I was meeting this week with some folks doing really interesting stuff in cellulosic ethanol, and got on the subject of the whole food vs. fuel argument, and how they addressed.  Their response intrigued me, in no small part because it jibes with my own observations about our energy policy, and suggests that the same issue is at the heart of global ag policy.

Specifically, they noted that if you look at regional or global estimates of how much biomass we could sustainably harvest, the data falls into two clusters, with none in the middle, making any kind of meta-analysis problematic.  Broadly speaking, their observation is that the lower end of those estimates are made by those who assume that the current policy environment remains unchanged, and the latter assumes political flexibility.  And the current political environment is shaped by tensions on the one hand to lower costs (increasing productivity, considering all inputs) and on the other hand to protect farm employment (reducing/levelling productivity, holding all else equal).  (The energy analogue being between those who say they're just trying to lower the cost/GHG emissions of power and those who say we must also protect coal miner employment... to vastly oversimplify.)

Clearly, there are pros & cons on both sides of those extremes - after all, one doesn't have to spend much time on a small family farm to feel like something has been lost on those that are more economically productive.  However, as we think about what could be given some other set of constraints, it is at least worth being more explicit about our fixed assumptions going forward.

It strikes me that much of the free trade vs. "food sovereignty" is a distillation of this same argument.  I can see arguments on both sides, but I am distrustful of anyone who is dogmatic at either extreme - which I guess is your point.

Maybe Adult Swim could bring back  Sherman and Peabody?

I think Jay Ward did an episode on the Incan corn based empire?  The Incan system worked like a federal reserve, with store houses of corn, rather than storehouses of electronic/imaginary currency.

In what respect is electronic imaginary corn based currency, ie., grain futures, similar to the Incan system?

Should the world move to a new currency based on food, mineral, energy, and real estate commodity value?  Or is this already happening in reality in an unregulated fashion, and is this the real source of economic and trade problems?

Establishing a floor for basic nutrition, beyond which humanity collectively strives to let none of us fall below, might just remove the brutality from global commerce.  Kind of a world food pantry, that delivers.  Drop food instead of bombs.  On the whole it would be a lot more successful human strategy.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin