Agricultural Ecosystems: Facts and Trends

The World Business Council for Sustainable Development and IUCN have recently released this valuable overview of global agricultural practices and the potential of sustainable practices.

From one section:

As wealth increases so does per capita calorie intake. The demand for a more diverse diet that includes animal protein such as meat and milk products requires more land to produce. What role do consumers play when choosing their diet? Do consumers need to be encouraged to have a vegetarian diet?

Meat consumption in China has more than doubled in the last 20 years and it is projected to double again by 2030.

Consumer concerns about food safety, the origin of produce and environmental impacts are also driving improvements in food quality throughout the global agri-food value chain.

Diet changes in richer countries towards increasing consumption of fruit and vegetables contribute to generating less calories per hectare. For instance China is gradually abandoning field crops – such as cereals – to produce vegetables and fruit; it has now become the world’s largest producer of vegetables and apples.

Producing meat, milk, sugar, oils and vegetables typically requires more water than producing cereals. Average water use also differs greatly between feed-based meat production and grazing systems.

Food production to satisfy a person’s daily dietary needs takes about 3,000 liters of water – a little more than one liter per calorie.

The Report:

Agricultural Ecosystems

Arctic Boundaries and Oil

From Treehugger.com:

As global warming continues to heat our atmosphere and melt Arctic ice, boundary disputes in the region are likely to escalate as the nations bordering the region scramble to claim an estimated 90 billion barrels of oil which is currently inaccessible under the ice. A new map, unveiled today, by the UK’s International Boundaries Research Unit at Durham University, shows us just where the disagreements will be.

For a fully documented, high resolution file:

http://www.dur.ac.uk/resources/ibru/arctic.pdf

Environmental Securities and Risk

I read an interesting critique of the current U.S. economy…the general premise was that a significant amount of American finance has replaced investments in real goods and services with investments in financial derivatives (investments in ‘repackaged money’).

This is a cautionary tale…the more abstract our economy becomes, the more risk our society assumes.

I’ve also read the pros and cons of speculation as ‘indicators’ of where economic sectors are going…and the pros and cons of options and derivative investments to hedge against risk.

As I thought, a light went on about environmental investments. With prudent assessment and valuation, environmental securities have very knowable risk profiles, and the ability to accumulate valuable assets becomes easier than in other securities markets.

I note than there is significant emphasis in the carbon market on environmental registries, and they are important. They need to not only use great care in processing these environmental securities, but go further than merely registering ‘qualified’ credits, etc. In order to reduce risk, we need to connect the security knowably (quantifying both environmental return and risk) to the environmental processes and outcomes that underlie the security.

Is adequate work being done in that area? If it is, environmental markets will surpass other markets because they are the most stable investments.

Globalization

I’ve watched with interest the various conversations, policies, and politics of globalization over the past few years. It is a vast concept…and suffers from great generalizations in the media and the political arena.

I’ve been a bit of a skeptic about much of the trade liberalization…at the same time I’ve read many well-respected economists riding the ‘globalization bandwagon.’ My concerns have been both systematic (how can we really manage the economic systems that arise?) as well as ethical (one person’s ‘good’ can be very different from another person’s ‘good’). I also see globalization often driven by the commercial desire to expand the sale of products and services I consider of little value (KFC, for example).

Today I read an article that discusses ‘globalization withdrawal’ by some of the economist that were the biggest cheerleaders:

http://www.business24-7.ae/articles/2008/7/pages/07132008_0e2fdaac2526432cad20a95916ed4bc4.aspx

It led me to research the author, Dani Rodrik, and find he does a very interesting blog:

http://rodrik.typepad.com/dani_rodriks_weblog/

I’ve always considered my skepticism was merely a lack of knowledge (‘too stupid to see the value’) and a bias toward local thinking. I find it hard to conceive of ‘global’…so how can we plan economies based upon concepts that are infinitely complex?