Dan was arguing that a rise in US biofuel production would lead to an increased demand for cheap food, Africa would provide cheap food, this production would lead to an infrastructure renewal in Africa.
I argued that US biofuel production would lead to higher food prices. Higher food prices would lead to increased hunger for the poor. An increase in infrastructure would only benefit the wealthy landowners, forgoing the needed infrastructure for rural communities and downtrodden urban masses. Essentially, a road from the port to the farm, forgoing benefits to anyone besides the landowner. The increased demand would lead to increased benefit for corrupt land owners, perhaps even causing evictions of the poor. An overall increase in food prices would ultimately hurt the peasant farmers of Africa.
http://biopact.com/2007/04/corn-ethanol-could-hurt-poors-food.html "C. Ford Runge and Benjamin Senauer, writing in the May/June issue of Foreign Affairs magazine, warn that the rise in prices will likely hurt the world's poor."
"Resorting to [corn based] biofuels is likely to exacerbate world hunger," they write in Foreign Affairs."
"United Nation's Food and Agriculture Organisation says, let the poor themselves produce biofuels..."
"Resorting to [corn based] biofuels is likely to exacerbate world hunger," they write in Foreign Affairs."
"United Nation's Food and Agriculture Organisation says, let the poor themselves produce biofuels..."
But, unfortunately letting the poor produce biofuels also has its share of problems.
"Recent reports have warned of rising food prices and rainforest destruction from increased biofuel production. "
"EU Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas said it would be better to miss the target than achieve it by harming the poor or damaging the environment. "
"some biofuels barely cut emissions at all - and others can lead to rainforest destruction, drive up food prices, or prompt rich firms to drive poor people off their land "
3 comments:
"An increase in infrastructure would only benefit the wealthy landowners, forgoing the needed infrastructure for rural communities and downtrodden urban masses."
Trivially untrue. An increase in infrastructure assists all those who use the infrastructure.
That's not trivially untrue. All those who use the infrastucture - the wealthy landowners would be the benefiters of the infrastructure. Their government would shift it's attention and energy to the wealthy owners at the expense of the the masses. You should do some cursory reasarch of colonial african infrastructure developments.
Do you still defend the notion that hunger would decrease and that even poor land holders would profit rather than being forced off their lands?
Post a Comment