Surprising and disturbing news coming out of China indicates that the nation is having difficulty feeding its growing population.

The news is surprising for several reasons. First, China has a one-child rule in place, so the population shouldn’t be rising that fast (or so one would think).

Second, China – at 9,326,410 square kilometers (about 3,601,000 square miles) – is the second largest country in the world, smaller only than Russia, which claims as part of its 16.3 million square kilometers such essentially uninhabitable areas as the Far East and Siberia. In fact, take out these zones and Russia is actually a small country, in keeping with its population.

China, with 19.5 percent of the world’s population (Jan. 19), beats out even India, with 17.3 percent. Still, we’re not hearing of Indian starvation, though the sudden rise in food prices globally – a rise not unlike that of 2008 – has been called a threat to governmental stability.

In 2008, spiking food prices saw riots from Haiti to Bangladesh, as nations already on the brink of destabilization tried to feed populations from a pool of increasingly pricey food or donations from an international community already strapped by a (recently declared) recession, which some called the worst since the Great Depression.

Today, in the first month of 2011, similar increases in the prices of staples like wheat and rice have seen riots in Algeria, export bans in India, and concern in the U.S., where plenty has given way to uncertainty and record numbers on food stamps.

Globally, food prices are up 32 percent, according to a report in Business Week. So why the particular focus on China?

According to Olivier DeSchutter, a Visiting Professor of Law at Columbia and the UN’s Special Rapporteur on Right to Food (autumn 2010; rapporteur being one who is authorized to report), China faces food shortages because of its lifestyle; urbanization, over-reliance on fossil fuels and fertilizer, and land degradation.

The story has been told before. Rushing to catch up to the “big boys” in terms of a production economy, China has literally left part of its population behind, and the price it pays may be the sort of starvation it experienced during the Great Famine (1958 to 1961), when somewhere between 20 and 43 million people died because of unreliable weather patterns (including drought) and an even more unreliable governmental social welfare net.

At least, this is what DeSchutter seems to be suggesting, and those famine years – called the “Three Bitter Years” – is a period in Chinese history still has the power to inspire terror in bureaucrats. As well it should. Chinese politicians were too busy building a manufacturing infrastructure to cater to the needs of the Western world – an initiative some still call the Great Leap Forward – to notice that things in the heartland weren’t going as well as could be expected.

By the time someone picked up on the fact, it was too late for many, and China – overly eager to earn a reputation as a nation able to stand on its own two feet – did not ask for help.

In the 11th year of a new millennium, China again has reason to be concerned. According to De Schutter, about 345 million square kilometers of the nation’s arable land have been degraded by cropping practices, and another 82,000 square kilometers have been withdrawn for urban development, industrial parks and forestry initiatives.

The Chinese, unlike their Indian counterparts, are also getting a feeling for the high life – not surprisingly, just as some Western nations begin to calculate that lifestyle’s cost, in terms of environment. More Chinese are choosing meat over rice, and the demand for eggs has risen by almost a third over 2009. This isn’t even counting all the food exported to developed nations to fatten various corporate bank accounts and pay the workers.

In fact, as Chinese exports rise, and more Chinese abandon the countryside for better paying jobs in cities, that nation begins to look like the United States did in the post-WWII era, when we still could have changed direction, cut back on our demands, saved a lot of worn-out acreage from the bulldozer, and a lot of species from extinction.

Too late for us, now, especially as climate change wreaks havoc on California’s Central Valley, where all our winter produce is grown, and on the Heartland, where all our grain matures.

And, as DeSchutter suggests, it may soon be too late for the Chinese as well. However, they have something most developed nations can only envy; a 40-percent food reserve that includes 550 million tonnes of grain that gets released only when shortages loom or prices begin to fluctuate too wildly.

Thus, while DeSchutter brings a basket of bad news, I suspect the Chinese may weather the storm of recession and climate change better than those of us who think we are ready.

Article by Jeanne Roberts, appearing courtesy Celsias.

Related posts:

• World Bank book with alarming figures for the developing world: “Financing Energy Efficiency: Lessons from Brazil, China, India, and Beyond”
• Pi Mobility – An E-bike Design with Nothing Wrong
• Breakthrough at UN Climate Talks? China Moves on Verification, Binding Commitments
• China Pushes Commitments From Western Nations at Global Climate Talks
• United States: UN Role in Climate Talks Should be Diminished

I often mention the fantastic work done by the American Council On Renewable Energy (ACORE). But where all its recommendations have the world’s best interests at heart, only some of them have a real chance of being immediately implemented.

I see that ACORE is calling for a Global Renewable Energy Standard (G-RES) at COP-16 in Cancun, asking for a resolution on a global Agreement on 25% of energy supplies from renewables by 2025, and suggesting that the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) be designated as the lead agency to support implementation of the agreement.

All I can say is: God speed.

I’ve met ACORE president Michael Eckhart at some of the terrific events in the past years, and I can see that he’s a brilliant and hard-working individual. “We know today that three of the cornerstone paths to climate protection are the adoption of renewable energy, investment in greater energy efficiency, and protection of the rainforests as the Earth’s lungs. It is time to have concerted action on each of those three paths, getting started on what we know will work,” he says.

No question about it. I’d love to see that too. First, however, I think we need to get past the issues that hung us up in Copenhagen a year ago, i.e., that developed nations must not wait for the developing countries to make the first move.

But are we still at an impasse? I guess we’ll have to wait and see what happens in Cancun. To the US delegation, I remind you of this: The world is watching.

Related posts:

• Australian Parliament Adopts 20 Percent Renewables Standard By 2020
• Clean Tech’s 2010 Exit Strategies: Disagreeing With the Financial Times
• Bipartisan Group of Senators Introduce Renewable Electricity Standard
• Arizona Renewable Energy Standard Legal?
• U.S. Biofuel Production Increase – Fact or Wishful Thinking?

Economic growth is such an established mantra in political and economic circles that it can seem almost outlandish to question it. Tim Jackson not only questions it but affirms we can do better without it. His book Prosperity Without Growth: Economics for a Finite Planet, published last year, is based on a report he wrote earlier in the year as Economics Commissioner of the Sustainable Development Commission, the U.K. Government’s independent watchdog.

The prosperity Jackson writes of is our ability to flourish as human beings. It transcends material concern. It has to do with such matters as physical and mental health, access to education, relationships and sense of community, meaningful employment and the ability to participate in the life of society. He argues that in the developed countries we can (and must) have such prosperity without the economic growth paradigm that currently rules our thinking.

Jackson recognises the difficulties of the situation we have landed ourselves with.  On the one hand growth is unsustainable, at least in its current form. The burgeoning consumption of finite resources and the heavy costs being imposed on the environment are accompanied by profound disparities in social well-being.

But on the other hand “de-growth’ is unstable, at least under present conditions. Declining consumer demand leads to rising unemployment, falling competitiveness and a spiral of recession. It adds up to a dilemma, but one which we must face and think through.

Some economists place hope in our being able to decouple economic growth from growth in physical inputs and environmental impacts.  Capitalism’s propensity for efficiency figures strongly in these scenarios. Jackson doesn’t think either the historical evidence or the basic arithmetic of growth can support the decoupling notion.  The deep emission and resource cuts needed can’t be achieved without confronting the structure of market economics.

He takes a closer look at this structure. The engine of growth is driven by the ability of the profit motive to stimulate newer, better or cheaper products and services through a continual process of innovation and ‘creative destruction’. This is matched by expanding consumer demand for these goods. A complex social logic drives this demand. Consumer goods have come to play a symbolic role in our lives.  Somehow, beyond the simple material needs they meet, they can become vehicles for our dreams and aspirations, however much they fail in delivering. The economic structure thus combines with our nature to “lock us firmly into the iron cage of consumerism.”

What we need, claims Jackson, is a new ecological macro-economics.  It will still include a strong requirement for economic stability, but it will add conditions that provide security for people’s livelihoods, ensure distributional equity, impose sustainable levels of resource throughput and protect natural capital. New variables need to be brought into play to complement and affect those already part of economic thinking.

They will reflect the energy and resource dependency of the economy and the limits on carbon. They might also reflect the value of eco-system services or stocks of natural capital. Ecological investment will be important, and will mean revisiting the present concepts of profitability and productivity and harnessing them to longer term social goals. He urges the abandonment of the infatuation with increasing labor productivity in favor of high employment in low-carbon sectors.

We will need to be weaned from our dependence on consumerism, but he provides evidence that a less materialistic society will be a happier one and a more equal society a less anxious one. Greater attention to community and participation in the life of society will reduce the loneliness and unsocial behavior which has undermined the well-being of the modern economy.

He argues that there is a clear case today for an increased role for government.  We have already seen an acceptance of this in relation to the 2008 financial crisis. The principal role of government is to ensure that long-term public goods are not undermined by short-term private interests and to deliver social and environmental goods. This role has been diminished by the need in the growth economy to support the consumerism which keeps the economy afloat.

Jackson is leery of revolution, but he proposes steps through which to build change. They fall under three main categories. First, changing the limits. Here he writes of caps on resources and emission, considers the contraction and convergence model, discusses emissions trading schemes and ecological taxes and emphazises the need for support for ecological transition in developing countries.

The second category of steps for change is fixing the economic model. The ecological macro-economics discussed above will lower expectations for labor and capital productivity and account for the value of natural capital and ecosystem services. Ecological investment in jobs, assets and infrastructure will include retrofitting buildings, advancing renewable energy technologies, redesigning networks such as the electricity grid, building public transport infrastructure, maintaining and protecting ecosystems, developing public spaces.

There will be increasing financial and fiscal prudence, including regulation of financial markets.  A Tobin tax on international currency transfers may be considered. Banks will be required to hold higher asset reserves. National accounts will be revised to be more robust than the present rough and ready GDP.

The third category is changing the social climate. Working time may be reduced. Systemic inequality will be tackled. Better measurements of prosperity will be found. Social capital will be strengthened. The culture of consumerism will be carefully dismantled.

Utopia? No, he says firmly. A financial and ecological necessity.

In a final chapter he faces the question of whether this spells the end of capitalism. Certainly growth would be slowed – labour-intense activities mean slower productivity growth, and ecological investment means a lower and longer return on capital. There would also be a larger role for the public sector in taking some ownership stake in the longer-term less productive investments. But capitalist economies often have elements of public ownership.  There is a wide spectrum of possibilities in a capitalist system.  There’s no need to polarize the debate.

I thought the book was splendid. Jackson’s writing is lucid and well organized. He has a gift for the telling sentence. (It was not altogether surprising to discover that in addition to his academic life he is a professional playwright for BBC radio.) He is cautious and sensible, not pretending that the transition to low growth is a doddle.  But he holds firmly to the conviction that it can be made and that the society which emerges will be better than the one we currently inhabit.

Article by Bryan Walker appearing courtesy Celsias.

Related posts:

• New CleanTechies Bookstore: find books, read reviews & order online
• Book Review: Factor Five
• Desert Year: Robust Economy and Lessons of the Sonoran Agave
• How will Regionalized Global Growth Affect Sustainability Planning?
• Resource Consumption May Triple by 2050, UN Warns

The upcoming climate negotiations in Copenhagen have highlighted an interesting dilemma.  Nations worldwide are trying to shirk their responsibilities around emissions and their economies.

So called “developed” nations like the U.S., U.K., and Australia are having a difficult political time getting industries to swallow the fact that big changes need to happen.  Industry needs to clean up its act.  Of course, then the political dance begins:

• “But what about xyz country?  Are they going to do it too?” Yes, yes, always point the finger somewhere else.  Someone else should be the leader, start things off, too risky for us.
• “Developing countries should do their bit!” Undoubtedly the case, but perhaps those who have been polluting in droves since the start of the industrial revolution should take the first step.
• “But it will RUIN industry!  It will be a calamity!  Jobs destroyed!  Lives ruined!  We simply cannot afford to change!” Unfortunately, the same logic was used at one point to justify slavery, and many other sad practices.  It is a classic technique used to frighten and scare people away from the real issue at hand.  In this case, the cost of climate change will pale all other costs by comparison.  Can we really take that risk?

Of course for “developing” nations like India and China, the “Hey, it’s OUR turn guys!” excuse gets some pretty significant tread.  And it is pretty hard to object to trying to raise the living standard of people, especially those living in abject poverty.  However, by what means they are raised from poverty… that deserves some scrutiny.

What developing nations have in their favor is the presence of technologies, techniques, and abilities that simply did not exist at the beginning of the industrial revolution.  There are many ways to leapfrog past the dirty, polluting industries we need to avoid, and still give people a chance at a better life.  Development this time need not follow the same dirty learning curve.  With some investment and ingenuity, it shouldn’t have to.

A case in point: rather than laying scores of telephone lines, countries including India have improved communication by having people go directly to mobile phones.  In essence, that’s the logic we’re after.

So how do you move both developing and developed countries forward and end this stalemate?

Perhaps give them something to aspire to.  Rather than a two tier, there vs. here approach, why not a third choice?  Why not an “evolved” nation status, a better way?

Criteria could be set around all manner of what it means to be an advanced society: economic, environmental, social, and cultural traits would be looked at holistically.  These criteria might include points for:

• Investment in renewable energy infrastructure (a country like Scotland would win points)
• Advanced public healthcare and preventative care (Sweden would do well)
• Low political corruption (Singapore has done a great job)
• Progress with organic, low-impact agriculture (Cuba is a fantastic case study)
• Attention to general public well-being and progress (Such as in the case of Bhutan’s “Gross National Happiness”)
• Strong banking and financial regulation (New Zealand would do well)

… and the list could go on and on.  The point is that each country would inherently have some points in their favor, and with a chart set on advancement, could have a solid direction to move in.  An “evolved” nation would have reached a minimum threshold of criteria, and a timeline for implementing the rest.  It would be an aspiration to genuine progress and a departure from old mindsets.

The catch of course would be to make sure that these are robust, and that nations stay on track.  It would likely take some external review and oversight by a third party to determine genuine progress.

But of course, if you could say on a worldwide stage that your nation had “evolved” past the many historic problems facing other countries, there would be some strong political interest in supporting these initiatives.  Humans simply like being competitive.

So rather than frame the climate negotiations in the developing/developed nations stalemate, perhaps the time has arrived for a third, more enlightened option—one that actually offers the opportunity for progress, and something for people to aspire to.

Article appearing courtesy of Celsias

Related posts:

• Swedish Entrepreneur Dreams Up Disposable Toilet
• China Pushes Commitments From Western Nations at Global Climate Talks
• Obama Urges Leaders to Find Compromise to Avert Climate Catastrophe
• Carbon Footprint: Climate Treaty Should Target The World’s Rich
• ‘Backyard Recycling’ Will Rise with E-Waste Trade Ban, Study Says