J'ai faim! So? (Part II)

Dear ........................................ not!

Anybody get it??? No? No takers? Well that's embarrassing. Moving it right along then...

Last week I briefly wrote about the not-so-nascent (love that word) biofuel controversy which may or may not be leading to the food crises that are occurring around the world. Numerous countries, Australia included, are going through what can be labeled as a 'food depression' (I made that up myself! One word: smrt) in which there is simply not enough food for the population consequently leading to an inflation of prices, which in turn can result in violence, poverty, and undernourishment. An article from The Independent suggested that the sharp rise in food prices could drag 100 million people below the sustenance line destroying all the development progress that has been made over the last two decades.

Now are biofuels actually causing these crises? Not exclusively. A changing world and the effects of global advancement are to blame...

• shortage of supply -- caused by natural disasters (Eg. flooding in Bangladesh, cold weather in Viet Nam, drought in Oz)
• land which was traditionally used for farming is now being used for cash crops or urban settlements (the growth of the biofuel industry is a factor in this causality)
  
• grain is increasingly being used as animal feed instead of human feed
• rapidly increasing demand from the rising middle-classes in China and India
• high oil/diesel prices play a part when you use petrol-based fertilizers

While the market is shifting to try and meet the new demand caused by population and climate change, it is unlikely that some sort of equilibrium will be met. Solutions range from food aid (VERY very inefficient), to protective barriers and subsidies, to banning said barriers and subsidies to finalizing a world free trade deal.

In the first article I quoted Thomas Malthus who is infamous for his theory that describes at Time X the human population will be checked by a max out of resources. The major criticism to this idea is that undernourishment is not due to lack of food in the world, but lack of distribution. I used to be an advocate of this notion however, after further reading and in light of certain situations I now sit on the fence to whether Mathlus is the champion or the critics are.

Thoughts?
Courtesy of these dudes