Record prices of many types of food are pushing millions of people into starvation and contributing to the instability in countries such as Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt and Yemen. This is what the president of the World Bank, Robert Zoellick, said
Record prices of many types of food are pushing millions of people into starvation and contributing to the instability in countries such as Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt and Yemen. This is what the president of the World Bank, Robert Zoellick, said.
In January, food prices reached a 20-year high since the UN began tracking food costs. The peak in prices has pushed 44 million people into extreme poverty since June, Zollik says at the meeting of finance ministers of the twenty developed countries that took place this weekend in Paris.
"These are the poor who today face pressure to feed themselves and their family members - when more than half of the income of poor families is allocated to basic food." said. "Food prices are now at dangerous levels."
The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that the cost of food - as expressed in the food price index - increased by 3.4% in January compared to December 2010, and by almost 30% from the prices of about a year ago.
Extreme weather events and in particular the La Niña phenomenon, the severity of which increased due to global warming, including the fires in the summer of 2010 in Russia and the floods in Pakistan and Australia contributed to limiting the supply of food and increasing prices. Even before the dramatic increase in food prices, about 925 million people lived in malnutrition according to UN data. The increase in food prices can also increase the risk of political instability. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, a 30% increase in the price of controlled foodstuffs since September in Mozambique caused social unrest, which put enough pressure on the government to increase subsidies.
Zollik explained to the G-20 finance ministers that this year the high food prices served as a catalyst for social tensions in Algeria, Egypt, Tunisia and Yemen.
The food price index reflects monthly changes in the global prices of five types of products including meat, milk, grains, oils and fats, as well as sugar.
The sharpest increase was registered in cereals, sugar and oils. Within three months, sugar prices increased by 20% and oil prices increased by 22%. In January, grain prices jumped by 73% compared to June 2010.
A report published recently by the United Nations indicates that the floods in Sri Lanka destroyed more than 30% of the country's rice crop, and above-average rainfall in the southern African continent caused food insecurity there as well.
Last week, the organization issued a warning that an extremely dry winter in the plains of northern China, the country's wheat belt, may endanger wheat production.
However, the increase in prices was not uniform, in several places in Africa, thanks to successful crops, food prices remained stable. Rice prices also help by not following the upward trend. Abdolreza al-Bassin, a senior economist at the FAO, said that rice prices remained below the average level of 2010 and about 50% below the levels of 2007 and 2008, which provides some security at least in countries where rice is an important food, such as Asia.
The reason for the current price increases - as mentioned the bad weather - are different from those of the previous record in food prices recorded in 2008. Then the high fuel prices - about 150 dollars per barrel, caused an increase in food transport rates. The increase in fuel prices caused manufacturers to consider using bio-fuel as an alternative to fuels, and this caused a further increase in food prices. Export restrictions imposed by several governments have also caused food shortages and the current price increase, the UN says.
- An article on the subject by Aviv Lavi in NRG, in which he quotes Paul Krugman who links the weather to global warming
- For information about the increase in food prices, visit the website of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FAO
- Link to the source of the image under the CC license
41 תגובות
Instead of arguing endlessly. I hope someone thinks in the direction of research and development of completely new solutions to the food problem... There is an urgent need for a new type of food that does not spoil or poison and does not need to be packaged in non-biodegradable plastic...
On March 16, 2011, Professor Giora Shabib was hosted on the Galileo website.
He did this following the article he published in Galileo in which he described the theory of his son - Nir Shabiv, and explained why it is so successful.
Professor Giora Shabib is a world-renowned physicist, but that's it - he's a physicist and not a climate scientist.
I contacted Professor Pinchas Alpert from Tel Aviv University and asked him to join the discussion on the Galileo website.
He said it would be difficult to do so for technical reasons but gave me and the Galileo system a list of questions to present to Professor Giora Shabib.
The editor of the site did raise the questions and Gyura Shabiv tried to answer some of them.
The truth is that it was quite embarrassing because one of the questions describes findings that completely (but completely!) disprove the theory and Professor Shabib did not answer it until this writing.
Here is a link to that section of the discussion:
http://forums.ifeel.co.il/forum_posts.asp?TID=197629
The solution, in my opinion, is to reduce the birth rate worldwide. Yes, like in China. Present says :
1. Government campaigns to reduce the birth rate
2. Not providing financial help beyond the second child
It is true that the highest birth rate is in the third world, but even in the western world where the per capita consumption of resources (energy, food) is much higher, it is very important to reduce the birth rate.
Green energy, smart agriculture are essential and important things. However, the rate of population growth in the world is such that the savings and benefits are negligible compared to the rate of population growth and the increase in the standard of living.
Joseph:
I have already explained how I know what most scientists think about the matter.
Re-read response 21.
I don't know what made you use the phrase "scientists are more serious than you" when I said in advance that my approach to the subject (just like yours) is not scientific. Did you really think that attempts at personal harm would work?
Yossi, there is no peer review in the books and you can write whatever you want. I assume that the number of believers that the end of the world will come in 2012 is greater than those who know that nothing will happen, and yet, I try to explain in a series of articles on the subject that nothing will happen, because there is simply no scientific basis for any of their claims. So are the global warming deniers. All their arguments are based on anecdotes and CHERRY PICKING - a collection of random data that may point in your direction especially if they find it out of context.
And all you and your friends who are increasing by the moment (probably as many different IPs as you can write from) want is to try to exhaust us who give up. Well, we do not belong to the Broadcasting Authority or the Council of the Second Authority. We have no obligation to balance truth with falsehood. As a scientific website we have the responsibility to bring the accepted opinion in science. Everything else is at most a curiosity and there are enough sites for that as well.
Yes? How exactly do you know that "enough experts have expressed their opinion"? How do you know who is a real expert and who is not?
How do you even know there is such a thing, "experts", in climate science?
After all, tree rings are not a rare thing. Everywhere they are different.
If you had bothered to read the book, you would have seen that it is first class scientific research and criticism, completely legitimate reviews, with nothing to do with hallucinations and conspiracies. These reviews were published as articles in respected magazines on climate issues in the US according to all scientific criteria, and only ignoramuses like you insist on canceling them under the pretext of "there are enough experts and they have expressed their opinion".
If you have courage, you are welcome to look at the following link:
http://scholar.google.co.il/scholar?hl=iw&q=mckitrick+mcintyre&as_ylo=&as_vis=0
You will see there at the top of the page two articles that have been widely cited in the scientific literature (142 citations and 117 citations respectively. And this is probably only by supporters, since the opponents completely ignore their existence)
Here it is, first article:
http://multi-science.metapress.com/index/R27321306377T46N.pdf
And a second article:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2004GL021750.shtml
Much more serious scientists and experts than you, like Hans von Strouch:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_von_Storch
These claims are taken seriously from a scientific point of view. Von-Stroch *still* believes in global warming, but nevertheless he is a serious scientist and an expert and he does not dismiss them casually on the grounds that "the experts have decided".
In fact, there was no decision on the issue since no convincing evidence was presented on which to rely. What was shown were ugly attempts by the supporters of warming, and the reference here is to the most central people there in the theory like Mann, to bias publications and such things that try to express scientific criticism on the matter. For example, if in a certain magazine they wanted to reject publication of an article supporting some point, on the grounds that the article was methodologically weak (based on a critique by McIntyre and McTrick), these guys used their influence to change the editor of the article and get it published, and so on and so forth.
If you do a little research on the subject, you will see that all your sense of security has nothing to base it on. And again, I highly recommend this book. The apparent global warming is really a very important topic and in my opinion it is worth dedicating a few days to study it, or alternatively to completely avoid expressing an opinion on the subject.
Joseph:
You're new here, probably, so I'll repeat for you things I've already said.
There are enough fields in which I am an expert and climate science is not one of them.
More than that - I have no intention of becoming an expert in the near term.
Therefore - unlike you and Tamir - I do not pretend to be an expert - neither in climate science nor in economics.
There are enough real experts in the field and they have expressed their opinion.
I have no choice, in my situation (which is the same as yours except for the false pretenses) but to rely on the opinion of the experts.
That is why there is no point in you trying to have a substantive debate with me on the subject - not only because you are not an expert enough to have such a debate, but because I am also not an expert enough and therefore I will not be tempted to participate in it.
All I can do in matters in which I am not an expert is to vote for the opinion of the experts and accept the opinion of the majority.
If you prefer to drive otherwise you are not acting logically.
By the way, I haven't read the chapter on Climate-Gate itself, the icing on the cake, so I didn't refer to it, I only read the history of the scientific debate on the matter.
I'll give you an executive summary after I finish reading it this weekend.
And here is a link to the book, on Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/Hockey-Stick-Illusion-Climategate-Independent/dp/1906768358
Good luck to you and all the other believers in their rituals 🙂
You use the methods of the Hammists ("I will not treat people like you with patience"), known methods, instead of answering the question.
Since you don't know, I will answer for you, in your place, what is the importance of this graph. The debate is whether there was a warm period in the Middle Ages or whether there was no such period. That is, a period when the temperature was higher than today (and more than half a degree).
If there was indeed such a period, there are many meanings to it:
A. It is much less likely that warming is man-made. It is still possible to think so, but if there are such fluctuations even in the last 1000 years, there is no reason to just assume it.
B. Global warming is not the end of the world. If in the Middle Ages they got along with it, we will probably get along too and not get washed away (the coastlines in the Middle Ages were not fundamentally different from those of today).
third. The argument about positive feedback is probably not true, since it is a fact that this warming did not slide into some catastrophe.
It is clear from your words that you are not aware of this matter at all, because otherwise you would have answered the matter, that the dispute is about the existence of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and the Little Ice Age that followed a little later. This is the most important debate in the matter. I highly recommend you to read books, as I said. I just finished reading the book "The Hockey Stick Illusion" by AW MONTFORD, a fascinating and enlightening book, written by a journalist with a master's degree in chemistry, who nevertheless understands something about science (which is much more than you personally have in this field).
I specially ordered it from Amazon and read it to understand the facts. Unlike you, I don't form an opinion just like that without checking the issue.
The only importance of climategate is that people like you need to be treated with patience, they are tired of the conspiracy theories and denials so they treated these people with impatience, there was nothing malicious here, and there was no proof that the deniers were right.
And by the way, the argument about positive feedback is clear to anyone who deals with the subject for more than a second and a half, only that the negative feedbacks are probably much stronger than the positive feedback, otherwise the earth would heat up into a flame or melt into a snowball every time the climate would change a little. Nir Shabiv also knows something about positive feedback.
Another point, there has been a British scientist for years who has been giving accurate predictions about the weather using sunspot predictions, compared to England's meteorological weather service which is completely wrong in this prediction every time. So you might think it's not the main thing, but apparently it turns out to be much, much more significant than you think.
Factually, the question is not who succeeds in predicting warming, but whose predictions come true. And in this test, all Hammists fail miserably.
Abby, with all due respect, I don't think you've read too much material on the subject.
Because if so, I would ask you, do you know what the main argument against the hockey stick is and why it is so important?
I would ask you, do you even know what the main claim of the deniers in this matter of warming, and their strongest case?
I would ask you, do you even know the importance of climategate?
Joseph. With all due respect to Nir Shabiv, he is an expert in the field of astrophysics, but in the case of global warming, the phenomenon does not arise only from astrophysical sources (mainly the sun) but also from the activity inside the earth, and despite the temptation, they must not be treated as negligible, even if they apparently have an effect of one or two degrees here or there Because a degree or two here or there causes a huge difference in many areas such as the loss of biological diversity, the rise of the sea level, the change of the currents and more. There is also the issue of positive feedback - where a small change can snowball into a huge change.
And by the way, regarding the World Bank and Ben Bernanke and Paul Krugman, they have the same credibility problem as the predictions about global warming.
What is the problem? The problem is that they do not hit on anything in their predictions. The "Fed" did not predict any serious crisis in the last 20 years and failed to do anything productive. Exactly the same with all the computer models of the Hammists.
Models cannot replace reality, Michael, even if you really want to.
A person who is considered by me to understand economics is one who has foreseen and deeply understood the recent crises, for example Peter Schiff, and many other Austrian economists. Who doesn't count, of course, is the idiot Paul Krugman. The fact that there is a "Nobel Prize" for economics that is distributed by some Swedish bankers should not confuse anyone regarding the internal logic of what he says (there is none. He is in favor of idol economics. Like idol medicine, only in economics)
Michael, you certainly haven't read anything about the claims against the hockey-stick. There are several recommended books on the subject, I suggest you read one of them, carefully, and decide if this is indeed a serious matter.
I personally know Professor Nir Shabiv from the Hebrew University, a very smart person, who holds the opinion of the skeptics. I don't know a person of similar stature, in Jerusalem, who holds the opposite opinion.
Your claim and others like you is that everyone agrees on this, without really referring to the facts themselves, but simply that even a year or two ago and since then you have always claimed that everyone agrees that there is Man Made Global Warming.
By the way, Tamir and Fadiha, today it's called Mann Made Global Warming, long live the small difference 🙂
tall:
The only thing that can destroy public trust in science is the smears you spread here.
Fortunately, most of the readers have already stood up for you and do not take your words seriously.
D:
is funny. As usual there is no one who knows me like you. I love petroleum, bathe with petroleum every morning, drink petroleum every afternoon. But there is a problem, it doesn't really fit the way I adopt new technologies (when they really work, yes?)
Are you bringing propaganda?
If I had time to dig like you, I would have already found several articles on the subject. In the meantime, I suggest that you update yourself on a daily basis about the behavior of your "experts" on the websites of McEntire and Watts and others. Any connection between science and logic is strictly coincidental, a close connection between corruption, theft of public funds and religious hypocrisy, you will find endless green elk.
There are no "scientists" today who support the delusional idea that they are not politicians and that none of their words can be trusted.
The problem is that you still don't understand how you are destroying public trust in the idea of science and logic. How do you want them to vote for your party if you support such a blatant lie? And why won't the public listen to the rabbis or others when you are not trustworthy?
Even if you believe, at least emphasize the doubts, give yourself a ladder to get down from the tree, after all, no bastard was born who can stop time, the time of your predictions is already here, you remember all the unfulfilled predictions, it's not like it used to be, everything is documented. And there are niggas who constantly raise the predictions from the ob....presenting you in a "light" not ayyyy (I'm also playing with words a bit).... It seems as if you are determined to kill yourself for your "truth"... Did someone say butcher here? Smart, try to learn from the experience of others...
tall:
Regarding your statement about the opinion of most scientists, I wonder what they are based on.
My words about the opinion of most scientists are based on this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
Was it just a lie or do you have something to believe in your claim?
You try to make any news on any topic - if it mentions warming in one word - part of your war against logic and in this war you allow yourself to belittle - without being able to give yourself any credit - all the experts in all fields.
This is not the behavior of a troll and since you are a troll about oil I think the most suitable title for you is a troll
Embarrassment
Within the closed garden of those who pretend to the principles of science, anyone who brings difficult questions to the answer - is blocked.
You have long tried to bring here the fundamental contradictions in the AGW theory, but like good people imbued with faith, it is not possible to introduce even a small doubt let alone a big doubt. The green religion turns out to be no less powerful than the other official religions.
The best answer you will get is that most "scientists" believe in AGW (as if science is waiting for democratic decisions, and the claim that most scientists believe in this nonsense is also incorrect).
Embarrassment:
You are confusing the brain and there is no reason to respond to your words with factual content because from the beginning you have proven that you do not refer to such content.
You know more about the climate than the climate scientists and the economy more than the economists.
In serious discussions (with serious people) there is no lack of content in my comments and you are welcome to read a sample of comments on my comments and continue to rant:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/chimps-are-smarter-then-human-2608093/#comment-244104
https://www.hayadan.org.il/the-planet-that-shouldnt-exist-0209097/#comment-243952
https://www.hayadan.org.il/milky-way-and-byond-0406092/#comment-223402
https://www.hayadan.org.il/evolution-sciam-0004093/#comment-210035
https://www.hayadan.org.il/is-god-a-mthematician-1512095/#comment-257252
https://www.hayadan.org.il/glast-in-orbit-1306088/#comment-59888
https://www.hayadan.org.il/underground-search-returns-uncertain-results-2212096/#comment-257868
https://www.hayadan.org.il/evolution-continues-2611098/#comment-256286
https://www.hayadan.org.il/do-skeleton-filaments-give-structure-to-the-universe-1011094/#comment-254675
https://www.hayadan.org.il/octopuses-and-sepia-camouflage-in-color-blineded-1311082/#comment-138786
https://www.hayadan.org.il/do-skeleton-filaments-give-structure-to-the-universe-1011094/#comment-254694
https://www.hayadan.org.il/evolution-continues-2611098/#comment-256312
https://www.hayadan.org.il/%d7%9e%d7%94-%d7%92%d7%95%d7%93%d7%9c%d7%95-%d7%a9%d7%9c-%d7%94%d7%99%d7%a7%d7%95%d7%9d/#comment-259231
https://www.hayadan.org.il/a-prototype-detector-for-dark-matter-in-the-milky-way-2909094/#comment-251428
https://www.hayadan.org.il/%d7%9e%d7%94-%d7%92%d7%95%d7%93%d7%9c%d7%95-%d7%a9%d7%9c-%d7%94%d7%99%d7%a7%d7%95%d7%9d/#comment-259244
https://www.hayadan.org.il/haity-a-story-that-was-known-from-the-begining-1801102/#comment-259675
https://www.hayadan.org.il/evolution-continues-2611098/#comment-255992
https://www.hayadan.org.il/does-et-look-like-us-2301101/#comment-260371
https://www.hayadan.org.il/big-full-moon-2901101/#comment-260826
https://www.hayadan.org.il/weakness-of-the-weak-force-0203103/#comment-262936
https://www.hayadan.org.il/study-validates-general-relativity-on-cosmic-scale-existence-of-dark-matter-2504105/#comment-267764
https://www.hayadan.org.il/huldai-on-basic-common-studies-0405101/#comment-268178
https://www.hayadan.org.il/to-mars-in-39-days-3004103/#comment-268610
https://www.hayadan.org.il/to-mars-in-39-days-3004103/#comment-268623
https://www.hayadan.org.il/another-solar-system-like-our-own-2708102/#comment-276142
https://www.hayadan.org.il/believers-estimates-of-gods-beliefs-are-more-egocentric-0612099/#comment-278956
https://www.hayadan.org.il/yet-another-word-on-altruism-1311103/#comment-280080
https://www.hayadan.org.il/four-in-10-americans-believe-in-strict-creationism-2312101/#comment-282862
https://www.hayadan.org.il/connected-vessels-0801113/#comment-284137
https://www.hayadan.org.il/lizard-fast-evolution-230408/#comment-46843
https://www.hayadan.org.il/toward-infinity-0703081/#comment-41072
https://www.hayadan.org.il/lizard-fast-evolution-230408/#comment-47675
https://www.hayadan.org.il/evolution-sciam-0004093/#comment-210344
Say Rothschild, except for teasing here commenters who answer the question
Are you also able to give a response with some content?
tall:
Every sentence is a joke
Avi. You are welcome to disconnect from modern life and go find yourself some "natural" and "green" jungle to live in.
As long as you don't do that, you have no right to categorically define an industry as "destroying KA". You (and everyone else) is the driver of the industry.
Mineral mining is an integral part of modern life. Every object you hold comes from energy and minerals. Anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional.
Alas for the citizen, the oil company is investing in lobbyists to scare the decision makers and help them avoid taxes. By Shishinsky.
That is, they are both destroying the planet and demanding that we pay for it.
The "greens" are colored in colors that are not theirs.
Their true color is "misanthrope".
You keep coming up with theories without a shred of evidence.
If this is your line.
There is no point in the discussion.
Who pays the taxes? The oil company or the citizen suffocated by the charlatanism of the century?
According to your response, it is clear that the proliferation of anti-green opinions in talkbacks is not accidental but the result of an organized attack by 2-3 people. I wouldn't be surprised if everything was done under Ron's direction. So what is Pediha? The oil giants don't want to pay green taxes and prefer to cook us and themselves just not to take a dime out of their pockets to protect their planet?
Tamir is one hundred percent right
It turns out that Tamir not only understands the climate better than the climate scientists. He also understands economics more than the president of the World Bank.
Did you know that there is a superman around here?
We are talking about low tenths - seventh to tenth
Thanks for the compliments Nathan.
And it is said, he who does not do is not wrong. You'd rather they do nothing and continue to fund the oil magnates who fund delusional anti-green and anti-science campaigns like the one you represent.
And as usual the deniers of global warming take half sentences of scientists who are careful people. Here is the continuation of the sentence
It is certainly a plausible hypothesis that global warming may affect El Niño, since both phenomena involve large changes in the earth's heat balance
"In particular the La Niña phenomenon whose severity has increased due to global warming,"
Hammists like to make up information based on...nothing
But here it seems to me that you are considered a trailblazer
Is it true that a warmer atmosphere is likely
to produce stronger or more frequent El Niños?
We don't know the answer to this question.
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/tao/elnino/faq.html#warming
The main reason for the price increases is the reduction of the cultivation of crops for food in favor of the cultivation of crops for bio and fuel.
Many countries imposed illusory laws for "fuel from renewable sources", and this caused crops to be converted from growing food to growing as if it were oil.
More green hallucinations exploding inside.
Hello my father,
It may also be worth noting that not only bad weather is responsible for the price increase. There are other reasons such as low interest rates of central banks that push prices up and speculators who buy and sell papers and cause radical changes in the prices of real goods. Also, agriculture for the last decades was at the bottom of the priority order of the Western countries and you can see here in Israel how many farmers have remained compared to the past, so the solution to the problem lies not only in the climate problem, do you agree? And if so, how do you think it is possible to help poor countries solve these problems?
post Scriptum.
Enjoy reading your articles even if I don't always agree with them.
At our house (a couple + 4 in the periphery, second decile) food is about a tenth (!) of the monthly expenditure.
With you too?
The price of oil today is a functional price
Most of the countries in the world increase the taxation on oil, therefore its price as a tag remains low.
But in practice consumers pay according to a price of $200 per barrel.
And so the reason remained the same reason as in the previous record.
This is from an article on peakoil.co.il