Climate Change Threatens the World’s Food Supply, United Nations Warns |
The article “Climate change threatens the world’s food supply, United Nations warns” published by the New York Times discusses how soil is being lost at a faster rate than it is formed and proposes solutions for minimizing the impact of a food crisis due to climate change. The author, Christopher Flavelle, first discusses about the possible effects humanity would have to face due to climate change, for example; rise in flow of immigration due to food shortage in certain regions, land degradations due to extreme weather, reduced food’s nutritional value due to higher concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and an increase in food costs due to increased food production costs. As the author argues all “[t]hese changes threaten to exceed the ability of the agriculture industry to adapt”. As Marion Nestle argues, there are two different issues that should be addressed; “feeding the world(the myth) and reforming our agricultural system(the necessity)”(120). The agriculture that we, almost 8 billion people in the world, are relying on is a mirage. We are not feeding ourselves with sustainable nutrient rich food, instead we are being deceived by the high quantity, but not quality of the food produced. This, because of the system that incentivizes factory farms. Thus, we may approach climate change by first thinking about the system that feeds us.
The author suggests possible solutions to climate change, such as; increasing the productivity of land, shifting diets, changing how food is produced and distributed, crop diversification and applying indigenous knowledge in agricultural practices. From his writing we may infer that he is not a techno-optimist, unlike the main powerhouses of the food industry (or as Charles C. Man would address them, wizards, who believe that technology can fix anything, even the “wildness” of nature). Flavelle is more of a Prophet, who believes the industry should go back to what it used to, making it again more sustainable. He argues that if humanity waits for the capitalist ridden firms to cut down greenhouse emissions, society will bear the risk of irreversible loss in the land ecosystem. Without land, the food supply system will collapse. Thus, there is a tradeoff between protecting food supply and cutting greenhouse gas emissions. We infer that the author wants to point out that the real problem doesn’t lie in a few parties, but that it involves everyone and the system itself. The government should create a safer environment for medium size farmers, incentivizing soil-conscious practices. The consumers could shift their diets, decreasing meat consumption, thus pressuring down methane emissions. Eventually, the aggregate effort of all parties might achieve better outcomes than the ones coming from the overestimation of the power of technology. Nevertheless, as rational readers we must be reminded that technology, used for socially favored purposes, has had and could achieve in the future imaginable solutions. Thus, there must be a balance between our inner prophets and wizards.
|