nan | 楠木

This week’s Economist features a lengthy cover story briefing on this year’s global food prices, which are at historical highs. The byline sums it up rather neatly:

Rising incomes in Asia and ethanol subsidies in America have put an end to a long era of falling food prices

The first driver is relatively straightforward. As consumers in emerging markets have more disposable income, the demand for food goes up – for example, the average Chinese now consumes twice as much meat compared to that of 1985.

The second driver, ethanol subsidies in the US, is linked to green politics, and this is exactly what I have always disliked about the whole environmentalism issue. It is too easily abused for political gains and often too hard to refute due to its higher moral ground. Encouraging alternative fuel is no doubt a good thing, but should we not take into consideration the cost? Of course, ethanol subsidies in the US are also linked to protectionism – cheaper, cleaner imports from Brazil are available, but the US would rather subsidize its own farmers, and hence create a distortion in food production.

Just to state my own views again, I believe environmentalism should be scrutinized just like every other political movement. It is easy to state lofty goals about protecting the future of the planet, but any policy must be evaluated in terms of cost and reward. In the same sense, a careful balance between economic development and environmental protection must be achieved – it’s fine for a 1st world citizen to be sipping afternoon tea and talking about reducing carbon emissions, but for a 3rd world citizen who lives on a dollar a day, overcoming poverty is surely a more pressing issue.