A few responses to Prince Charles

I just read the transcript of Prince Charles' speech on sustainable agriculture in DC last week. There are a lot of good ideas, and a few areas in which I think more can be said.

Ag subsidies: I believe there’s a strong consensus across many individual issues and disciplines that American and European agricultural subsidies are wasteful and counter-productive. The challenge is a political one – there are about 20 farm states, and it’s very difficult to get things done legislatively in other areas (health care, immigration, climate change, you pick) without the support of at least some of that bipartisan group of 40 farm senators. It’s not a rich-world-only issue, too – here’s a year-old WSJ article (subscription required) on how difficult it has been to repeal fertilizer subsidies in India despite 40 years of trying, and recent fertilizer subsidies in Malawi have become a darling case study of country-led agricultural development proponents, despite criticism by the World Bank and others.

Scale: I think Prince Charles is too blasé about dismissing the benefits of scale for cost and efficiency of agricultural production. Cost is important not as much to you and me, but definitely to the urban slum-dweller in Cairo or Mumbai who spends 2/3 of his or her income on food. And efficiency is important for the environment – less yield per hectare of land means more land under cultivation, and since there’s not much unused cropland around the world, this results in degradation and cultivation of ecologically sensitive areas like the Amazon, the Sahel, Indonesia’s peat swamps, etc. If we can replicate current yields at scale using organic methods, that would be great, but the burden of proof is still on those who claim this can be done.

Local production: Another attractive idea that I think is easier to apply to ourselves (living in not only the richest but also one of the most agriculturally productive countries), but runs into difficulty when generalized across the world. There is a lot of upside in smallholder productivity in Sub-Saharan Africa, but in other regions that import food today – I’m thinking of mainly the Middle East and China – it would be very difficult for them to produce more food domestically without exactly the kind of unsustainable drawing down of natural capital that Prince Charles rightly warns against. If we want the most holistic and least naturally destructive agricultural system at a global level, it has to include a significant component of trade between the most fertile parts of the world and the less fertile but more populated parts (unfortunately the two don’t match).
To close, a photo I took from an airplane of pivot-irrigated wheat in the middle of the Egyptian desert, with water drawn unsustainably from the underlying aquifer (we do this in the American West, too). We Americans are very fortunate for the fertility as well as the economic prosperity of our country, and not all countries have the agro-ecological potential to feed themselves in a sustainable way.

Turning Oil Into Salt (4): Selective thinking on fungibility

The authors recognize that:

Oil is a globally traded, fungible commodity, so stifling U.S. purchases from the Persian Gulf and buying from other regions like Africa would just mean that someone else would buy more from the Persian Gulf with no impact on price and availability, certainly not on oil’s status as a strategic commodity.

This is one of their multiple (and good) arguments against the “Cheney plan” of diversifying America’s oil imports to non-OPEC countries.

Unfortunately, they don’t extend this level of understanding to their analysis of agriculture and biofuels:

How could that drastic increase in the price of food commodities from fish to rice possibly be attributed to ethanol? Nobody was growing corn in rice paddies or making biofuels out of fish.

Yikes. Agricultural commodities are largely fungible from both the supply and demand sides. Increased corn cultivation reduces the land available to grow other cereals like wheat, and higher prices affect the prices of substitutes like rice as consumers shift their consumption patterns in response. Farmed fish are often fed corn, as are industrially-raised cattle, pigs and poultry, which are meat substitutes for fish. Ethanol is certainly not responsible for all of the rise in food prices, but the most credible estimates link it to ~30% of the rise in grain prices (more for corn and less for wheat and rice).

Not only are the crops themselves fungible commodities, some of the resources required for production are fungible and, like oil, fundamentally scarce (think arable land and water). Like diversifying away from Middle Eastern oil, diversifying into biofuels is no free lunch.

Learned from Lectures: First Palestinian intifada deliberately limited types of violence

I recently began watching lectures by The Teaching Company and can't get enough. (Since January I've ordered 20+ courses and, perhaps more tellingly, already completed 8.) Today I learned from "United States and the Middle East: 1914 to 9/11" that in the first Palestinian intifada, the Palestinians explicitly limited violence to stone-throwing, in hopes of provoking a disproportionate Israeli response and an international reaction. (It worked.) Maybe not quite as noble as the non-violent protests that appear to be going on in Iran, but it was eye-opening to me that the principle of non limited violence is no stranger to the Middle East.