1,954
edits
Crop choices: Difference between revisions
→Economics
| Line 96: | Line 96: | ||
This would require more [[shipping]] as food would be less local. But still, overall carbon emissions would probably be '''lower''', because of all the deforestation prevented (see above). Keep in mind that ''food transport'' is only a small percent of food's environmental footprint. And it could be smaller still if foods are ''processed'' locally and shipped in their more concentrated forms. | This would require more [[shipping]] as food would be less local. But still, overall carbon emissions would probably be '''lower''', because of all the deforestation prevented (see above). Keep in mind that ''food transport'' is only a small percent of food's environmental footprint. And it could be smaller still if foods are ''processed'' locally and shipped in their more concentrated forms. | ||
==Africa== | |||
Of all the continents, Africa currently produces the least amount of [[/per capita|food crop per capita]]. This is probably a significant cause of Africa's high [[hunger]] rates {{p2|(although technically it doesn't have to be)|{{todo}}}}. In the crop-choices scenario imagined, Africa produces 3 times as much food (both in terms of calories and protein). This is achieved by reallocating farmland: less land for grains, more land for sugarcane, chilis, bananas, potatoes, and garlic. | |||
* Interpretation 1: Africa would benefit from growing more of these high-productivity crops instead of grains. Perhaps there's a historical reason for growing grains - maybe European colonialists thought it was a good idea because grains get high yields in Europe. In that sense, if Africa switched to the other (more productive) crops, it would be a form of [[decolonization]]. | |||
* Interpretation 2: Sugarcane gets higher yields only because corporations invest more money & [[fertilizer]] into growing it. First-world countries want sugar, and their spending power makes it happen (highly-valued currency). The same first-world system doesn't care about Africa's grains, because grains can be grown "at home". So in Africa, grains get regarded as a "peasant crop", and the people who grow them are the poorest farmers and can't afford fertilizer. If it weren't for all this, perhaps grains would yield just as many calories as sugarcane. | |||
* Interpretation 3: None of this really matters, because the whole crop-choices scenario is too hypothetical, and involves people eating an unrealistically high amount of chili peppers and garlic. | |||
These interpretations are opposed to each other. The current dataset can't tell us which one (if any) is true. If you have some clues, join the {{talk}}. | |||
==More considerations== | ==More considerations== | ||