Tag Archives: food

October 2024 in Review

Leave a reply

Only half way through November – here is an “October in Review” post.

Most frightening and/or depressing story: When it comes to the #1 climate change impact on ordinary people, it’s the food stupid. (Dear reader, I’m not calling you stupid, and I don’t consider myself stupid, but somehow we individually intelligent humans are all managing to be stupid together.) This is the shit that is probably going to hit the fan first while we are shouting stupid slogans like “drill baby drill” (okay, if you are cheering when you hear a politician shout that you might not be stupid, but you are at least uninformed.)

Most hopeful story: AI, at least in theory, should be able to help us manage physical assets like buildings and infrastructure more efficiently. Humans still need to have some up-front vision of what we would like our infrastructure systems to look like in the long term, but then AI should be able to help us make optimal repair-replace-upgrade-abandon decisions that nudge the system toward the vision over time as individual components wear out.

Most interesting story, that was not particularly frightening or hopeful, or perhaps was a mixture of both: Some explanations proposed for the very high cost of building infrastructure in the U.S. are (1) lack of competition in the construction industry and (2) political fragmentation leading to many relatively small agencies doing many relatively small projects. Some logical solutions then are to encourage the formation of more firms in the U.S., allow foreign firms and foreign workers to compete (hardly consistent with the current political climate!), and consolidate projects into a smaller number of much larger ones where economies of scale can be realized. There is some tension though between scale and competition, because the larger and more complex a project gets, the fewer bidders it will tend to attract who are willing to take the risk.

how to “rebalance your gut microbiome” after Halloween candy

Leave a reply

We kind of know what we’re supposed to eat, but we still don’t do it consistently, right? At least, I’m speaking for myself here. It doesn’t hurt to see it written down in one place:

Fiber-rich foods such as whole grains, nuts, seeds, beans, fruits and vegetables regulate digestion and nourish beneficial gut bacteria.

Polyphenol-rich foods such as dark chocolate, berries, red grapes, green tea and extra virgin olive oil help reduce inflammation and encourage the growth of healthy gut bacteria.

Unsaturated fats such as omega-3 fats, walnuts, chia seeds, flaxseed, avocados and fatty fish such as salmon can also support a healthy microbiome.

Fermented foods such as sauerkraut, kimchi, yogurt, kefir and miso help replenish beneficial bacteria and restore gut balance.

Thinking about the gut microbiome seems like a trendy new reason to eat the things we were supposed to be eating anyway, but if you eat this way you are probably getting pretty good overall nutrition while limiting calories to something reasonable. And without sending massive herds of animals to the slaughterhouse, which is better for the planet not to mention the animals (although the salmon might feel a bit singled out).

coming food and water shortages?

1 Reply

Something called the Global Commission on the Economics of Water says that “half of the world’s food production is at risk of failure within the next 25 years as a rapidly worsening water crisis threatens global agricultural systems”. Even if this group and these numbers turn out to be a bit alarmist, food really is where the climate change shit is likely to meet the fan. There is downward pressure on yields in tropical regions with increasing heat, partially offset on increased yields from longer growing seasons northern regions. Then there is increasing drought in important food-growing and food-consuming regions will be a big issue, and flooding will be an issue in others. This article doesn’t mention sea level rise, but eventually that is going to impact agriculture anywhere near a coastline or dependent on a coastal aquifer.

The poorest people and countries will be directly impacted by any food shortfall first, while the middle classes will feel the pinch at first in the form of higher prices. But longer term I am concerned that food shortages will drive mass migration and anti-immigrant political movements that could get very ugly. We are already seeing some precursors of this in the United States and Europe today. Whether climate change is a key driver today (and it is at least somewhat of a driver for some people aspiring to move from the Middle East to Europe and Central America and North America), it is only going to get worse.

Thank goodness we have had a robust and constructive debate around global food security policy during this year’s U.S. election cycle…oh…right, I just woke up from that dream again.

consumption of farmed fish exceeds consumption of wild fish for the first time

Leave a reply

In 2022, aquaculture supplied a majority of seafood consumed by humans for the first time. But there are many gray areas – fish are hatched in tanks, released to the wild or pens located in natural water bodies, then caught again later. Farmed fish are fed wild-caught fish. And regardless, fish farming generates nutrient loads to natural waters.

I’ve fantasized about a system where earthworms are produced using compost from food scraps and other sustainable sources, then fed to fish and shellfish in tanks, then the nutrient-enriched water is used in fertilizer-free hydroponic agriculture, and finally the water is cycled through a wetland treatment system and used repeatedly. So the only input to this hypothetical system would be garbage (okay, and air and energy), and the outputs would be compost, fish, shellfish, and vegetables. I’m sure there are may practical challenges to this system, but in principle it should work. AI might be able to constantly monitor and make small adjustments to a system like this to keep it running efficiently.

February 2024 in Review

Leave a reply

Most frightening and/or depressing story: The war on terror continues, and the propaganda umbrella has expanded to cover attacks on any group labeled as “Iran-backed”. Fentanyl gets an honorable mention, but affects mostly the poor and miserable whereas the war on terror threatens to immolate us all.

Most hopeful story: The people who are in charge of the USA’s nuclear weapons still believe in the ideals behind the founding of the country, at least more than the rest of us. Okay, this is lean times for hope, but seriously this at least buys us time to figure some stuff out.

Most interesting story, that was not particularly frightening or hopeful, or perhaps was a mixture of both: I am not a great chef by any means, but all hail recipe websites, however pesky they may be, for helping me make edible food.

those darn recipe sites

Leave a reply

This is some seriously dark humor. But ha ha, also so true. You have to scroll forever to get to your recipe, and at least for me the mobile version of any recipe site is infuriating because it constantly crashes. And yet…what is also true is recipe websites have made our world better. Instead of winging a recipe, or relying on one book you happen to have lying around, you can find out the ingredients, measurements, and even watch a video of how to make it well. You can even look at several versions of a dish, then wing it, and it will usually come out pretty well. And if you wing it in the future, it will come out better than if the recipe sites did not exist. So thank you, recipe sites.

October 2023 in Review

Leave a reply

Most frightening and/or depressing story: Israel-Palestine. From the long-term grind of the failure to make peace and respect human rights, to the acute horror causing so much human suffering and death at this moment, to the specter of an Israeli and/or U.S. attack on Iran. It’s frightening and depressing – but of course it is not my feelings that matter here, but all the people who are suffering and going to suffer horribly because of this. The most positive thing I can think of to say is that when the dust settles, possibly years from now, maybe cooler heads will prevail on all sides. Honorable mention for most frightening story is the 2024 U.S. Presidential election starting to get more real – I am sure I and everyone else will have more to say about this in the coming (exactly one as I write this on November 5, 2023) year!

Most hopeful story: Flesh eating bacteria is becoming slightly more common, but seriously you are not that likely to get it. And this really was the most positive statement I could come up with this month!

Most interesting story, that was not particularly frightening or hopeful, or perhaps was a mixture of both: The generally accepted story of the “green revolution“, that humanity saved itself from widespread famine in the face of population growth by learning to dump massive quantities of fossil fuel-derived fertilizer on farm fields, may not be fully true.

what if everything we thought we knew about the green revolution is wrong?

Leave a reply

The story I have always accepted about the green revolution is that the world avoided famine by learning to manufacture and dump enormous quantities of fossil fuel-derived synthetic nitrogen fertilizer on crops. This came at an enormous environmental price, but saved literally billions of people. To the extent I have ever questioned this, I have wondered if there are any good alternatives to this system going forward, given the world’s enormous human population, and whether the system is sustainable (in the dictionary sense of can we continue to feed the world’s population this way even accepting the high environmental price) for the long term.

This article questions the mainstream story of the green revolution. The tag line of this website/blog is “ecosocialism or barbarism”, so I am not saying it is 100% credible, I am just saying I found it thought-provoking and the ideas/claims are worth digging into.

Meanwhile, the government urged Indian farmers to grow nonfood export crops to earn foreign currency. They switched millions of acres from rice to jute production, and by the mid-1960s India was exporting agricultural products.

Borlaug’s miracle seeds were not inherently more productive than many Indian wheat varieties. Rather, they just responded more effectively to high doses of chemical fertilizer. But while India had abundant manure from its cows, it produced almost no chemical fertilizer. It had to start spending heavily to import and subsidize fertilizer.

India did see a wheat boom after 1967, but there is evidence that this expensive new input-intensive approach was not the main cause. Rather, the Indian government established a new policy of paying higher prices for wheat. Unsurprisingly, Indian farmers planted more wheat and less of other crops.

https://climateandcapitalism.com/2023/10/11/how-not-to-feed-a-hungry-planet/

So even if we continue with the current system, will the planet’s biophysical limits push back at some point? Synthetic fertilizer contributes to global warming emissions both through the industrial process required to fix nitrogen gas from the air and from releases from farms (nitrogen dioxide, tractors, cows, livestock, etc. All other things being equal, heat drives down grain yields. And all other things are not equal, because drought, flooding, and salinization are in the mix. Then we have nutrient-laden runoff poisoning the oceans.

On the plus side, we hear there is a demographic transition that could at least reduce the growth rate in the number of new mouths to feed. This is partly due to improving living standards particularly for women and children, but improving living standards also mean people want to eat more meat and processed food and not just bowls of grain. Meat substitutes are coming along (Chicky Nobs anyone?), so there is a lot going on.

Food is where the climate change sh**, er, rubber meets the road.

Chicken Little and Chickie-Nobs

Leave a reply

From CBS News:

Once cells are extracted, GOOD Meat picks the cells most likely to produce healthy, sustainable and tasty meat, the company explained. The cells are immersed in nutrients inside a tank. They grow and divide, creating the cultured chicken, which can be harvested after four to six weeks.

“It’s real, delicious meat with an identical nutritional profile to conventionally raised meat but with less impact on our planet and less risk of contamination,” GOOD Meat said on its website.

GOOD Meat’s chicken is already sold in Singapore.

CBS News

The fabulous science fiction future is here! What a time to be alive!

It was a great concrete dome, concrete-floored.  Chicken Little filled most of it.  She was a gray-brown, rubbery hemisphere some fifteen yards in diameter.  Dozens of pipes ran into her pulsating flesh.  You could see that she was alive.

Herrera said to me: “All day I walk around her.  I see a part growing fast, it looks good and tender, I slice.”  His two-handed blade screamed again.  This time it shaved off an inch-thick Chicken Little steak.

Frederik Pohl, The Space Merchants, 1952

Vat-grown meat showed up in science fiction even before that.

Compare to artificial food from The World Set Free (1914) by H.G. Wells, synthetic food from Unto us a Child is Born (1933) by David H. Keller, syntho-steak from Farmer in the Sky (1950) by Robert Heinlein, vat meat from The End of the Line (1951) by James Schmitz, Chicken Little from The Space Merchants (1952) by Frederik Pohl and CM Kornbluth, carniculture plants (factories) from Four-Day Planet (1961) by H. Beam Piper, butcher plant from Time is the Simplest Thing (1961) by Clifford Simak, pseudoflesh from Whipping Star (1969) by Frank Herbert, vat-grown meat from Neuromancer (1984) by William Gibson.

http://www.technovelgy.com

What they were looking at was a large bulblike object that seemed to be covered with stippled whitish-yellow skin. Out of it came twenty thick fleshy tubes, and at the end of each tube another bulb was growing.

“What the hell is it?” said Jimmy.

“Those are chickens,” said Crake. “Chicken parts. Just the breasts, on this one. They’ve got ones that specialize in drumsticks too, twelve to a growth unit.

“But there aren’t any heads…”

“That’s the head in the middle,” said the woman. “There’s a mouth opening at the top, they dump nutrients in there. No eyes or beak or anything, they don’t need those.”

Margaret Atwood, Oryx and Crake, 2003

I like Margaret Atwood, but I still feel like she lifted that one pretty shamelessly.

IPCC AR6

Leave a reply

AR6 is the synthesis report for the sixth climate change assessment. We kind of know what we need to do, and what we are actually doing is too little and almost too late. That hasn’t changed from the last set of reports. I’ll try to up my graphics game a bit and discuss a couple of the IPCC’s fancy graphics.

Food and flooding. I’ve been thinking these might be the two elevator pitches to convince ordinary people that climate change is coming for all of us. Floods are coming for our houses whether we live in coastal areas impacted by sea level rise or inland areas impacted by intense storm. Everybody eats food. There are more mouths to feed all the time, heat depresses grain yields, and at the same time we are being flooded we have less water from snow, glaciers, and overpumped groundwater to irrigate our crops. Fire is also an issue.

In this (overcomplicated?) graphic, IPCC says that scientists have medium confidence physical water scarcity is already affecting us, medium confidence that crop production is already affecting us, high confidence that inland and coastal flooding are already affecting us, and high confidence that displacement is already resulting. Biodiversity and ecosystems? Forget about it.

Figure SPM.1

You have to quint or zoom in, but the overcomplicated infographic below gives you an idea where and how much heat is expected to depress grain yields. We might be able to grow more in parts of Russia, Africa, and South America, but if we get over 3 degrees C warming the impacts on North America, India and Southeast Asia are concerning.

Figure SPM.3

Finally, the time series graphs below make a very clear case that although emissions might have leveled off, the world is not on a trajectory to make the magnitude of emission cuts needed to limit warming to 2 degrees C or less.

Figure SPM.5