A.“Now the growth rate is not equivalent to the potential production growth allowed by technology and natural resources, but to the amount dictated by demand. As incomes grow, consumption of staple food (like cereals) tends to stagnate while demand increases for other foods (fruit, vegetables, vegetable oils, meat, dairy products and so on)”
My Reply : The data that I posted is not potential growth rate, because they are growth rates that are already determined. Also, If growth rate is equivalent to the amount dictated by demand, isn't it that demand also dictates production? I believe that there needs to be an improvement and flexibility especially with regards to the use of agricultural indicators . These indicators are lacking somehow especially when it does not reflect other conditions happening in the agricultural sector.
B.food consumption of cereals is actually declining-whist overall food consumption improves in terms of calories, protein and micronutrients-”
My Reply: If there is an improvement in the overall food consumption, then the first beneficiaries of this improvement in the over all food consumption supposedly would be the farmers, indigenous farmers all over the world since they are the agricultural producers of food. However, sadly, this is not the case for all. They are still one of the most marginalized today. Also, if there is an improvement in the over all food consumption, it may not be true for all countries worldwide. Though there is a continual reduction of hunger ,there are still 805 Million people in the world who live in hunger according to WFP’s Website.(https://www.wfp.org/hunger/stats) “Asia is the continent with the most hungry people - two thirds of the total. The percentage in southern Asia has fallen in recent years but in western Asia it has increased slightly.”-WFP Website.
We have also to take into account the fact that while we consume the healthy nutrients from agricultural foods, we also have to take note of the chemicals that were used to produce these foods because we also take in these chemicals into our body. We have to reminded of its health impact on us.
C.“So basing the analysis on cereals alone is bound to be misleading.”
My Reply: I also cited in the paragraph that the data also coincides with FAO’s webinar last March 31, 2015. The data on cereals is an additional one.
D. “In fact, it does not have to be beneficial, on the whole. Most projections show a global (small)negative effect. But that small effect on total agricultural production (which in turn results from rather pessimistic and precautionary assumptions about the future) applies to the output that would be achieved in the future in the absence of climate change, not to the output achieved today. However, beneficial effects arise from several sources; one is the improved agricultural conditions in temperate zones: new lands become cultivable in North America and Eurasia due, and some lands in those regions improve their productivity due to lengthening of growing period; secondly, more CO2 in the atmosphere increases photosynthesis (especially for C3 crops like wheat) and reduces water needs for C4 crops (like maize). Global warming means also more global rainfall, albeit some regions would get drier (e.g. Northern Mexico or Southern Africa), and increased rainfall is in general beneficial for agriculture by increasing the flow of irrigation water and improving conditions for rainfed cultivation especially in semi arid zones.”
My reply: quite confusing statements when at first that “ Climate change has both beneficial and deleterious implications for agriculture.”and the new statement above that climate change does not have to be beneficial.We also have to c0nsider the fact that one of the key drivers of Climate change is C02 emissions. More warming of the planet contributes to the already irreversible decline of west antartic glaciers( http://science.nasa.gov/ science-news/ science -at-nasa/ 2014/12may_noturningback). In addition, when glaciers melt, these would mean a sea level rise . According to the IPCC Climate Change 2014 synthesis report Summary for Policy Makers (https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ assessment- report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf), it is projected that there will be a sea level rise as the warming of the planet continues.
In particular, The glaciers have a role to play in reflecting the sun’s heat back into space . Whenever I see the attached picture , it reminds me of the impact of climate change . The photo below is the sunken cemetery in Camiguin, Philippines. The cross is a land mark wherein below the sea,there is an original spanish cemetery wherein after the eruption of a volcano in 1871, there was a sea level rise.
I doubt it when humans can survive in a very hot planet.
E. “Jonica also writes that "it is predicted that we will be 10 billion by 2050".
“Not quite. The latest UN figure (medium variant) for 2050 is 9.55 billion, a bit above previous projections of 9.2-9.3 bn.”
My Reply: My basis for this is the presentation of Johan Rockstrom , an internationally recognized scientist on global sustainability and Executive Director of Stockholm Resilience Centre. Here is a link to his presentation at CIGI :https://www.cigionline.org/blogs/front- row/time-stop-pushing-boundaries
Replies to the April 8 post of Dr. Hector Malleta
A.“Now the growth rate is not equivalent to the potential production growth allowed by technology and natural resources, but to the amount dictated by demand. As incomes grow, consumption of staple food (like cereals) tends to stagnate while demand increases for other foods (fruit, vegetables, vegetable oils, meat, dairy products and so on)”
My Reply : The data that I posted is not potential growth rate, because they are growth rates that are already determined. Also, If growth rate is equivalent to the amount dictated by demand, isn't it that demand also dictates production? I believe that there needs to be an improvement and flexibility especially with regards to the use of agricultural indicators . These indicators are lacking somehow especially when it does not reflect other conditions happening in the agricultural sector.
B.food consumption of cereals is actually declining-whist overall food consumption improves in terms of calories, protein and micronutrients-”
My Reply: If there is an improvement in the overall food consumption, then the first beneficiaries of this improvement in the over all food consumption supposedly would be the farmers, indigenous farmers all over the world since they are the agricultural producers of food. However, sadly, this is not the case for all. They are still one of the most marginalized today. Also, if there is an improvement in the over all food consumption, it may not be true for all countries worldwide. Though there is a continual reduction of hunger ,there are still 805 Million people in the world who live in hunger according to WFP’s Website.(https://www.wfp.org/hunger/stats) “Asia is the continent with the most hungry people - two thirds of the total. The percentage in southern Asia has fallen in recent years but in western Asia it has increased slightly.”-WFP Website.
We have also to take into account the fact that while we consume the healthy nutrients from agricultural foods, we also have to take note of the chemicals that were used to produce these foods because we also take in these chemicals into our body. We have to reminded of its health impact on us.
C.“So basing the analysis on cereals alone is bound to be misleading.”
My Reply: I also cited in the paragraph that the data also coincides with FAO’s webinar last March 31, 2015. The data on cereals is an additional one.
D. “In fact, it does not have to be beneficial, on the whole. Most projections show a global (small)negative effect. But that small effect on total agricultural production (which in turn results from rather pessimistic and precautionary assumptions about the future) applies to the output that would be achieved in the future in the absence of climate change, not to the output achieved today. However, beneficial effects arise from several sources; one is the improved agricultural conditions in temperate zones: new lands become cultivable in North America and Eurasia due, and some lands in those regions improve their productivity due to lengthening of growing period; secondly, more CO2 in the atmosphere increases photosynthesis (especially for C3 crops like wheat) and reduces water needs for C4 crops (like maize). Global warming means also more global rainfall, albeit some regions would get drier (e.g. Northern Mexico or Southern Africa), and increased rainfall is in general beneficial for agriculture by increasing the flow of irrigation water and improving conditions for rainfed cultivation especially in semi arid zones.”
My reply: quite confusing statements when at first that “ Climate change has both beneficial and deleterious implications for agriculture.”and the new statement above that climate change does not have to be beneficial.We also have to c0nsider the fact that one of the key drivers of Climate change is C02 emissions. More warming of the planet contributes to the already irreversible decline of west antartic glaciers( http://science.nasa.gov/ science-news/ science -at-nasa/ 2014/12may_noturningback). In addition, when glaciers melt, these would mean a sea level rise . According to the IPCC Climate Change 2014 synthesis report Summary for Policy Makers (https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ assessment- report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf), it is projected that there will be a sea level rise as the warming of the planet continues.
In particular, The glaciers have a role to play in reflecting the sun’s heat back into space . Whenever I see the attached picture , it reminds me of the impact of climate change . The photo below is the sunken cemetery in Camiguin, Philippines. The cross is a land mark wherein below the sea,there is an original spanish cemetery wherein after the eruption of a volcano in 1871, there was a sea level rise.
I doubt it when humans can survive in a very hot planet.
E. “Jonica also writes that "it is predicted that we will be 10 billion by 2050".
“Not quite. The latest UN figure (medium variant) for 2050 is 9.55 billion, a bit above previous projections of 9.2-9.3 bn.”
My Reply: My basis for this is the presentation of Johan Rockstrom , an internationally recognized scientist on global sustainability and Executive Director of Stockholm Resilience Centre. Here is a link to his presentation at CIGI :https://www.cigionline.org/blogs/front- row/time-stop-pushing-boundaries