Tag Archives: AMA

Food Security, Peak Oil, Sustainability

What Our Bottom Line Should Be

Richard Ha writes:

I’ve said this before, but look at it again: The energy we use to get energy, minus the energy used to get our food, equals our lifestyle.
How much is left over – after we’ve used our energy to 1) obtain more energy and 2) feed ourselves – determines how we live.

This is the nexus of energy and agriculture.

Our bottom line right now needs to be: What should we do to ensure energy security? What should we do to ensure food security?

The cost of producing food is the cost of petroleum oil plus the technology that utilizes oil more efficiently.

The cost of the energy we use to get new energy is rapidly getting to the point where consumers are resisting paying. The estimated cost of tar sand and shale oil is close to $112/barrel. The current oil price is a little bit below that. Shell Oil just announced that last quarter it lost $4/ barrel from its shale oil operations.

If producers lose money, they will eventually stop producing the expensive new oil. If they stop production, we will keep on using the old cheaper oil until it runs out. Peak Oil will happen not because we run out of oil, but because we can’t afford to buy the new, more expensive oil. And that time is not as far off as we think.

In recent years I have attended five Peak Oil conferences, talked to many experts, and even traveled to Iceland and the Philippines to observe how they leverage petroleum issues.

Using GMOs is one way we can lower agricultural costs through technology. For example, every biotech solution to a disease eliminates the need for chemicals to control the insect spreading the disease. This results in increased saving to the farmer, in terms
of increased production and fewer labor and chemical costs associated with spray control.

And how can we leverage the Hawaiian sun for its energy? GMO corn could do that. (If you are unsure about genetically modified organisms, see my post about the American Medical Association’s stand, and about how one of the founders of the anti-GMO method has completely changed his mind.)

An added benefit of utilizing GMO corn is that this could rejuvenate the hog, cattle and poultry industries. Right now, organic farmers do not have a manure source to make compost, which limits the ability of organic farmers to feed a significant
number of people.

Bill 79 would make future GMOs disallowed on the Big Island, while other Hawai‘i counties could use them, and this would give the other islands a strong competitive advantage over our Big Island farmers.

I think we need to take a time out before making a decision on Bill 79, in order to make sure we do this right.

Big Island, Eating Locally, Food Security, Renewable Energy Sources

Are GMOs Safe? Should We Label Them?

1 Comment

Richard Ha writes:

Genetically engineered food? Is it safe? Should it be labeled?

Mark Lynas was one of the original founders of the anti-GMO movement. In this video, he explains that he has totally changed his mind about GMOs, his original position was not scientifically based, and he now completely regrets it.

“I want to start with some apologies….For the record, here and upfront, I want to apologize for having spent several years ripping up GMO crops. I'm also sorry I helped start the anti-GM movement back in the '90s, and that I thereby assisted in demonizing an important technological option that can and should be used to benefit the environment.

“As an environmentalist, and someone who believes that everyone in this world has a right to a healthy and nutritious diet of their choosing, I could not have chosen a more counterproductive path and I now regret it completely….”

The video is called "Mark Lynas on his conversion to supporting GMOs – Oxford Lecture on Farming. Watch it here to learn why he changed his mind. (In short, he says he "discovered science.")

At its recent 2012 annual meeting, the American Medical Association adopted a
position on bioengineered foods:

“Conclusions. Despite strong consumer interest in mandatory labeling of bioengineered foods, the FDA’s science-based labeling policies do not support special labeling without evidence of material differences between bioengineered foods and their traditional counterparts. The Council supports this science-based approach, and believes that thorough pre-market safety assessment and the FDA’s requirement that any material difference between bioengineered foods and their traditional counterparts be disclosed in labeling, are effective in ensuring the safety of bioengineered food.

To better characterize the potential harms of bioengineered foods, the Council believes that pre-market safety assessment should shift from a voluntary notification process to a mandatory requirement. The Council notes that consumers wishing to choose foods without bioengineered ingredients may do so by purchasing those that are labeled “USDA Organic.”

But organic farmers have high operating costs, and therefore organic foods are generally more expensive. How can we help organic farmers?

One way is to increase the discretionary income of organic customers. Geothermal-produced electricity puts money back in consumers’ pockets. Everyone benefits.

The large biotech companies aren’t going to come and plant and grow on the Big Island. Half our island is lava rock, and we don’t have long straightaways where you can set up irrigation. Lose money! 

Why do you think the sugar plantations used "tracked” equipment to work the fields? So they wouldn't flip over, or get stuck in the mud.

Big tractors that are used in Big Ag make money on the straightaways, and they lose money on the turns. We don’t have the straightaways, and so we don't have that type of Big Ag here – and we won’t.

Banning University of Hawai‘i field trials on the Big Island only hurts regular farmers.