There's an interesting columnist with the British Guardian newspaper called George Monbiot. He writes (I think) very intelligently about some of the most important economic/environmental issues we face. He's green at heart, but he insists on hard-nosed analysis too, and he certainly doesn't shy away from asking tough, difficult questions. For example he's been in an on-going war of words with Helen Caldicott over the risks of radiation. Caldicott is one of the saints of the green movement, and challenging her reminds me of Christopher Hitchens writing critically about Mother Teresa. So from the "nothing is easy file" a column from George Monbiot.
From: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/02/environmental-fixes-all-greens-lost
Let's face it: none of our environmental fixes break the planet-wrecking project
May 2, 2011 •
You think you're discussing technologies, and you quickly discover that you're discussing belief systems. The battle among environmentalists over how or whether our future energy is supplied is a cipher for something much bigger: who we are, who we want to be, how we want society to evolve. Beside these concerns, technical matters – parts per million, costs per megawatt hour, cancers per sievert1 – carry little weight. We choose our technology – or absence of technology – according to a set of deep beliefs: beliefs that in some cases remain unexamined.
The case against abandoning nuclear power, for example, is a simple one: it will be replaced either by fossil fuels or by renewables that would otherwise have replaced fossil fuels. In either circumstance, greenhouse gases, other forms of destruction and human deaths and injuries all rise.
The case against reducing electricity supplies is just as clear. For example, the Zero Carbon Britain report2 published by the Centre for Alternative Technology urges a 55% cut in overall energy demand by 2030 – a goal I strongly support. It also envisages a near-doubling of electricity production. The reason is that the most viable means of decarbonising both transport and heating is to replace the fuels they use with low-carbon electricity. Cut the electricity supply and we're stuck with oil and gas. If we close down nuclear plants, we must accept an even greater expansion of renewables than currently proposed. Given the tremendous public resistance to even a modest increase in windfarms and new power lines, that's going to be tough.
What the nuclear question does is to concentrate the mind about the electricity question. Decarbonising the economy involves an increase in infrastructure. Infrastructure is ugly, destructive and controlled by remote governments and corporations. These questions are so divisive because the same world-view tells us that we must reduce emissions, defend our landscapes and resist both the state and big business. The four objectives are at odds.
But even if we can accept an expansion of infrastructure, the technocentric, carbon-counting vision I've favoured runs into trouble. The problem is that it seeks to accommodate a system that cannot be accommodated: a system that demands perpetual economic growth. We could, as Zero Carbon Britain envisages, become carbon-free by 2030. Growth then ensures that we have to address the problem all over again by 2050, 2070 and thereon after.
Accommodation makes sense only if the economy is reaching a steady state. But the clearer the vision becomes, the further away it seems. A steady state economy will be politically possible only if we can be persuaded to stop grabbing. This in turn will be feasible only if we feel more secure. But the global race to the bottom and its destruction of pensions, welfare, public services and stable employment make people less secure, encouraging us to grasp as much for ourselves as we can.
If this vision looks implausible, consider the alternatives. In the latest edition of his excellent magazine The Land, Simon Fairlie responds furiously to my suggestion that we should take industry into account when choosing our energy sources. His article exposes a remarkable but seldom noticed problem: that most of those who advocate an off-grid, land-based economy have made no provision for manufactures. I'm not talking about the pointless rubbish in the FT's How To Spend It supplement. I'm talking about the energy required to make bricks, glass, metal tools and utensils, textiles (except the hand-loomed tweed Fairlie suggests we wear), ceramics and soap: commodities that almost everyone sees as the barest possible requirements.
Are people like Fairlie really proposing that we do without them altogether? If not, what energy sources do they suggest we use? Charcoal would once again throw industry into direct competition with agriculture, spreading starvation and ensuring that manufactured products became the preserve of the very rich. (Remember, as EA Wrigley5 points out, that half the land surface of Britain could produce enough charcoal to make 1.25m tonnes of bar iron – a fraction of current demand – and nothing else.) An honest environmentalism needs to explain which products should continue to be manufactured and which should not, and what the energy sources for these manufactures should be.
There's a still bigger problem here: even if we make provision for some manufacturing but, like Fairlie, envisage a massive downsizing and a return to a land-based economy, how do we take people with us? Where is the public appetite for this transition?
A third group tries to avoid such conflicts by predicting that the problem will be solved by collapse: doom is our salvation. Economic collapse, these people argue, is imminent and expiatory. I believe this is wrong on both counts.
Last week something astonishing happened: Fatih Birol, the chief economist of the International Energy Agency, revealed that peak oil has already happened. "We think that the crude oil production has already peaked, in 2006."6 If this is true, we should be extremely angry with the IEA. In 2005 its executive director mocked those who predicted peak oil as "doomsayers". Until 2008 (two years after the IEA now says it happened) the agency continued to dismiss the possibility that peak oil would occur.
But this also raises an awkward question for us greens: why hasn't the global economy collapsed as we predicted? Yes, it wobbled, though largely for other reasons. Now global growth is back with a vengeance: it reached 4.6% last year7, and the IMF predicts roughly the same for 2011 and 2012. The reason, as Birol went on to explain, is that natural gas liquids and tar sands are already filling the gap. Not only does the economy appear to be more resistant to resource shocks than we assumed, but the result of those shocks is an increase, not a decline, in environmental destruction.
The problem we face is not that we have too little fossil fuel, but too much. As oil declines, economies will switch to tar sands, shale gas and coal; as accessible coal declines, they'll switch to ultra-deep reserves (using underground gasification8 to exploit them) and methane clathrates9. The same probably applies to almost all minerals: we will find them, but exploiting them will mean trashing an ever greater proportion of the world's surface. We have enough non-renewable resources of all kinds to complete our wreckage of renewable resources: forests, soil, fish, freshwater, benign weather. Collapse will come one day, but not before we have pulled everything down with us.
And even if there were an immediate economic cataclysm, it's not clear that the result would be a decline in our capacity for destruction. In east Africa, for example, I've seen how, when supplies of paraffin or kerosene are disrupted, people don't give up cooking; they cut down more trees. History shows us that wherever large-scale collapse has occurred, psychopaths take over. This is hardly conducive to the rational use of natural assets.
All of us in the environment movement, in other words – whether we propose accommodation, radical downsizing or collapse – are lost. None of us yet has a convincing account of how humanity can get out of this mess. None of our chosen solutions break the atomising, planet-wrecking project. I hope that by laying out the problem I can encourage us to address it more logically, to abandon magical thinking and to recognize the contradictions we confront. But even that could be a tall order.
Friday, 6 May 2011
Thursday, 5 May 2011
Election Hangover
Everyone else is having their say on what Monday's election results mean, so why not, and I am trying to be analytical, not partisan. .
For those who care about developing a more rational "food system", based not simply on who can produce it the cheapest, Monday night's results are a crushing disappointment. The Liberals and the NDP (and the Greens) had spent a lot of time and effort developing national food strategies that would have put more emphasis on regional food networks, stepping up inspection of imported food, food labeling, and making that important link between the food we eat and our health. The Liberals, with all the soul searching they'll be doing, will probably put their food strategy in the same filing cabinet as the Green Shift, and that's unfortunate. The NDP put more emphasis on what they call fair trade, looking into international trade deals to see if Canadian farmers are being treated fairly. That's a noble exercise, but will be a hard sell in a majority Conservative parliament.
When it comes to agriculture and food, the Conservatives promised (much like in every other area) more of the same: export oriented, more free trade, Canadian farmers who are competitive on a world scale will be successful, those that can't, will fail. The challenge here in the Maritimes (see earlier posts) is that production costs are higher here, and that "North American" price for livestock and grains (kept lower by those large U.S. subsidies that come in the mailbox to American farmers) makes farming here marginal or money losing.
Just before coming PEI in 1980, I spent time working for CBC radio in Calgary. I caught a glimpse of what drives the current Conservative party on resource issues, and what makes up Stephen Harper's mindset. We have to remember that Stephen Harper (much like George Bush who was born into privilege in the U.S. North-east, but then re-created himself as hard nosed Texan) made a similar passage. Harper grew up in Toronto, the son of an accountant with Imperial Oil. He dropped out of the University of Toronto, and ended up working in the mailroom of Imperial Oil in Calgary, and then decided to go back to school. That's when he came under the influence of the The University of Calgary's renowned economics department, and it's well know head Tom Flannigan. Flannigan, and the U. of C., are entrenched in free market economics (Milton Friedman, low taxes, small government, decentralization, property rights, etc. etc.), and Harper took all that on, and became one of its most skillful promoters. Now he's the Prime Minster with a majority government.
(He still looks pretty goofy in a cowboy hat, but, like Bush, has transformed himself, in his own mind anyway, into a frontiersman).
What will be telling for the Maritimes (and we saw this clearly in December of 2008 when Harper steadfastly refused to take the global financial collapse as a time for Government intervention) is that he will (in my opinion) diminish the role of ACOA, equalization, transfer payments, and so on, arguing the budget has to be balanced, but there's more at play. He simply doesn't believe government has a central role in economic development. It's not that he'll refuse, it's that he doesn't believe it should happen. There's a difference.
When it comes to Agriculture policy and resource issues, Western Canada, and Alberta in particular, has always been tempted by that huge, rich (used to be anyway) market just south across the border. That's why Westerners see export markets as the best way to prosperity, and any government intervention to help Canadian producers in the East that could jeopardize these export markets (through a trade fight) is to be refused. It's why Trudeau's National Energy Program which kept oil and gas at a lower domestic price, was so viscerally hated in the West.
There's one more impression I came away with that's harder to justify, but I think is very important. Gaining enormous wealth by punching a hole in the ground, collecting and marketing the oil and gas, creates a mindset that anyone can make it if they have enough guts and determination. In other words there's no excuse for people not to succeed, and the government shouldn't coddle those that don't. I remember arguing with someone in Calgary that it was Peter Lougheed who guaranteed Imperial Oil a profit if it would start developing the oil sands. The government never had to pay of course, but surely that's government intervention in a big way, and takes away from the swagger of the so-called risk takers in the oil industry (we agreed to disagree).
All this means people in the Maritimes are going to have to work harder at finding local solutions to problems, think a little more about their neighbours, and where they spend their consumer dollars (that's not a bad thing). Harper will be under tremendous pressure from the business media, his supporters in Alberta, Tom Flannigan, to use these four or five years to show Canadians what a true Conservative government really looks like. My biggest worry is what's called the Dutch Disease. Holland gained enormous wealth form North Sea oil, driving up the value of the guilder, and making anyone outside the oil and gas business uncompetitive in export markets. I think Canada will go through the same thing, putting tourism, and the important export markets for food, lumber, and so on at risk. Harper and others will be proud of a "strong, confident Canada" but not all Canadians will feel the joy.
For those who care about developing a more rational "food system", based not simply on who can produce it the cheapest, Monday night's results are a crushing disappointment. The Liberals and the NDP (and the Greens) had spent a lot of time and effort developing national food strategies that would have put more emphasis on regional food networks, stepping up inspection of imported food, food labeling, and making that important link between the food we eat and our health. The Liberals, with all the soul searching they'll be doing, will probably put their food strategy in the same filing cabinet as the Green Shift, and that's unfortunate. The NDP put more emphasis on what they call fair trade, looking into international trade deals to see if Canadian farmers are being treated fairly. That's a noble exercise, but will be a hard sell in a majority Conservative parliament.
When it comes to agriculture and food, the Conservatives promised (much like in every other area) more of the same: export oriented, more free trade, Canadian farmers who are competitive on a world scale will be successful, those that can't, will fail. The challenge here in the Maritimes (see earlier posts) is that production costs are higher here, and that "North American" price for livestock and grains (kept lower by those large U.S. subsidies that come in the mailbox to American farmers) makes farming here marginal or money losing.
Just before coming PEI in 1980, I spent time working for CBC radio in Calgary. I caught a glimpse of what drives the current Conservative party on resource issues, and what makes up Stephen Harper's mindset. We have to remember that Stephen Harper (much like George Bush who was born into privilege in the U.S. North-east, but then re-created himself as hard nosed Texan) made a similar passage. Harper grew up in Toronto, the son of an accountant with Imperial Oil. He dropped out of the University of Toronto, and ended up working in the mailroom of Imperial Oil in Calgary, and then decided to go back to school. That's when he came under the influence of the The University of Calgary's renowned economics department, and it's well know head Tom Flannigan. Flannigan, and the U. of C., are entrenched in free market economics (Milton Friedman, low taxes, small government, decentralization, property rights, etc. etc.), and Harper took all that on, and became one of its most skillful promoters. Now he's the Prime Minster with a majority government.
(He still looks pretty goofy in a cowboy hat, but, like Bush, has transformed himself, in his own mind anyway, into a frontiersman).
What will be telling for the Maritimes (and we saw this clearly in December of 2008 when Harper steadfastly refused to take the global financial collapse as a time for Government intervention) is that he will (in my opinion) diminish the role of ACOA, equalization, transfer payments, and so on, arguing the budget has to be balanced, but there's more at play. He simply doesn't believe government has a central role in economic development. It's not that he'll refuse, it's that he doesn't believe it should happen. There's a difference.
When it comes to Agriculture policy and resource issues, Western Canada, and Alberta in particular, has always been tempted by that huge, rich (used to be anyway) market just south across the border. That's why Westerners see export markets as the best way to prosperity, and any government intervention to help Canadian producers in the East that could jeopardize these export markets (through a trade fight) is to be refused. It's why Trudeau's National Energy Program which kept oil and gas at a lower domestic price, was so viscerally hated in the West.
There's one more impression I came away with that's harder to justify, but I think is very important. Gaining enormous wealth by punching a hole in the ground, collecting and marketing the oil and gas, creates a mindset that anyone can make it if they have enough guts and determination. In other words there's no excuse for people not to succeed, and the government shouldn't coddle those that don't. I remember arguing with someone in Calgary that it was Peter Lougheed who guaranteed Imperial Oil a profit if it would start developing the oil sands. The government never had to pay of course, but surely that's government intervention in a big way, and takes away from the swagger of the so-called risk takers in the oil industry (we agreed to disagree).
All this means people in the Maritimes are going to have to work harder at finding local solutions to problems, think a little more about their neighbours, and where they spend their consumer dollars (that's not a bad thing). Harper will be under tremendous pressure from the business media, his supporters in Alberta, Tom Flannigan, to use these four or five years to show Canadians what a true Conservative government really looks like. My biggest worry is what's called the Dutch Disease. Holland gained enormous wealth form North Sea oil, driving up the value of the guilder, and making anyone outside the oil and gas business uncompetitive in export markets. I think Canada will go through the same thing, putting tourism, and the important export markets for food, lumber, and so on at risk. Harper and others will be proud of a "strong, confident Canada" but not all Canadians will feel the joy.
Monday, 2 May 2011
Watch the Size of that Cereal Box
Three stories that tell us a little more not just about who's wining and losing as food prices go up, but the ability of various parts of the food industry to adjust. The fallout from 9-11 (still with us even though Bin Laden has been dispatched) ramped up production of biofuels in the United States, and the heavy subsidies continue to enrich corn and soybean producers there. This in turn has increased the price of livestock feed. When that's combined with drought in western U.S. ranching country, the U.S. beef herd is at its lowest numbers in decades, so prices have reached record levels. Canadian farmers will see some benefits too (Western Canadian farmers in particular where grain and livestock prevail, with much easier access to the U.S. markets) but as one PEI beef producer told me when I suggested things must be getting better, he said while cattle prices are back to where they were six years ago when mad-cow was first discovered, the cost of everything from fertilizer to farm equipment is much higher. Throw in hundreds of thousands of dollars of loans used to survive through the lean years, and the picture while better, still isn't good. I was going to argue that farmers just never seem to be happy, but I realized he was right.
Consumers will see the fallout by paying a little more money, but also getting a little bit less in the box or bag. Food retailers and processors have so much invested in providing "the lowest price", that they're cleverly trying to protect their bottom line in a different way.
From: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/grocers-scramble-to-offset-higher-food-fuel-costs/article2006101/
Grocers scramble to offset higher food, fuel costs
by MARINA STRAUSS — RETAILING REPORTER • May 2, 2011 •
Call it the incredible shrinking package. Loblaw Cos. Ltd. (L-T139.880.521.32%) recently scaled back to 750 grams from 800 grams the amount of cereal in a box of one of its President’s Choice granolas, but has also raised the price to $5.79 from $4.99 since last year.
Loblaw is far from alone in downsizing packages and upsizing prices. It is a common practice in the grocery industry, underscoring how supermarkets today are racing to find ways to ease the pain of higher food and fuel costs while shoring up profit margins.
After having prospered last year from a strong loonie despite food deflation and escalating competition, grocers are preparing for an era of food inflation.
Even as profit margins improve – helped by a rising Canadian dollar that lowers many purchasing expenses – Loblaw and its rivals are struggling to make sales gains in a the cutthroat environment that has seen discounter Wal-Mart Canada Corp. rapidly expand into food. On Wednesday, when Loblaw reports its first-quarter results, the country’s largest grocer is expected to shed more light on how it’s grappling with limited growth opportunity in the food aisles in a period of soaring costs.
While moderate inflation is an ally to the food retailer, price increases of more than 2 to 3 per cent can spell trouble, Loblaw president Allan Leighton has warned. Recession-shaken consumers are sensitive to dramatic price hikes, and simply switch to cheaper alternatives rather than shell out more.
When prices jump beyond 2 to 3 per cent “then it really starts to whack the market,” Mr. Leighton said in February. “I’d rather be in a place of deflation than a place of high inflation.”
In March, the tab for food bought in stores jumped 3.7 per cent, marking the biggest year-over-year increase in 19 months, according to Statistics Canada. Surges in global commodity prices, spiralling fuel prices and bad weather in the southern U.S. are continuing to drive up prices. And higher rates at the gas pump threaten to curb consumer spending.
Grocers have reported lower prices than Statscan because their customers trade down, opting for cheaper alternatives than the items included in the federal agency’s sample of groceries. But the retailers acknowledge that they’re starting to raise prices. Already this year, Loblaw hiked prices of vegetables, fruits and meats. Other price adjustments are more subtle, such as shrinking packages or launching new products.
In the case of its PC Blue Menu Raisin & Almond granola, Loblaw last week was still touting an 800 gram box on its website even though its stores carried a shrunken 750-gram package – 6 per cent smaller but almost 16 per cent more expensive than last year at its conventional supermarkets.
At the same time, the retailer stocks a new Blue Menu almond-vanilla Omega-3 granola in the same size box as the raisin-and-almond version but with just 600 grams of cereal – at the same $5.79 price.
In response to a cautious consumer, grocers try to camouflage price increases by downsizing packaging, rolling out new products or adding healthy-for-you components to justify higher rates, said Michael Mulvey, marketing professor at the University of Ottawa Telfer School of Management.
Consumers often don’t readily notice a different package or content size, Prof. Mulvey said. “So potato chips all of a sudden contain 15 per cent less chips but the bag won’t change much, in terms of its size.”
And grocers can get away with higher prices if they’re providing a more convenient or healthy product, he said. He cited the example of Pepperidge Farm’s Goldfish cheddar snacks which, at Loblaw, cost $3.29 for both a 200-gram and a 168-gram package. Because the latter consists of six 28-gram snack packs, “they’re providing consumer value, in the sense that it’s more portable, easier to pack,” he said. “It is a very effective way of selling less food for the same price and helping the bottom line.”
Another grocer strategy to deflect attention from inflation is running “last-blast” promotions before jacking up prices, retail analyst Perry Caicco at CIBC World Markets said in a recent report. Or, as Loblaw did when it unveiled its new almond-vanilla granola, the retailer initially featured it at a lower price of $3.49 before raising it to its current $5.79.
And as grocers focus on dealing with spiralling food costs, they feel strains on another front: higher prices at the pump. In a report in March, market researcher Nielsen Co. predicted that the double whammy of rising gas and commodity prices will prompt consumers to follow historic patterns: make fewer trips to the grocer, eat out less, switch to cheaper shopping alternatives and use more coupons.
“The impact on household budgets can be significant,” it said. A 10-cent-a-litre increase in gas prices slices consumer spending by $30 a month, while a 50-cent hike translates into a $124 monthly cut.
Still, higher gas prices can have a silver lining for grocers, Prof. Mulvey said. Consumers stay home more, rather than dine out or travel, forcing them to buy more groceries because they still have to eat.
http://www.farmmarketer.com/home/news/?storyid=3230
Recession-free agriculture
April 29, 2011
By DAVID MERCER
Since 2007, much of the American economy has stumbled through a difficult period, but agriculture-related firms have enjoyed four profitable years thanks to heavy demand for corn and other crops.
A new index of 21 agriculture-related companies, called Agindex, shows their market value increased 8.6 percent a year from the beginning of 2007 through the end of March 2011. During that same period the value of companies in the S&P 500 dropped on average 2.7 percent per year.
The Agindex includes household names such as equipment-maker Deere & Company and seed-and-chemical firm Monsanto along with lesser-known companies such as fertilizer producer Agrium.
Gary Schnitkey, a University of Illinois agricultural economist, created the index with graduate student Clay Kramer to measure the strength of the agricultural sector. What they found was evidence of the strength of the rural economy the past few years, when crop prices sheltered farm country from much of the worst of the recession.
"Farmers are buying equipment and everything so it does filter out into the general rural sector," Schnitkey said. "The rural economy did fare pretty well."
Even with uncertainties about whether the government will reduce or eliminate programs that subsidize ethanol producers and growers of corn, soybeans and other commodities, Schnitkey said it's doubtful his index or the farm economy could decline any time soon.
"You're going to see pretty high (farmer) incomes for this year and probably next year," he said. "It's hard to see a situation where that moderates a lot."
Prices for corn, soybeans and other crops have soared for several reasons, including a surge in overseas purchases from developing economies in China and India as well as continued demand from U.S. livestock and ethanol producers.
The demand has caused stockpiles to decline and in part been to blame for increased food prices.
As farmers have earned more in recent years, they have bought new tractors, combines and other equipment from companies such as John Deere and Kubota Tractor Corp.
The equipment makers in the index saw their market value increase a total of 51 percent.
Higher prices, coupled with plentiful crops in recent years, have enabled farmers such as Leon Corzine of Assumption, Ill., to buy new equipment. Corzine bought two new tractors last year for use on his 3,000 acres of corn and soybeans.
"You're talking about getting upwards of 250,000 or 300,000 dollars apiece," he said.
But the sector that's had the best four-year run, Schnitkey found, is fertilizer makers such as Agrium, based in Calgary, Canada, and Potash Corp. of Saskatchewan, based in Saskatoon, Canada. Those companies' market values more than doubled.
Most Americans probably have never heard of the fertilizer makers, but the demand for more corn and soybeans has allowed the companies to put a premium on their products.
Not every company on the index did so well. The index's processors, which had to pay high prices for corn, soybeans and other crops, actually lost 4 percent of their value. Those companies include Archer Daniels Midland Company, Bunge Limited and Corn Products International.
Schnitkey noted that most of those companies had very strong first quarters this year.
Despite concerns about reductions in government subsidies for ethanol and some crops, Morningstar analyst Jeffrey Stafford expects the current trend to continue. Farmers can't keep up with the demand for corn, for instance, meaning that stockpiles will remain low.
"It could take multiple growing seasons to return those stocks-to-use levels to kind of a more sustainable average," he said. "You could see elevated crop prices remain for quite some time."
http://www.farmmarketer.com/home/news/?storyid=3217
Beef prices at all-time high
April 25, 2011
Source: Reed Fujii
They say happy cows come from California. With all-time record beef prices and plentiful pastures these days, happy cowboys also come from California and other U.S. cattle-raising regions.
"I can't call and complain about anything," said Darrell Sweet, a Livermore cattle rancher and past president of the California Cattlemen's Association.
That's quite a change as the industry has emerged from California's three-year drought and a period of depressed beef prices as costs for grains and other feed soared.
As recently as June 2009, beef cattle being sold for slaughter went for an average 82 cents a pound live weight, the U.S. Economic Research Service reported. In March, the average was rose to nearly $1.16 a pound, a jump of more than 40 percent in less than two years.
Both gross farm and retail beef prices set records in February and then again in March, not accounting for inflation. The agency reported the average retail price of fresh beef was nearly $4.35 a pound in February and ticked up to $4.48 a pound last month.
Backing off buying
The high prices are affecting beef buyers. Consumers are seeking cheaper grades and cuts of beef. Restaurants are watching their profits shrink or must raise their prices even while the economy remains weak. Fast-food giant McDonald's Corp. announced Thursday it planned small price increases as the price of beef rises.
Still, it's a boon for cattle producers.
"Prices are good. They've never been this good before," said Duane Martin Jr., a Galt-based rancher and past president of the San Joaquin-Stanislaus Cattlemen's Association. "This year, we'll make big profits."
He attributed the rise to short supply of beef, as the drought in California and other areas of the nation and low market prices compelled ranchers to sell off their herds. Export demand for U.S. beef is also strong, and there may be a bit of a price bubble in commodity markets.
Martin said the gain is not pure profit, as production costs are also increasing. He said fuel and transportation costs may jump by one-third this year.
"When you're talking about shipping cattle 1,200 miles to Colorado, it adds up pretty fast," he said.
Feed and grain prices, as well as pasture rents, are also rising. And Martin, who has 30 employees in his operation, worries about labor costs, including health care coverage.
"Over the next few years, I expect a big percentage of it to get eaten up," he said. "If not, the prices of cattle falling back, because, like I said, I think they're overinflated."
Daniel Sumner, director of the Agricultural Issues Center at the University of California, Davis, said the primary price driver is the short beef supply.
"One of the things that happened a few years ago: We had these incredibly high grain prices, and beef prices didn't go up, so that meant guys were selling," he said.
"This isn't that you and I and everybody else make so much money we eat steak everyday," Sumner said. "The economy has come back a little bit, but it's not a strong economy."
And it's not that easy to increase beef production. Ranchers need to build up the number of heifers - young cows - to do so.
"Cattle make cattle; the only way you make marketable animals is to have breeding stock," Sumner said.
To do so, however, will further reduce beef supplies in the short run as heifers are held off the market.
Ranchers get more
Sweet said he's seen heifers selling for about $1,900 apiece, roughly twice what they might have brought during the drought, when ranchers were reducing their herds.
He also said foreign demand is also contributing to higher prices.
"The export market is what is really driving this thing," Sweet said. "The export market and the fact that we have a continuing decline in beef cattle numbers."
The U.S. Meat Export Federation, a trade group promoting beef, pork and lamb, recently reported there was strong growth of U.S. beef shipments in the first two months of the year.
Beef exports in that period were 179,460 metric tons valued at $727.3 million, representing gains of 24 percent in volume and 45 percent in price from the same period a year ago. Mexico, South Korea, Canada, the Middle East and Japan are the top five export markets.
Officials at Save Mart Supermarkets said they hadn't received any surge in complaints about meat pricing, but consumers are picking lower-priced cuts.
"A developing trend is the increased popularity in short ribs, stew meat and thin cuts like stir fry strips or carné asada, which are economical and very quick and easy to prepare," said Marty Stephanic, Save Mart's meat director.
All sorts of economic factors play into consumer buying decisions, said Dave Heylen, vice president of the California Grocers Association.
"With the recession we've gone through or are in, we saw considerable change in consumer buying habits in all areas, not just meats," he said.
"Any time there are increases in prices, it's going to impact how consumers purchase," Heylen said. "So sure, it'll have an impact. How much, I can't say."
At the El Rancho Inn-Steak & Lobster House in Stockton, rising costs have hit the bottom line, owner Ray Lecondeguy said.
"I've absorbed everything for the last year or so on beef," he said. He quickly added, "What's even worse is the record lobster prices. I'm paying $44.50 per pound."
Plate prices rising
That's forced him to raise the price for a lobster dinner, but he's holding steady on his rib eye and New York steaks.
"Everything is going up. Everything that's related to agriculture is going up," Lecondeguy said.
Martin thinks the beef market will remain strong for the next several years.
"I've been growing my herd at a rapid pace, and this year I expanded it 40 percent," he said.
He's purchased a few thousand head of cattle being pastured in Wyoming and Colorado and added staff to manage the expansion.
Still, he admits being a bit surprised by the gains.
"I was very bullish on the cattle industry; just not to this degree," Martin said
Consumers will see the fallout by paying a little more money, but also getting a little bit less in the box or bag. Food retailers and processors have so much invested in providing "the lowest price", that they're cleverly trying to protect their bottom line in a different way.
From: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/grocers-scramble-to-offset-higher-food-fuel-costs/article2006101/
Grocers scramble to offset higher food, fuel costs
by MARINA STRAUSS — RETAILING REPORTER • May 2, 2011 •
Call it the incredible shrinking package. Loblaw Cos. Ltd. (L-T139.880.521.32%) recently scaled back to 750 grams from 800 grams the amount of cereal in a box of one of its President’s Choice granolas, but has also raised the price to $5.79 from $4.99 since last year.
Loblaw is far from alone in downsizing packages and upsizing prices. It is a common practice in the grocery industry, underscoring how supermarkets today are racing to find ways to ease the pain of higher food and fuel costs while shoring up profit margins.
After having prospered last year from a strong loonie despite food deflation and escalating competition, grocers are preparing for an era of food inflation.
Even as profit margins improve – helped by a rising Canadian dollar that lowers many purchasing expenses – Loblaw and its rivals are struggling to make sales gains in a the cutthroat environment that has seen discounter Wal-Mart Canada Corp. rapidly expand into food. On Wednesday, when Loblaw reports its first-quarter results, the country’s largest grocer is expected to shed more light on how it’s grappling with limited growth opportunity in the food aisles in a period of soaring costs.
While moderate inflation is an ally to the food retailer, price increases of more than 2 to 3 per cent can spell trouble, Loblaw president Allan Leighton has warned. Recession-shaken consumers are sensitive to dramatic price hikes, and simply switch to cheaper alternatives rather than shell out more.
When prices jump beyond 2 to 3 per cent “then it really starts to whack the market,” Mr. Leighton said in February. “I’d rather be in a place of deflation than a place of high inflation.”
In March, the tab for food bought in stores jumped 3.7 per cent, marking the biggest year-over-year increase in 19 months, according to Statistics Canada. Surges in global commodity prices, spiralling fuel prices and bad weather in the southern U.S. are continuing to drive up prices. And higher rates at the gas pump threaten to curb consumer spending.
Grocers have reported lower prices than Statscan because their customers trade down, opting for cheaper alternatives than the items included in the federal agency’s sample of groceries. But the retailers acknowledge that they’re starting to raise prices. Already this year, Loblaw hiked prices of vegetables, fruits and meats. Other price adjustments are more subtle, such as shrinking packages or launching new products.
In the case of its PC Blue Menu Raisin & Almond granola, Loblaw last week was still touting an 800 gram box on its website even though its stores carried a shrunken 750-gram package – 6 per cent smaller but almost 16 per cent more expensive than last year at its conventional supermarkets.
At the same time, the retailer stocks a new Blue Menu almond-vanilla Omega-3 granola in the same size box as the raisin-and-almond version but with just 600 grams of cereal – at the same $5.79 price.
In response to a cautious consumer, grocers try to camouflage price increases by downsizing packaging, rolling out new products or adding healthy-for-you components to justify higher rates, said Michael Mulvey, marketing professor at the University of Ottawa Telfer School of Management.
Consumers often don’t readily notice a different package or content size, Prof. Mulvey said. “So potato chips all of a sudden contain 15 per cent less chips but the bag won’t change much, in terms of its size.”
And grocers can get away with higher prices if they’re providing a more convenient or healthy product, he said. He cited the example of Pepperidge Farm’s Goldfish cheddar snacks which, at Loblaw, cost $3.29 for both a 200-gram and a 168-gram package. Because the latter consists of six 28-gram snack packs, “they’re providing consumer value, in the sense that it’s more portable, easier to pack,” he said. “It is a very effective way of selling less food for the same price and helping the bottom line.”
Another grocer strategy to deflect attention from inflation is running “last-blast” promotions before jacking up prices, retail analyst Perry Caicco at CIBC World Markets said in a recent report. Or, as Loblaw did when it unveiled its new almond-vanilla granola, the retailer initially featured it at a lower price of $3.49 before raising it to its current $5.79.
And as grocers focus on dealing with spiralling food costs, they feel strains on another front: higher prices at the pump. In a report in March, market researcher Nielsen Co. predicted that the double whammy of rising gas and commodity prices will prompt consumers to follow historic patterns: make fewer trips to the grocer, eat out less, switch to cheaper shopping alternatives and use more coupons.
“The impact on household budgets can be significant,” it said. A 10-cent-a-litre increase in gas prices slices consumer spending by $30 a month, while a 50-cent hike translates into a $124 monthly cut.
Still, higher gas prices can have a silver lining for grocers, Prof. Mulvey said. Consumers stay home more, rather than dine out or travel, forcing them to buy more groceries because they still have to eat.
http://www.farmmarketer.com/home/news/?storyid=3230
Recession-free agriculture
April 29, 2011
By DAVID MERCER
Since 2007, much of the American economy has stumbled through a difficult period, but agriculture-related firms have enjoyed four profitable years thanks to heavy demand for corn and other crops.
A new index of 21 agriculture-related companies, called Agindex, shows their market value increased 8.6 percent a year from the beginning of 2007 through the end of March 2011. During that same period the value of companies in the S&P 500 dropped on average 2.7 percent per year.
The Agindex includes household names such as equipment-maker Deere & Company and seed-and-chemical firm Monsanto along with lesser-known companies such as fertilizer producer Agrium.
Gary Schnitkey, a University of Illinois agricultural economist, created the index with graduate student Clay Kramer to measure the strength of the agricultural sector. What they found was evidence of the strength of the rural economy the past few years, when crop prices sheltered farm country from much of the worst of the recession.
"Farmers are buying equipment and everything so it does filter out into the general rural sector," Schnitkey said. "The rural economy did fare pretty well."
Even with uncertainties about whether the government will reduce or eliminate programs that subsidize ethanol producers and growers of corn, soybeans and other commodities, Schnitkey said it's doubtful his index or the farm economy could decline any time soon.
"You're going to see pretty high (farmer) incomes for this year and probably next year," he said. "It's hard to see a situation where that moderates a lot."
Prices for corn, soybeans and other crops have soared for several reasons, including a surge in overseas purchases from developing economies in China and India as well as continued demand from U.S. livestock and ethanol producers.
The demand has caused stockpiles to decline and in part been to blame for increased food prices.
As farmers have earned more in recent years, they have bought new tractors, combines and other equipment from companies such as John Deere and Kubota Tractor Corp.
The equipment makers in the index saw their market value increase a total of 51 percent.
Higher prices, coupled with plentiful crops in recent years, have enabled farmers such as Leon Corzine of Assumption, Ill., to buy new equipment. Corzine bought two new tractors last year for use on his 3,000 acres of corn and soybeans.
"You're talking about getting upwards of 250,000 or 300,000 dollars apiece," he said.
But the sector that's had the best four-year run, Schnitkey found, is fertilizer makers such as Agrium, based in Calgary, Canada, and Potash Corp. of Saskatchewan, based in Saskatoon, Canada. Those companies' market values more than doubled.
Most Americans probably have never heard of the fertilizer makers, but the demand for more corn and soybeans has allowed the companies to put a premium on their products.
Not every company on the index did so well. The index's processors, which had to pay high prices for corn, soybeans and other crops, actually lost 4 percent of their value. Those companies include Archer Daniels Midland Company, Bunge Limited and Corn Products International.
Schnitkey noted that most of those companies had very strong first quarters this year.
Despite concerns about reductions in government subsidies for ethanol and some crops, Morningstar analyst Jeffrey Stafford expects the current trend to continue. Farmers can't keep up with the demand for corn, for instance, meaning that stockpiles will remain low.
"It could take multiple growing seasons to return those stocks-to-use levels to kind of a more sustainable average," he said. "You could see elevated crop prices remain for quite some time."
http://www.farmmarketer.com/home/news/?storyid=3217
Beef prices at all-time high
April 25, 2011
Source: Reed Fujii
They say happy cows come from California. With all-time record beef prices and plentiful pastures these days, happy cowboys also come from California and other U.S. cattle-raising regions.
"I can't call and complain about anything," said Darrell Sweet, a Livermore cattle rancher and past president of the California Cattlemen's Association.
That's quite a change as the industry has emerged from California's three-year drought and a period of depressed beef prices as costs for grains and other feed soared.
As recently as June 2009, beef cattle being sold for slaughter went for an average 82 cents a pound live weight, the U.S. Economic Research Service reported. In March, the average was rose to nearly $1.16 a pound, a jump of more than 40 percent in less than two years.
Both gross farm and retail beef prices set records in February and then again in March, not accounting for inflation. The agency reported the average retail price of fresh beef was nearly $4.35 a pound in February and ticked up to $4.48 a pound last month.
Backing off buying
The high prices are affecting beef buyers. Consumers are seeking cheaper grades and cuts of beef. Restaurants are watching their profits shrink or must raise their prices even while the economy remains weak. Fast-food giant McDonald's Corp. announced Thursday it planned small price increases as the price of beef rises.
Still, it's a boon for cattle producers.
"Prices are good. They've never been this good before," said Duane Martin Jr., a Galt-based rancher and past president of the San Joaquin-Stanislaus Cattlemen's Association. "This year, we'll make big profits."
He attributed the rise to short supply of beef, as the drought in California and other areas of the nation and low market prices compelled ranchers to sell off their herds. Export demand for U.S. beef is also strong, and there may be a bit of a price bubble in commodity markets.
Martin said the gain is not pure profit, as production costs are also increasing. He said fuel and transportation costs may jump by one-third this year.
"When you're talking about shipping cattle 1,200 miles to Colorado, it adds up pretty fast," he said.
Feed and grain prices, as well as pasture rents, are also rising. And Martin, who has 30 employees in his operation, worries about labor costs, including health care coverage.
"Over the next few years, I expect a big percentage of it to get eaten up," he said. "If not, the prices of cattle falling back, because, like I said, I think they're overinflated."
Daniel Sumner, director of the Agricultural Issues Center at the University of California, Davis, said the primary price driver is the short beef supply.
"One of the things that happened a few years ago: We had these incredibly high grain prices, and beef prices didn't go up, so that meant guys were selling," he said.
"This isn't that you and I and everybody else make so much money we eat steak everyday," Sumner said. "The economy has come back a little bit, but it's not a strong economy."
And it's not that easy to increase beef production. Ranchers need to build up the number of heifers - young cows - to do so.
"Cattle make cattle; the only way you make marketable animals is to have breeding stock," Sumner said.
To do so, however, will further reduce beef supplies in the short run as heifers are held off the market.
Ranchers get more
Sweet said he's seen heifers selling for about $1,900 apiece, roughly twice what they might have brought during the drought, when ranchers were reducing their herds.
He also said foreign demand is also contributing to higher prices.
"The export market is what is really driving this thing," Sweet said. "The export market and the fact that we have a continuing decline in beef cattle numbers."
The U.S. Meat Export Federation, a trade group promoting beef, pork and lamb, recently reported there was strong growth of U.S. beef shipments in the first two months of the year.
Beef exports in that period were 179,460 metric tons valued at $727.3 million, representing gains of 24 percent in volume and 45 percent in price from the same period a year ago. Mexico, South Korea, Canada, the Middle East and Japan are the top five export markets.
Officials at Save Mart Supermarkets said they hadn't received any surge in complaints about meat pricing, but consumers are picking lower-priced cuts.
"A developing trend is the increased popularity in short ribs, stew meat and thin cuts like stir fry strips or carné asada, which are economical and very quick and easy to prepare," said Marty Stephanic, Save Mart's meat director.
All sorts of economic factors play into consumer buying decisions, said Dave Heylen, vice president of the California Grocers Association.
"With the recession we've gone through or are in, we saw considerable change in consumer buying habits in all areas, not just meats," he said.
"Any time there are increases in prices, it's going to impact how consumers purchase," Heylen said. "So sure, it'll have an impact. How much, I can't say."
At the El Rancho Inn-Steak & Lobster House in Stockton, rising costs have hit the bottom line, owner Ray Lecondeguy said.
"I've absorbed everything for the last year or so on beef," he said. He quickly added, "What's even worse is the record lobster prices. I'm paying $44.50 per pound."
Plate prices rising
That's forced him to raise the price for a lobster dinner, but he's holding steady on his rib eye and New York steaks.
"Everything is going up. Everything that's related to agriculture is going up," Lecondeguy said.
Martin thinks the beef market will remain strong for the next several years.
"I've been growing my herd at a rapid pace, and this year I expanded it 40 percent," he said.
He's purchased a few thousand head of cattle being pastured in Wyoming and Colorado and added staff to manage the expansion.
Still, he admits being a bit surprised by the gains.
"I was very bullish on the cattle industry; just not to this degree," Martin said
Sunday, 1 May 2011
Skeptical of Climate Skeptics
"Climate change" is another one of those issues that generates a lot of heat in the media, and depending on your point of view, you can get lots of opinion, and even some scientific proof to support your views. There's an excellent site in Britain that looks at the allegations made by climate skeptics, and rather than simply dismissing them, looks hard to find the science that proves them wrong. There's some especially good material on some of the allegations that came out of climategate, where words like "trick" were used in emails, and gave climate skeptics a whole new round of material to argue their case. The site is here:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
and at least take a look at a very clever video that certainly answered some questions I had:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tz8Ve6KE-Us&feature=player_embedded#at=28
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
and at least take a look at a very clever video that certainly answered some questions I had:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tz8Ve6KE-Us&feature=player_embedded#at=28
Saturday, 30 April 2011
Justice, Not Likely; Fairness, Maybe
I looked around the room and saw a lot of hardship, potato and livestock farmers who'd lost a lot of money over the last decade, some pushed into bankruptcy. There were non-farmers too, a surprising number of young people, and older war horses, all trying to understand why a food system that offers so much value and choice to consumers has made farmers a virtual afterthought. The discussion was hosted by the National Farmers Union and was centred on the idea of social justice. Judging from the discussion there isn't much when it comes to food production.
I know from decades of covering farm issues, going to hundreds of news conferences where agriculture groups would earnestly make their case that farmers are falling further and further behind that, as truthful as all that may be, it has little impact. Farmers now make up less than 3% of the Canadian population, and when the rest walk into essentially food palaces with products from around the world at prices relative to income that have never been lower, it's hard to make a case that there's something rotten at the core. There are many marginalized groups in our midst, all with legitimate complaints about the unfairness of the economy, and demanding support. Farmers are just one more angry voice.
I don't think making consumers feel guilty, or embarrassing politicians, will change much. I think farmers have to take a page out of the marketing handbooks, and demonstrate what's in it for non-farmers, if there's a productive rural economy, rather than one that's failing. There's at least food security and safety, tax dollars for schools and healthcare, more demands can be made to protect then environment. The "how" is more difficult, making sense of the global purchasing chain that brings frozen broccoli from China to a store in Souris at a cheaper price than a farmer in Morell can produce it.
Change will come. As Asian countries become wealthier, more and more domestic production will go to feed themselves, rather than export markets. This shift has already started. Some of the most valuable markets for PEI farmers right now are soybeans and canola going to Japan.
It was the young non-farmers at this meeting that intrigued me. They'd obviously thought hard about how the food system works, and had given up a Friday night to add their voice. A lot of their discussion was anti-corporate (probably going to vote NDP on Monday), but they'd clearly made the connection that there are families and communities behind the grim financial statistics, and in their mind it's up to consumers to demand changes at the retail level. I think they're right. A hundred complaining farmers can easily be dismissed. Six unhappy food shoppers will get the attention of head office.
A couple of things to share. The first is a guest editorial from Bertha Campbell, the president of the Federation of Agriculture. The second is more on a national food strategy from Jessica Leeder with the Globe and Mail.
I know from decades of covering farm issues, going to hundreds of news conferences where agriculture groups would earnestly make their case that farmers are falling further and further behind that, as truthful as all that may be, it has little impact. Farmers now make up less than 3% of the Canadian population, and when the rest walk into essentially food palaces with products from around the world at prices relative to income that have never been lower, it's hard to make a case that there's something rotten at the core. There are many marginalized groups in our midst, all with legitimate complaints about the unfairness of the economy, and demanding support. Farmers are just one more angry voice.
I don't think making consumers feel guilty, or embarrassing politicians, will change much. I think farmers have to take a page out of the marketing handbooks, and demonstrate what's in it for non-farmers, if there's a productive rural economy, rather than one that's failing. There's at least food security and safety, tax dollars for schools and healthcare, more demands can be made to protect then environment. The "how" is more difficult, making sense of the global purchasing chain that brings frozen broccoli from China to a store in Souris at a cheaper price than a farmer in Morell can produce it.
Change will come. As Asian countries become wealthier, more and more domestic production will go to feed themselves, rather than export markets. This shift has already started. Some of the most valuable markets for PEI farmers right now are soybeans and canola going to Japan.
It was the young non-farmers at this meeting that intrigued me. They'd obviously thought hard about how the food system works, and had given up a Friday night to add their voice. A lot of their discussion was anti-corporate (probably going to vote NDP on Monday), but they'd clearly made the connection that there are families and communities behind the grim financial statistics, and in their mind it's up to consumers to demand changes at the retail level. I think they're right. A hundred complaining farmers can easily be dismissed. Six unhappy food shoppers will get the attention of head office.
A couple of things to share. The first is a guest editorial from Bertha Campbell, the president of the Federation of Agriculture. The second is more on a national food strategy from Jessica Leeder with the Globe and Mail.
Benefits beyond the bottom line
Monday, 25 April 2011
Two Views of the World
It's heart and head time again folks. I present a story that is spiritual in nature, but speaks to many people's hopes for a different kind of world. And just to keep our feet on the ground, a counter opinion piece from the ever cheerful Rex Murphy. Talk about different world views.
From: http://www.countercurrents.org/buxton240411.htm
The Law Of Mother Earth: Behind Bolivia’s Historic Bill
By Nick Buxton
24 April, 2011
YES! Magazine1
A new law expected to pass in Bolivia mandates a fundamental ecological reorientation of the nation’s economy and society
Indigenous and campesino (small-scale farmer) movements in the Andean nation of Bolivia are on the verge of pushing through one of the most radical environmental bills in global history. The "Mother Earth" law under debate in Bolivia's legislature will almost certainly be approved, as it has already been agreed to by the majority governing party, Movimiento Al Socialismo (MAS).
The law draws deeply on indigenous concepts that view nature as a sacred home, the Pachamama (Mother Earth) on which we intimately depend. As the law states, “Mother Earth is a living dynamic system made up of the undivided community of all living beings, who are all interconnected, interdependent and complementary, sharing a common destiny.”
The law would give nature legal rights, specifically the rights to life and regeneration, biodiversity, water, clean air, balance, and restoration. Bolivia's law mandates a fundamental ecological reorientation of Bolivia's economy and society, requiring all existing and future laws to adapt to the Mother Earth law and accept the ecological limits set by nature. It calls for public policy to be guided by Sumaj Kawsay (an indigenous concept meaning “living well,” or living in harmony with nature and people), rather than the current focus on producing more goods and stimulating consumption.
In practical terms, the law requires the government to transition from non-renewable to renewable energy; to develop new economic indicators that will assess the ecological impact of all economic activity; to carry out ecological audits of all private and state companies; to regulate and reduce greenhouse gas emissions; to develop policies of food and renewable energy sovereignty; to research and invest resources in energy efficiency, ecological practices, and organic agriculture; and to require all companies and individuals to be accountable for environmental contamination with a duty to restore damaged environments.
The law will be backed up by a new Ministry of Mother Earth, an inter-Ministry Advisory Council, and an Ombudsman. Undarico Pinto, leader of the 3.5 million-strong campesino movement CSUTCB, which helped draft the law, believes this legislation represents a turning point in Bolivian law: "Existing laws are not strong enough. This will make industry more transparent. It will allow people to regulate industry at national, regional, and local levels."
However, there is also strong awareness among Bolivia's social movements—in particular for the Pacto de Unidad (Unity Pact), a coalition of the country's five largest social movements and a key force behind the law—that the existence of a new law will not be enough to prompt real change in environmental practices.
A major obstacle is the fact that Bolivia is structurally dependent on extractive industries. Since the discovery of silver by the Spanish in the 16th Century, Bolivia's history has been tied to ruthless exploitation of its people and its environment in order to transfer wealth to the richest countries; poet and historian Eduardo Galeano’s famous book Open Veins draws largely on the brutal story of how Bolivia's exploitation fuelled the industrial expansion of Europe. In 2010, 70 percent of Bolivia's exports were still in the form of minerals, gas, and oil. This structural dependence will be very difficult to unravel.
Moreover, there is a great deal of opposition from powerful sectors, particularly mining and agro-industrial enterprises, to any ecological laws that would threaten profits. The main organization of soya producers, which claimed that the law “will make the productive sector inviable,” is one of many powerful groups who have already come out against the law. Within the government, there are many ministries and officials that would also like the law to remain nothing more than a visionary but ultimately meaningless statement.
Raul Prada, one of the advisors to Pacto de Unidad, explained that the Mother Earth law was developed by Bolivia's largest social movements in response to their perceived exclusion from policy-making by the MAS government, led by indigenous President Evo Morales. They have generally supported MAS since its resounding election victory in 2005, but were frustrated by what they saw as a lack of progress. Rather than merely expressing their concern, these movements—comprised mainly of indigenous and farming communities—are pro-actively developing a series of new laws. Their first priority was the passage of the Mother Earth Law, based on a commitment made at the historic global Peoples Conference on Climate Change held in Bolivia in April 2010. To some surprise, the diverse movements soon developed a consensual agreement that was supported by MAS legislators.
Raul Prada notes that, even with significant pressure from social movements, transitioning to an economy based on the concept Vivir Bien will not be easy. “It is going to be difficult to transit from an extractive economy. We clearly can't close mines straight away, but we can develop a model where this economy has less and less weight. It will need policies developed in participation with movements, particularly in areas such as food sovereignty. It will need redirection of investment and policies towards different ecological models of development. It will need the cooperation of the international community to develop regional economies that complement each other.”
Ultimately, though, this is a challenge far bigger than Bolivia, says Prada: “Our ecological and social crisis is not just a problem for Bolivia or Ecuador; it is a problem for all of us. We need to pull together peoples, researchers, and communities to develop real concrete alternatives so that the dominant systems of exploitation don't just continue by default. This is not an easy task, but I believe with international solidarity, we can and must succeed.”
Nick Buxton wrote this article for YES! Magazine, a national, nonprofit media organization that fuses powerful ideas with practical actions. He spent four years in Bolivia learning from movements fighting for social and environmental justice.
And Rex Murphy from here:
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/Rendering+sanity+unto+Earth+goddess/4626055/story.html
Rendering our sanity unto the Earth goddess
April 15, 2011 •
Does environmentalism rot the mind? I am beginning to believe that the more feverish and agitated greens are suffering from a morbid condition. There is, it appears, no intellectual folly to which they are immune, no frenzied leap off the pier of reason they will not joyfully execute, in their reliably bizarre efforts to horrify the rest of us into supporting their cause.
It was only a few months ago that I read an endearing article entitled: "Was Genghis Khan history's greenest conqueror?" on something called The Mother Nature Network. The article noted the "widespread return of forests after a period of massive depopulation," which arose, of course, thanks to Genghis Khan's hordes slaughtering 40 million people. An upside to ethnic cleansing?
And just this week, Bolivia's President Evo Morales hailed national legislation that would enshrine the "rights of Mother Nature" -human rights extended to Earth itself. Pause to marvel at the powers of the Bolivian legislature. May we note that Morales is a James Cameron fan? I think we may.
Vice-President Alvaro García Linera describes the country's new legislation ("The Law of Mother Earth") as making "world history -Earth is the mother of all." He also gushed that the law "establishes a new relationship between man and nature."
The Bolivian legislation, we are informed by Britain's Guardian newspaper, "has been heavily influenced by a resurgent indigenous Andean spiritual world view which places the environment and the Earth deity known as the Pachamama at the centre of all life. Humans are considered equal to all other entities."
Remember this the next time someone says that the science of global warming is "settled," for many environmentalists are inspired not by science, but by spirituality -Andean and otherwise.
What does the new Bolivian law mean? It means that tics that suck the blood, the choking sulphur pits of volcanic vents, the indestructible cockroach, the arid desert wastes and the bleak frigid spaces of the planet's poles -everything from the locusts that despoil, to the great mountain ranges, the earth and all that is in it, are to have . rights. (About the other planets, Morales is silent.)
With Macbeth, let us lament: "O judgment, thou art fled to brutish beasts, and men have lost their Reason."
The proposal combines the decayed anti-capitalism of Marxism with a veritable litany of new-age twaddle and camp spiritualism -paganism in the age of bluetooth and Twitter. Yet it is more than just inane. It is Orwellian, in that it would summon into being something called the Ministry of the Earth, which will provide our planet with an ombudsman, "whose job is to hear nature's complaints as voiced by activist and other groups, including the state."
Why can't the old hag, Mother Earth I mean, get her own ombudsman? And shouldn't that really be, in this context, ombudsperson? I notice, too, how the Earth's "complaints" are to be those voiced by activists and the state, an always convenient ventriloquism.
I am growing more and more confident that the number one threat to the health, safety and future of our planet is the assortment of fanatics who are proposing to save it. They are, as in this farcical Bolivian étude, jettisoning every product of our rationalistic heritage, degrading the advances in reason and science, and regressing to the raw beliefs of those days when, as Milton, wrote "all our fathers worshipped stocks and stones."
When the conscious creature -that would be Man -condescends to worship the inanimate one -that would be the Stone -the order of things is inverted and undone.
Rex Murphy offers commentary weekly on CBC TV's The National, and is host of CBC Radio's Cross Country Checkup.
From: http://www.countercurrents.org/buxton240411.htm
The Law Of Mother Earth: Behind Bolivia’s Historic Bill
By Nick Buxton
24 April, 2011
YES! Magazine1
A new law expected to pass in Bolivia mandates a fundamental ecological reorientation of the nation’s economy and society
Indigenous and campesino (small-scale farmer) movements in the Andean nation of Bolivia are on the verge of pushing through one of the most radical environmental bills in global history. The "Mother Earth" law under debate in Bolivia's legislature will almost certainly be approved, as it has already been agreed to by the majority governing party, Movimiento Al Socialismo (MAS).
The law draws deeply on indigenous concepts that view nature as a sacred home, the Pachamama (Mother Earth) on which we intimately depend. As the law states, “Mother Earth is a living dynamic system made up of the undivided community of all living beings, who are all interconnected, interdependent and complementary, sharing a common destiny.”
The law would give nature legal rights, specifically the rights to life and regeneration, biodiversity, water, clean air, balance, and restoration. Bolivia's law mandates a fundamental ecological reorientation of Bolivia's economy and society, requiring all existing and future laws to adapt to the Mother Earth law and accept the ecological limits set by nature. It calls for public policy to be guided by Sumaj Kawsay (an indigenous concept meaning “living well,” or living in harmony with nature and people), rather than the current focus on producing more goods and stimulating consumption.
In practical terms, the law requires the government to transition from non-renewable to renewable energy; to develop new economic indicators that will assess the ecological impact of all economic activity; to carry out ecological audits of all private and state companies; to regulate and reduce greenhouse gas emissions; to develop policies of food and renewable energy sovereignty; to research and invest resources in energy efficiency, ecological practices, and organic agriculture; and to require all companies and individuals to be accountable for environmental contamination with a duty to restore damaged environments.
The law will be backed up by a new Ministry of Mother Earth, an inter-Ministry Advisory Council, and an Ombudsman. Undarico Pinto, leader of the 3.5 million-strong campesino movement CSUTCB, which helped draft the law, believes this legislation represents a turning point in Bolivian law: "Existing laws are not strong enough. This will make industry more transparent. It will allow people to regulate industry at national, regional, and local levels."
However, there is also strong awareness among Bolivia's social movements—in particular for the Pacto de Unidad (Unity Pact), a coalition of the country's five largest social movements and a key force behind the law—that the existence of a new law will not be enough to prompt real change in environmental practices.
A major obstacle is the fact that Bolivia is structurally dependent on extractive industries. Since the discovery of silver by the Spanish in the 16th Century, Bolivia's history has been tied to ruthless exploitation of its people and its environment in order to transfer wealth to the richest countries; poet and historian Eduardo Galeano’s famous book Open Veins draws largely on the brutal story of how Bolivia's exploitation fuelled the industrial expansion of Europe. In 2010, 70 percent of Bolivia's exports were still in the form of minerals, gas, and oil. This structural dependence will be very difficult to unravel.
Moreover, there is a great deal of opposition from powerful sectors, particularly mining and agro-industrial enterprises, to any ecological laws that would threaten profits. The main organization of soya producers, which claimed that the law “will make the productive sector inviable,” is one of many powerful groups who have already come out against the law. Within the government, there are many ministries and officials that would also like the law to remain nothing more than a visionary but ultimately meaningless statement.
Raul Prada, one of the advisors to Pacto de Unidad, explained that the Mother Earth law was developed by Bolivia's largest social movements in response to their perceived exclusion from policy-making by the MAS government, led by indigenous President Evo Morales. They have generally supported MAS since its resounding election victory in 2005, but were frustrated by what they saw as a lack of progress. Rather than merely expressing their concern, these movements—comprised mainly of indigenous and farming communities—are pro-actively developing a series of new laws. Their first priority was the passage of the Mother Earth Law, based on a commitment made at the historic global Peoples Conference on Climate Change held in Bolivia in April 2010. To some surprise, the diverse movements soon developed a consensual agreement that was supported by MAS legislators.
Raul Prada notes that, even with significant pressure from social movements, transitioning to an economy based on the concept Vivir Bien will not be easy. “It is going to be difficult to transit from an extractive economy. We clearly can't close mines straight away, but we can develop a model where this economy has less and less weight. It will need policies developed in participation with movements, particularly in areas such as food sovereignty. It will need redirection of investment and policies towards different ecological models of development. It will need the cooperation of the international community to develop regional economies that complement each other.”
Ultimately, though, this is a challenge far bigger than Bolivia, says Prada: “Our ecological and social crisis is not just a problem for Bolivia or Ecuador; it is a problem for all of us. We need to pull together peoples, researchers, and communities to develop real concrete alternatives so that the dominant systems of exploitation don't just continue by default. This is not an easy task, but I believe with international solidarity, we can and must succeed.”
Nick Buxton wrote this article for YES! Magazine, a national, nonprofit media organization that fuses powerful ideas with practical actions. He spent four years in Bolivia learning from movements fighting for social and environmental justice.
And Rex Murphy from here:
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/Rendering+sanity+unto+Earth+goddess/4626055/story.html
Rendering our sanity unto the Earth goddess
April 15, 2011 •
Does environmentalism rot the mind? I am beginning to believe that the more feverish and agitated greens are suffering from a morbid condition. There is, it appears, no intellectual folly to which they are immune, no frenzied leap off the pier of reason they will not joyfully execute, in their reliably bizarre efforts to horrify the rest of us into supporting their cause.
It was only a few months ago that I read an endearing article entitled: "Was Genghis Khan history's greenest conqueror?" on something called The Mother Nature Network. The article noted the "widespread return of forests after a period of massive depopulation," which arose, of course, thanks to Genghis Khan's hordes slaughtering 40 million people. An upside to ethnic cleansing?
And just this week, Bolivia's President Evo Morales hailed national legislation that would enshrine the "rights of Mother Nature" -human rights extended to Earth itself. Pause to marvel at the powers of the Bolivian legislature. May we note that Morales is a James Cameron fan? I think we may.
Vice-President Alvaro García Linera describes the country's new legislation ("The Law of Mother Earth") as making "world history -Earth is the mother of all." He also gushed that the law "establishes a new relationship between man and nature."
The Bolivian legislation, we are informed by Britain's Guardian newspaper, "has been heavily influenced by a resurgent indigenous Andean spiritual world view which places the environment and the Earth deity known as the Pachamama at the centre of all life. Humans are considered equal to all other entities."
Remember this the next time someone says that the science of global warming is "settled," for many environmentalists are inspired not by science, but by spirituality -Andean and otherwise.
What does the new Bolivian law mean? It means that tics that suck the blood, the choking sulphur pits of volcanic vents, the indestructible cockroach, the arid desert wastes and the bleak frigid spaces of the planet's poles -everything from the locusts that despoil, to the great mountain ranges, the earth and all that is in it, are to have . rights. (About the other planets, Morales is silent.)
With Macbeth, let us lament: "O judgment, thou art fled to brutish beasts, and men have lost their Reason."
The proposal combines the decayed anti-capitalism of Marxism with a veritable litany of new-age twaddle and camp spiritualism -paganism in the age of bluetooth and Twitter. Yet it is more than just inane. It is Orwellian, in that it would summon into being something called the Ministry of the Earth, which will provide our planet with an ombudsman, "whose job is to hear nature's complaints as voiced by activist and other groups, including the state."
Why can't the old hag, Mother Earth I mean, get her own ombudsman? And shouldn't that really be, in this context, ombudsperson? I notice, too, how the Earth's "complaints" are to be those voiced by activists and the state, an always convenient ventriloquism.
I am growing more and more confident that the number one threat to the health, safety and future of our planet is the assortment of fanatics who are proposing to save it. They are, as in this farcical Bolivian étude, jettisoning every product of our rationalistic heritage, degrading the advances in reason and science, and regressing to the raw beliefs of those days when, as Milton, wrote "all our fathers worshipped stocks and stones."
When the conscious creature -that would be Man -condescends to worship the inanimate one -that would be the Stone -the order of things is inverted and undone.
Rex Murphy offers commentary weekly on CBC TV's The National, and is host of CBC Radio's Cross Country Checkup.
Sunday, 24 April 2011
Higher Food Prices-Biofuels: A Bad Mix
An important editorial in this weekend's Toronto Star. It doesn't condemn biofuels (Canada is now a player with a 5% mandated mix of ethanol and gasoline), but clearly shows the impact on the world's poor.
From: http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/article/978826--soaring-food-prices-the-world-s-poor-grow-hungrier
Soaring food prices: The world’s poor grow hungrier
Some of the consequences are clear. Unrest in some of the countries of the “Arab Awakening,” notably Egypt, has been fuelled by quickly rising food prices. There have been food riots in Bangladesh where nutritious palm oil — a major ingredient for biofuel — is harder to find. The UN is alarmed about the 50 per cent shortfall in funding for Afghanistan’s food operations, saying seven million Afghans will go hungry this year.
Ironically, the crisis is being made worse by the otherwise laudable rush into biofuels. In a particularly cruel example of the law of unintended consequences, the diversion of such crops as corn, cassava, canola and sugar to make ethanol is sending their prices through the roof. “Global maize prices rose about 73 per cent in the six months after June 2010,” reports the World Bank’s Agriculture and Rural Development Team.
Forty per cent of the U.S. corn crop now goes into ethanol. (The figure is much lower in Canada: the federal government has deemed our fuels should be made up of 5 per cent ethanol.) China imports almost all of Thailand’s cassava root crop — a staple food in much of Africa — and turns it into fuel.
Using food to make fuel is a positive step as the world attempts to wean itself off oil. But when it begins to impact the food chain it becomes worrisome. “Supply of food must match world needs,” says Olivier De Schutter, the UN’s special rapporteur on the right to food. He recommends that rich countries develop strategies to support ecological agriculture in less developed states.
This is not a new problem. In 2008, when food prices spiked even higher, leaders of the G20 countries pledged $22 billion over three years to help poor countries increase food production. Predictably, when the crisis eased they lost their focus. The World Bank fund set up to administer this money has received only $400 million so far.
Developed countries need to heed the experts who warn that targets for biofuel must now be balanced against demand for basic foodstuffs. And the G20, Canada among them, should pony up the money they promised three years ago. With the world’s population predicted to top 9 billion by 2050, money spent now to ensure food security down the road will be an excellent investment.
From: http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/article/978826--soaring-food-prices-the-world-s-poor-grow-hungrier
Soaring food prices: The world’s poor grow hungrier
April 24, 2011
More than 935 million people around the world don’t have enough to eat — and the number grows every day. The World Bank says food prices have soared 36 per cent over the past year. The United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization reports that its index of world food prices is the highest since it began keeping records 21 years ago. The world’s poor are hungry, and quickly growing hungrier.Some of the consequences are clear. Unrest in some of the countries of the “Arab Awakening,” notably Egypt, has been fuelled by quickly rising food prices. There have been food riots in Bangladesh where nutritious palm oil — a major ingredient for biofuel — is harder to find. The UN is alarmed about the 50 per cent shortfall in funding for Afghanistan’s food operations, saying seven million Afghans will go hungry this year.
Ironically, the crisis is being made worse by the otherwise laudable rush into biofuels. In a particularly cruel example of the law of unintended consequences, the diversion of such crops as corn, cassava, canola and sugar to make ethanol is sending their prices through the roof. “Global maize prices rose about 73 per cent in the six months after June 2010,” reports the World Bank’s Agriculture and Rural Development Team.
Forty per cent of the U.S. corn crop now goes into ethanol. (The figure is much lower in Canada: the federal government has deemed our fuels should be made up of 5 per cent ethanol.) China imports almost all of Thailand’s cassava root crop — a staple food in much of Africa — and turns it into fuel.
Using food to make fuel is a positive step as the world attempts to wean itself off oil. But when it begins to impact the food chain it becomes worrisome. “Supply of food must match world needs,” says Olivier De Schutter, the UN’s special rapporteur on the right to food. He recommends that rich countries develop strategies to support ecological agriculture in less developed states.
This is not a new problem. In 2008, when food prices spiked even higher, leaders of the G20 countries pledged $22 billion over three years to help poor countries increase food production. Predictably, when the crisis eased they lost their focus. The World Bank fund set up to administer this money has received only $400 million so far.
Developed countries need to heed the experts who warn that targets for biofuel must now be balanced against demand for basic foodstuffs. And the G20, Canada among them, should pony up the money they promised three years ago. With the world’s population predicted to top 9 billion by 2050, money spent now to ensure food security down the road will be an excellent investment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)