|
BECAUSE
so much has been written about climate change and the
many other things that imperil the planet—not to mention
that it’s better to listen to or watch the experts and
act accordingly, than do the preaching—this Earth Day
editorial will be short but sweet.
It will
simply take a leaf from biblical teaching about the
Seven Deadly Sins. For Earth Day, we compress the reams
of information and insight about what man has done to
the planet, placing it in the current state of disrepair
and degradation, with our own take on the “Seven deadly
sins against Earth.” Hoping, in turn, that Earth Day
will be a day for taking the first step to reversing the
impact of such sins.
First of
the seven sins is, without question, GREED. A world
created for all has, through the years, become the globe
of the greedy few. That is why the unbridled, mindless
consumption of the rich has created the tragic spectacle
of waste in some countries and deep and massive poverty
and hunger in many others; with that demand all the
while creating such an impact on Earth as to bring it to
the edge where it teeters today—sleepless over climate
change.
The
second sin is the flipside of greed, APATHY. While the
greedy ones consume and exploit mindlessly, those who
should know better because they understand what’s going
on and what the impact of this would be simply sat on
the fence—for their own reasons—while Earth withered.
And, of
course, MYOPIA. Close to home is the best example:
today’s rice crisis, as stated in an earlier editorial
in this paper, did not happen overnight, even though the
triggers that caused global rice-price spikes seemed to
suddenly intrude into our consciousness. The leaders and
planners and experts of this country simply ignored all
the warnings about neglecting farm development and
sustainable agriculture. Some said it was a lot cheaper
to import rice, anyway, rejecting warnings that the day
would come—such as today—when the national interest of
the exporters would cause them to restrict sales to us.
Caring
for the farms—and the environment, in general—requires
physical stamina, but SLOTH is a pervasive sin. It is so
much easier to program young people to dream of work in
the glittery cities here and abroad than to inculcate in
them a respect for the environment—and the willingness
to physically exert effort for such.
If
there’s something as worse as the preceding sin, it is
INTELLECTUAL SLOTH. Until Al Gore came along and gave
the world a more animated view of the real perils to the
planet, the “inconvenient truth” was just that:
inconvenient. Why bother to read about, inquire, learn
more of what’s happening to the planet when the experts
are there, anyway?
Climate-change issues best reflect the HYPOCRISY with
which world and national leaders have shafted the honest
brokers in the environmental debate for decades. Think
Kyoto Protocol and the world’s lone superpower ignoring
it until Katrina and the “extreme weather” series
started to knock both progressive and backward countries
alike. The oil companies, that for years have
systematically buried research about the impact of
fossil fuels, were among the first to hijack “green
energy” from the activists they derided for so long.
And, of course, there are the multilateral agencies
funding polluting technology while preaching
environmental care on the other side of the mouth.
Finally,
FAITHLESSNESS. To the question whether the tipping point
had, in fact, already been reached, Gore once said it
hasn’t, and won’t be reached if people only mustered
enough hope in themselves and each other to do the right
thing.
We’ve
heard the worst about climate change and a myriad other
inconvenient truths about the planet. Reversing them
might begin with rejecting, like some affirmation of
faith, the seven deadly sins.
The worsening food crisis
The
world’s most dangerous conflicts stem from religion and
ideology—tragic proof that man does not live by bread
alone. But when bread is hard to get, that, too, causes
unrest.
And
lately, it has been very expensive; indeed, the World
Bank estimates that global food prices have risen 83
percent in the last three years. Hence, the food riots
in Haiti, Egypt and Ethiopia and the use of troops in
Pakistan and Thailand to protect crops and storage
centers.
Many
countries are banning or limiting food exports. World
Bank president Robert Zoellick says 33 countries are at
risk of food-related upheaval. Famine may revisit
North Korea,
parts of Africa or, disastrously for US foreign policy,
Afghanistan.
To many,
the villain is biofuels. US and European ethanol
programs, intended as an antidote to climate change and
an alternative to Opec oil, stand accused of snatching
food from the world’s hungry. According to India’s
finance minister, ethanol is “a crime against humanity.”
The more corn becomes ethanol, the less will be
available as food for people and livestock. In the US
farm belt, heavy ethanol subsidies like tax break of 51
cents a gallon encourage the shift. These subsidies were
already questionable, in economic terms, before the
commodity crunch.
But
ethanol’s impact should not be overstated. The
International Food Policy Research Institute, which is
critical of ethanol, pins about 25 percent to 33 percent
of the recent price rise on biofuels; the UN Food and
Agriculture Organization guesses about 10 percent to 15
percent.
Most of
the crisis is rooted in three other factors: drought in
grain-exporting Australia; the surging price of crude
oil, which raises food prices through the costs of
shipping and petrochemical fertilizer; and booming
demand for food in China, India and other newly
prosperous areas of the developing world. These areas
consume not only more staples, such as rice and wheat,
but also more meat from animals fed on grain.
This
trend is here to stay—and, unlike Australian drought or
oil inflation, no one should want it to go away. Lifting
hundreds of millions of Asians out of poverty is a
historic achievement.
To cope
with the current situation, the United States must
contribute its share to help the UN World Food Program
fill a $500-million gap in its budget. Congress should
change
US
law to let US aid buy food in developing countries
themselves, which could boost local producers.
The US
and multilateral institutions must also support greater
investment in farming in the developing world, including
funding for research into improved crop yields, which
has been in steady decline over the last 25 years.
Today’s
crisis could be tomorrow’s opportunity. If the era of
cheap food is over, higher prices might stimulate local
agricultural production in Africa and other places that
now depend on imports. This will be likelier if the
United States and Europe dismantle the wasteful crop
subsidies and trade barriers that fatten their farmers’
bank accounts—but distort international markets at the
expense of the poor. (The Washington Post editorial) |
