If it isn’t enough to have gas and diesel hovering around–and about to surpass–$4 gallon, an equally vital need for RVers is the need to eat. Food prices, especially rice, corn, and wheat have soared in price over the last year. We Americans (and Canadians) can be thankful, though at the same time frustrated and depressed, that the world’s poor, that already spends 80% of their income on food, are now facing hunger and starvation.
What is going on?
Can we attribute this disaster to global warming and the price of oil? If so, why then in the face of this global crisis are the multi-national food conglomerates making record profits? Monsanto last month reported that its net income for the three months up to the end of February 2008 had more than doubled over the same period in 2007, from $543 million to $1.12 billion. (For something that will really raise your ire, read Vanity Fair’s investigative report, Harvest of Fear, about Monsanto). Cargill’s net earnings increased 86%, and Archer Daniels Midland, one of the world’s largest agricultural processors of soy, corn and wheat, increased its net earnings by 42%. The operating profit of its grains merchandising and handling operations jumped 1,600%–from $21million to $341million. And despite the increase in organic food production, income for the Mosaic Company, one of the world’s largest fertilizer companies, rose more than 1,200%, from $42.2m to $520.8m, believe it or not because of a fertilizer shortage.
And it’s not just the disastrous effects of global climate change and the escalating price of oil driving food price increases.
As India and China’s populations rise into the middle class, so do their middle class tastes. Like being able to afford more meat at the dinner table. Since it takes 7 pounds of grain to make 1 pound of beef, there is a shortage of grain as feed lots expand (and forests get denuded for grazing land) to meet the growing need for beef. Then there are the speculators, driving food prices up as they push food futures into the stratosphere.
What’s next? Campground prices soaring over $50 a night? What’s that you say? They already are? So I now drive less, drive slower, stay longer (but not in $50/nite campgrounds), boondock more, and now I eat less also.
But one way or another we (at least those of us who don’t live in impoverished nations) will all get through this. It’s not a bad thing for us to drive slower and fewer miles, or boondock in the great outdoors more, walk and bike ride when we can, and use sustainable energy sources like solar and wind generators, and all the other things that will help us RVers to cope with rising prices and increasing shortages. And as far as the food thing, it’s also not a bad thing to eat less—beef and other unhealthy or scarce foods—and more fresh, local, unprocessed, and bulk foods. Might even lose a few pounds. And that’s a good thing, too.
Pingback: $4 Gas? What’s Next? $20 Steaks : keystrokes.net
Dave
I’m still waiting for the big ice age all them smart people were warning us dumb people about back in 70’s
Pingback: Leisure Time Search » Blog Archive » $4 Gas? What Next? $20 Steaks
Bob Difley
Thanks, Sterling. Fortunately, the RV industry is not reflected by one author’s viewpoint. In my Green RVer column in Western RV News & Recreation (www.westernrvnews.com) for June I report on what selected RV manufacturers are doing to respond to the threats of climate change, sustainability, and energy usage. However, what will generate the most change will be what we RVers ask for–and buy–from these manufacturers, so ultimately, it is up to us to foster change. It doesn’t sound like RV INDUSTRY NEWS will be in the forefront of this change. Bob
Sterling
So much for having a reasonable discussion about the future of the world food situation this forum. I guess any discussion that doesn’t fit into the far right worldview of Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity much obviously be liberal. Heaven forbid that moderates and liberals might actually like to buy RV’s and enjoy the RV lifestyle. For someone who represents the RV industry to have such narrow minded views is sad. I guess I’ll have to remove my Obama 08 bumper sticker from my RV, or I’ll get in trouble with RV INDUSTRY NEWS. We have some serious problems to face in our country and in the world, and we need to realize that doing things the way we’ve always done them is not going to help us to solve these problems. Also what kind of world do we want to leave to the next generation? If we don’t modify our lifestyles now, future generations will suffer even more then we can imagine. Bob, I’ve got your back, keep up the good work.
Pingback: $4 Gas? What Next? $20 Steaks
Bob Difley
Yes, Ron, “the earth has had many, many periods of warming and cooling, not caused or influenced by man,” a fact that nobody denies. However, the bulk of the evidence collected by scientists and computer models suggests that the current warming trend is being influenced by the highest amount of CO2 in the atmosphere in 650,000 years. The evidence, again, points to the fact that much of that CO2 is caused by man. Can it be proven with hard facts? Probably not. Just as you and I have no proof the moon exists–we didn’t walk on it. But at some point, we non-scientists have to have some confidence that the majority of scientists, climate studies, computer models, and other peer-reviewed evidence currently being collected is from truth-seeking, sincere, credible, rational, knowledgeable, informed, scientists. When we stop trusting the veracity and credibility of everyone that has a different opinion than we do, we cancel out the open-mindedness that allows new ideas and creative thinking to develop into hard evidence.
Ron
Bob, if we look at the geoligical history of the earth from a perspective beyond our own lifetime, we would see that the earth has had many, many periods of warming and cooling, not caused or influenced by man. The prime motivator of these changes is (drum roll, please)……….the SUN.
Bob Difley
Ron – I don’t want to look out on windmills either. In that we agree. But those windmills are usually where there is a possibility of strong winds, and probably not a place I would want to camp in the first place. But if it were up to me, I would just as soon not look out on freeways, cities, landfills, powerlines, and anything else but pure mother nature. But then life–just as campgrounds–is not, unfortunately, perfect.
Bob Difley
Dennis – It’s hard to separate political from scientific in regards to many solutions to problems. Let’s look at nuclear waste storage–it is not disposal because it doesn’t go away. Scientifically, a strong case can be made for the safety of the storage facility, it’s protection from terrorists, earthquakes, etc. The difference lies in where you live. I don’t care how sincere and logical the storage site operators may be, there is always room for human mistake, errors in data collecting, and outright skewing of facts to get a problem over and done. But I don’t want to live next door to the storage facility. A typical case of Not In My Backyard. The point is, there seem to be less dangerous ways to produce energy other than the innate dangers of nuclear. So let’s explore them while continuing to study and evolve the nuclear issue for when/if we really need it in the future.
And as for Dr. Reid Bryson (whose credentials are unarguable), he’s a skeptic, not of just global warming, but of any popular scientific notion, as he and all of us should be. We should all be skeptics and continue to develop data and build as much evidence as possible with peer review, etc. Note this recent quote:
“We can say that the Earth has most probably warmed in the past century. We cannot say what part of that warming was due to mankind’s addition of “greenhouse gases” until we consider the other possible factors, such as aerosols. The aerosol content of the atmosphere was measured during the past century, but to my knowledge this data was never used.
We can say that the question of anthropogenic modification of the climate is an important question — too important to ignore. However, it has now become a media free-for-all and a political issue more than a scientific problem. What a change from 1968 when I gave a paper at a national scientific meeting and was laughed at for suggesting that people could possibly change the climate!”
Note that he is not arguing whether CO2 is affecting climate change, just how much, and warning of the “jumping on the bandwagon” effect of global warming cachet. I couldn’t agree more. However, I repeat, the evidence is that CO2 is definitely affecting a climate change is very strong, and not something we should ignore until “proof” down to the last arguing point. Then, it may be too late to take necessary steps to reverse the man-made warming.
Ron
Thank you, Greg Gerber. Could not have said it better myself!
Quote Bob Difley: “And I suppose we could get used to campgrounds with oil wells for the view instead of snow-capped mountains”
While traveling around the country, I have to put up with the ‘eye pollution’ of countless thousands of windmills that block my view of those snow-capped mountains.
Dennis Anderson
I worked in the nuclear power industry for nearly 30 years, albeit as a side player – finance and IT. Still, I had the opportunity to talk to many scientists and engineers about all aspects of the nuclear waste question. It turns out there are many methods for waste disposal that appear viable and have been recognized as solutions since at least the 1960s. The real problem is political, not scientific.
Yucca Mountain seemed to be the political answer, but it has been sidelined for more tests and studies, after becoming, probably, the most studied piece of real estate in the world. The truth is that no political figure wants to risk the votes they might lose if they allow nuclear waste to be stored permanently in the US.
The temporary storage of power waste in pools of water on the reactor sites is immensely more problematical than moving the waste to Yucca Mountain or some other permanent storage. The Japanese, the French, the Finns and most other nations realize this and are moving ahead with nuclear power while we in the US are twiddling our thumbs, burning up fossil fuels to produce electricity and spewing particulate matter into the air to cause acid rain and other disasters.
Dr. Reid Bryson, along with many other scientists, disputes the IPCC findings. Particulates in the atmosphere are a real problem, but the manmade contribution to global warming is still in doubtwith many of the scientific community.
Bob Difley
By the way, Dennis, that last quote in my comment above was also from Jim Meyer of Tower Bridge Advisers.
And to Greg, the statistics for beef eating in India are:
(1) Although India occupies only 2.4% of the world’s land area, it supports over 15% of the world’s population.
(2) The per capita consumption of beef/buffalo in India is 2.8 kg, about half that of fish, but more than twice the average intake of mutton, pork and poultry – indirect evidence that beef consumption must be quite common among meat-eaters of all religions. This from The Hindu, India’s National Newspaper.
(3) Doing the math, 2.8 kg X 1 billion people = 2.8 billion kg @ 2.2 lbs per kg = 6.16 billion pounds of beef/buffalo consumed in India yearly.
Consider this statement also: the growing prosperity of India’s large middle class is contributing to rising food prices around the world …
“So, for example, just as an interesting thought for you, 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.
“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,” Yep, George Bush said that in joining with his top diplomat Condoleezza Rice in suggesting India’s role in the world food crisis.
Bob Difley
“Most of the world’s scientists” …. According to who? Oh yeah, Al Gore”
If you would have dug a little deeper, Dennis, you would find a group called IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), the largest, most reputable peer-reviewed body of climate-change scientists in history. It was formed by the United Nations in 1990 to examine the most current scientific information on global warming and climate change. More than 1,250 authors and 2,500 scientific experts from more than 130 countries contributed. The report is the most comprehensive and up-to-date evaluation of global warming, and as the new benchmark, it serves as the basis for international climate negotiations. The IPCC’s assessment, “There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.”
Note that the IPCC says most of the warming, not all climate change is attributable to human activities.
And as for nuclear power, until their are ways to safely dispose of nuclear waste, improve safety, and prevent terrorism, nuclear solutions should remain in the study phase and safer power solutions, such as solar, wind, and cellulosic ethanol be expanded.
“The good news is that when (if?) we all change our habits and really reduce demand, prices won’t just fall; they will tumble. But until that happens, prices will keep going up. “
Dennis Anderson
“Most of the world’s scientists” …. According to who? Oh yeah, Al Gore, the guy who invented the internet.
OF course global warming is a fact. It’s been going on for the past 30,000 years or so, ever since the waning of the last ice age. Climate fluctuations have been going on for at least the last 4 billion years. But of course all this is caused by humans.
Sorry, but this is the same muddled thinking that a few years ago had several scientists believing that humans caused the mammoths to go extinct.
On April 30, Jim Meyer, principal and chief investment officer with Tower Bridge Advisors, wrote in a newsletter:
“When Wal-Mart has to ration rice to a max of 80 pounds per person in a country that consumes about an ounce and a quarter per capita per year, you know something is a bit loopy. Yes, I understand there is an explanation for the shortage, but it is bogus. ”
….
“The reality is that the recent spike in prices of everything, and that includes grain prices, is all about financial speculation. When speculators stop making money, they will sell. If they canʼt find a buyer, prices will fall sharply. ”
On the other hand, does this excuse us for not taking care of the earth? Of course not, but it should make us question a bit more when the claim is made that humans are the cause of all natural change. Some things we might influence but many other things are well beyond our control and influence.
Incidentally, I have yet to hear that there is any oil under Yellowstone. Seems highly unlikely given the volcanic nature of the geology. Is Yellowstone worth saving? Of course. The real problem with the Yellowstone eco-system is that we haven’t set aside enough area to truly support the wildlife corridor.
Could we find a way to develop the oil field in the Artic wildlife refuge with a minimal impact on the wildlife? Probably. On the other hand perhaps we should ask ourselves what happens if we refuse to develop those and other energy resources. Why don’t we in the USA make better use of nuclear energy for example? The rest of the world thinks nothing of exploiting whatever energy alternatives exist. We shy away from the most logical energy sources in favor of what? I submit that campfires and driving animals over cliffs for food are much more environmentally harmful than rationally using technology and resources.
Bob Difley
Well, I’m glad you straightened me out on that. I guess most of the world’s scientists, think tanks, and economists are wrong after all. And I suppose you’re right about the availability of oil in the US, if we could just get liberals to stop placing a high intrinsic value on places like the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and Yellowstone Park. Why, we could string oil wells and pipelines from one side to the other and produce enough oil that we could all tow SUVs behind our 40-foot motorhomes. What are a few caribou, anyway. And I suppose we could get used to campgrounds with oil wells for the view instead of snow-capped mountains, and skies that were a permanent tan rather than blue. The sooner the better, too, once we straighten out the world (like we’re doing in Iraq and Afghanistan) and “beat those commies and wacko muslim dictators to oblivion and bring freedom and food to the poor starving people.” And if we wait 50 years, as you say, then we can decide if global warming is just a liberal scheme. After all, we’ll all be dead by that time, so let the future generations worry about it. I envy and congratulate you on your gift of clarity, that you are able to see through all the liberal hogwash with such conviction and confidence, and that you truly believe–make that KNOW–that you are absolutely, irrevocably right.
Jim
Hey Greg, you might want to up those meds. Of course, I must be a liberal. No, I don’t know what to believe about all of this BS because of the line of crap we get from both sides.
But it is intemperate remarks like yours that do nothing to change anyone’s mind or educate us. How can we have a useful conversation with each other with dialog like that.
Contrary to your one sided view of politics in this country I would hope that I am like a lot of people in that I hold mostly moderate views with some liberal and some conservative.
Again,I don’t know who is right on the issue of global warming and I too don’t want to waste our money. Just try to be a little more measured in your response. You might just change somebody’s mind.
Greg Gerber, editor, RV Industry News
What a crock of liberal hogwash. There are so many inaccuracies in this blog it’s hard to know where to begin.
The reason the world’s poorest people face daily hunger and starvation is not because of greedy Americans. It’s due to the fact they live in countries run by communist or marxist dictators. The world’s supply of food is adequate to meet the needs of every person living on this planet. For crying out loud, we pay farmers in this country not to grow food because the world’s food supply is so plentiful thanks to American agricultural ingenuity.
How can people in some countries be starving to death while shiploads of food rot on the docks at the countries’ ports? It’s because their leaders know a starving population is much easier to control. Can America do anything about it? Sure. We can send in our troops to beat those commies and wacko muslim dictators to oblivion and bring freedom and food to the poor starving people, if it weren’t for one little problem. Liberals loathe the military and would rather pretend starving people didn’t exist or hold bake sales to raise $250 to pay for a meal or two instead of bringing true and lasting freedom to the captives.
Show me just one — JUST ONE — shred of proof that global warming is a legitimate concern. The earth’s core temperature has not risen one degree in the last seven years. April was the coldest month in world recorded history. In fact, the whole fabricated crisis boils down to the fact that ocean temperatures rose one degree in 50 years which sent liberals screaming into the night.
I’m willing to wait another 50 years without investing trillions of dollars to see if the ocean temperatures come down. Already, there is more ice than ever before at the South Pole. And as the ice melts in the North Poll, scientists are amazed to discover evidence of a prior tropical climate which existed long before George W Bush and evil Republicans.
I’ll bet the earth’s temperature will come down faster than you can say “liberals were wrong about Y2K, too.” If “global warming” is real, how do you explain the rising temperatures on Mars? Evil gas-sucking Americans can’t be responsible for that as well, can they?
The reason food prices are soaring is due to yet another liberal idea that we should stop using oil (which is a naturally-burning substance made by the earth) to power our economy and use foodstuffs instead. Ethanol, liberalism’s ONLY answer to high fuel prices, is causing food prices to soar internationally as American farmers are more than willing to sell their corn to to government subsidized ethanol plants at higher-than-market prices to help “save the planet.”
Dude, they don’t eat beef in India, remember? Cows are sacred.
You know why fuel prices are so high? Because state and federal government has made TWICE as much money from fuel taxes as America’s domestic oil companies combined? The government refuses to allow us to increase the supply of fuel, which would lower energy prices in a heartbeat. Building more refineries and drilling for oil in our own country would increase worldwide supplies and bring down fuel prices for developing countries, too.
Numerous studies show we have more than 110 years of oil at current demand just waiting to be pumped out of America’s soil and America’s waters. But, we’re more concerned about the possible impact of such operations on a few caribou than we are about whether there is enough energy to help developing countries create a middle class lifestyle.
And don’t get me started on the ridiculous fuel blends imposed on America by the Environmental “Protection” Agency. With nearly two dozen different types of unleaded fuel mandated for use in specific parts of the country, it is impossible to burn the Chicago blend in St. Louis or Milwaukee. Thus, it requires more storage capacity and higher prices to meet federal regulations while the rules themselves dimminish supply and jack up prices.
Any red-white-and-blue-blooded American should print off this guy’s blog, roll the paper into a nice wad and use it to start a carbon-emitting campfire, pop open an adult beverage and toast to the fact they live in the most free, most properous, most generous country in the world simply because most Americans aren’t willing to sit around and whine about corporations making profits. Instead, most real Americans are out making a living every day, paying taxes to support people who choose not to work, and donating part of what’s left to thousands of charitable organizations that help their fellow citizens whether here or abroad.
Rather than the liberal “tax holiday” being proposed this election year, I’d be happy if we could all take a holiday from the failed policies of liberalism which are designed solely to dictate how the rest of us should live.