Comment (September 2009)
Back to menu
Bishop's Letter
with Bishop Paul Richardson
A select committee of the House of Commons has predicted that the days of cheap supermarket food are coming to an end. MPs warn that people will need to eat less meat and fewer dairy products. They call for more land to be made available for allotments and a new look at GM crops. Whatever happens, they claim, prices are going to go up in the face of increased world demand and they stress the need for Britain to become more self-sufficient in food. The MPs are not alone in their worries. The influential think-tank Chatham House has advised that a food crisis in Britain is 'not unthinkable'.
We are facing a world-wide problem that could lead, as the Group of Eight warned in April, to riots and instability. Apart from population growth and increased demand from China and the other emerging economies, production of food is being hit by shortages of land, water and rural labour. Ethanol subsidies in the US have led to large areas of land being taken out of food production.
Water shortages are a major worry. The push by such countries as Saudi Arabia and South Korea to buy farming land elsewhere in the world to grow crops for their own consumption is driven by shortages of water at home.
Protectionist measures are going to make the situation worse. Instead of an 'every nation for itself' approach, governments need to co-operate to solve the problem. Export bans, bilateral deals, and land grabs are not the answer. Aid agencies that peddle a picture of small organic farms feeding the world are talking nonsense. In the words of Professor Paul Collier, 'far from being the answer to global poverty, organic self-sufficiency is a luxury lifestyle. It is appropriate for burn-out investment bankers, not for hungry farmers'.
Collier points out that all around the world small-holders are opting out of farming. They want the security of paid employment rather than having to worry about running their own businesses. Large organisations are better suited to drive innovation and secure the increased efficiency and productivity we need to meet the demand for food. In Brazil, Collier claims, large companies have shown how food can be successfully mass produced while in Africa progress is held up by traditional opposition to the sale of land rights.
In Europe a semi-religious opposition to GM foods has led to crop yields falling behind those in the US by 1 to 2 per cent a year. It has been estimated that grain production in Europe could be increased by 15 per cent if the ban were lifted. The European ban on GM products is also discouraging African producers from adopting a technology widely used in other continents. The net result is that Europe is unable to import GM food from Asia or North and South America while poor African nations are discouraged from taking advantage of scientific advance that is producing results elsewhere in the world.
At a recent conference on GM at the Vatican one speaker claimed opposition in Europe is being driven by chemical companies making pesticides who do not want to see the pesticide-free crops that GM could deliver.
Harvest Festival will soon be on our church calendars. It is an opportunity to think about some of the issues raised by a looming food crisis.
Back to top
"Burning coal - a very bad idea!"
by Dr. David Golding
After reading Mr. Cure’s letter in the last edition of Link I was left wondering whether he accepts the reality and desperate seriousness of human-induced climate change. He is clearly unconvinced of the need for the deep and urgent cuts in the emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) for which the scientific community is calling. According to the national academies of science of all the G8 countries, plus those of China, India and Brazil, “The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear… It is vital that all nations... contribute to substantial reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions.” Minor points: first, an increase in efficiency of 33% to 48% would result in 31% less CO2, not 50% less. Second, power plants are not responsible for only “a small sector of UK emissions”; they are our biggest emitters.
Third, the Russians cannot cut off our gas supplies, since we get less than 2% from them. Fourth, new coal plants would not enhance our selfsufficiency, since the coal for Blyth would be imported. Fifth, countries producing uranium fuel are not all “politically unstable” – unless one includes Australia and Canada in that category! Incidentally, “mountains of radioactive waste” is a gross exaggeration.
Coal: Dr Steven Chu, President Obama’s Energy Secretary, describes coal as “my worst nightmare”. NASA’s Professor James Hansen refers to coal plants as “Factories of Death”. The Royal Society, the authoritative voice of British science, said the government should shut any new coal plant that “fails to capture 90% of its CO2 emissions by 2020”.
Both opposition parties say they will only allow new coal plants if they have carbon capture and storage (CCS). [And there’s more of the same, much more!] Why the antagonism? Simply this: even modern coal plants are the most damaging means of generating electricity known to man, producing 70% more CO2 than gas, for example. [And 14,000% more than wind!] The independent, expert Committee on Climate Change (CCC) has set a goal for “almost total decarbonisation of electricity generation by 2030”, but a new generation of these polluting monstrosities would put this out of reach. [However, unlike Mr Cure, we are not dismissive of CCS, which, if it can be developed, would be of incalculable value in the fight against climate change.]
Mr Cure referred to the legacy of nuclear waste. However, the gaseous waste (CO2) produced by coal stations really is mountainous in scale – the Blyth plant alone would produce in the order of a billion tonnes during its lifetime. In the absence of CCS, this waste will be liberated into the atmosphere and “contribute to [global] warming for more than a millennium…” (IPCC 2007). Ponder well the ethics of that ‘legacy’!
Wind: It was depressing to read the 'old chestnut’ about the intermittency of wind power. The point had occurred to us! Denmark produced 17% of its energy from renewables in 2005; if wind power is of little use, would they be increasing the amount to 30% by 2020? Britain is the windiest country in Europe and if it’s still in one area, it’s usually blowing hard in another – exceptions are surprisingly rare. Grid connections with Europe would enhance this smoothing effect, as would hydro, tidal, wave, solar and biomass power, energy storage systems, smart metering, etc. Finally, where necessary, back-up generators can be brought into play - gas is ideal for this purpose.
The real ‘stings’ of Mr Cure’s letter were ‘in the tail’. First, his exclusive concern with our own future is totally unacceptable: “Climate change hits the poorest hardest” (Tearfund). Second, his statement that, “whatever the UK does will have an insignificant effect”, is both morally flawed and rationally absurd. Suppose everybody said that! We cannot solve the problem by ourselves, but we certainly can and must play our part.
Furthermore, as the nation which pioneered the (carbon-based) Industrial Revolution, we have a responsibility to give a lead, as we did in the abolition of the slave trade, for example, and more recently with the Jubilee debt campaign.
The Australian government’s advisor, Professor Ross Garnault, has warned that failure to deal properly with the threat of runaway climate change would have “consequences that would haunt humanity until the end of time.” But it doesn’t have to be like that. Rather, let us rise to this great challenge and, by so doing, deliver unparalleled benefits to countless generations to come. So help us, God!
A more detailed treatment, with sources, etc., in response to John Cure’s letter will be placed on our website (www.mphnortheast.org.uk).
To read John Cure's letter, click here.
Back to top