. However, it does present an opportunity to flag a serious problem with the Indirect Land Use Costs theory that you support.

Those who believe indirect land use from biofuels production is real, significant, measurable and a top problem in our climate debate make the claim, either overtly or by implication, that we must keep international commodity prices low to avoid deforestation.

This policy advice, besides feeding agricultural opposition to climate action, is also directly at odds with international efforts to fight hunger. For years, dumping of cheap food commodities on world markets has been at odds with efforts to develop local food production in developing worlds and get away from the reliance on food imports.

So, if most environmentailsts (count me out) want to keep commodity prices low, then you're working at odds with the goals of good hunger policy.

This is just one of a long list of problems I see with ILUC theory. But it's one worth addressing. If low commodity prices are part of your global warming solution, then aren't you thereby supporting dumping policies with their impacts for local food production globally?

 

 

]]> Comment #2 by Erik Hoffner http://www.grist.org/article/2009-07-10-worldwatch-gates-africa-agriculture/ Mon, 13 Jul 2009 11:13:32 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/2009-07-10-worldwatch-gates-africa-agriculture/2 Holy mackerel, 164 to 1. Yikes. But agro-ecological approaches will prove out in the long run over GMOs and chemicals, so good luck to WW, truth is on your side.

Erik, Orion Grassroots Network

]]> Holy mackerel, 164 to 1. Yikes. But agro-ecological approaches will prove out in the long run over GMOs and chemicals, so good luck to WW, truth is on your side.

Erik, Orion Grassroots Network

]]> Comment #3 by x99x http://www.grist.org/article/2009-07-10-worldwatch-gates-africa-agriculture/ Wed, 15 Jul 2009 00:23:01 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/2009-07-10-worldwatch-gates-africa-agriculture/3 Let Them Eat Cash. I really think you will not want to have missed it. ]]> Let Them Eat Cash. I really think you will not want to have missed it. ]]>