3 ms·

The bigger long term issues to cheap food are water and loss of arable land from salinity caused by irrigation or saltwater incursion. Even without global warmi

by AJ007 8y ago

The bigger long term issues to cheap food are water and loss of arable land from salinity caused by irrigation or saltwater incursion. Even without global warming, it doesn't look good. In terms of sustainable locally grown food, most places are not going to be eating fresh produce year round.

ggm 8y ago
I guess it depends how big a circle you draw around local. For me, I prefer near, but I'll settle for in-state and ultimately in-country as "local" Buying phillipine bananas and pineapples and thai rice, I want to understand why. We can grow all of these locally and very probably sustainably. If its food-as-aid purchase for regional trade, I can be there. But the assumption "because its cheaper" feels to me wrong. I suspect the reason the shops are selling imported bananas is not because of aid to emerging economies: its because they make more profit. (to be clear, I'm in Australia. I believe that California (for instance) which was a food garden faces pretty intractable water issues. As do the various people who depend on the River Jordan. Australia has water issues too, but its more about equitable distribution than a complete lack of irrigation sources. We're not facing starvation due to lack of locally grown food in the 10-20 year horizon, climate change permitting. If you want to racionate to 'thats the bigger problem' I won't disagree)
- vsef 8y ago
  California's water situation is not a "complete lack of irrigation sources", this is a big misperception. There are big issues around distribution, water rights, allocation for farming vs urban areas, which crops to grow, and conflicts over distribution of water from (wetter) north to (drier) south and use of Colorado river water. But it's not about to "face starvation due to lack of locally grown food", the situation is roughly comparable to Australia.

by AJ007 8y ago

ggm 8y ago

I guess it depends how big a circle you draw around local. For me, I prefer near, but I'll settle for in-state and ultimately in-country as "local" Buying phillipine bananas and pineapples and thai rice, I want to understand why. We can grow all of these locally and very probably sustainably. If its food-as-aid purchase for regional trade, I can be there. But the assumption "because its cheaper" feels to me wrong. I suspect the reason the shops are selling imported bananas is not because of aid to emerging economies: its because they make more profit. (to be clear, I'm in Australia. I believe that California (for instance) which was a food garden faces pretty intractable water issues. As do the various people who depend on the River Jordan. Australia has water issues too, but its more about equitable distribution than a complete lack of irrigation sources. We're not facing starvation due to lack of locally grown food in the 10-20 year horizon, climate change permitting. If you want to racionate to 'thats the bigger problem' I won't disagree)

vsef 8y ago
California's water situation is not a "complete lack of irrigation sources", this is a big misperception. There are big issues around distribution, water rights, allocation for farming vs urban areas, which crops to grow, and conflicts over distribution of water from (wetter) north to (drier) south and use of Colorado river water. But it's not about to "face starvation due to lack of locally grown food", the situation is roughly comparable to Australia.