Industrial ag is failing badly in Africa

This is pretty awful, and very, very underreported.

On September 5, the annual Africa Food Systems Forum, organised by the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), (launched) in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Government officials, experts, policymakers and business leaders will come together to discuss – in their words – “building back better food systems and food sovereignty”.

Sponsored by international philanthropic and bilateral donors and agrochemical and biotech companies such as Yara, Corteva and Bayer, the forum promotes hybrid and genetically modified seeds, chemical fertilisers and pesticides used in the type of industrial-scale agriculture that has failed to deliver “better food systems” or “food sovereignty”.

This approach to growing food, involving problematic practices that harm soils, pollute the environment, and favour large landowners and big agribusiness, has been pushed on Africa in the past few decades. But it has not helped the continent overcome food insecurity.

AGRA’s work is a case in point. It has failed to deliver on its own promises to increase productivity and incomes for 20 million farm households while halving food insecurity by 2020. Of the 13 countries it has primarily worked with, three have reduced the number of malnourished people over the past 15 years: Zambia by 2 percent, Ethiopia by 8 percent and Ghana by 36 percent, still short of the 50 percent target.

In countries like Kenya and Nigeria, both of which have embraced industrial agriculture policies, the number of undernourished people has grown by 44 percent and 247 percent, respectively. Taken together, the population of undernourished people in the 13 states AGRA has primarily worked with has actually risen by 50 percent over the past 15 years. - IATP

Who's eating lots of beef?

I would need to see at least one more independent study that confirms these results, before I totally buy them. That said, it's encouraging data in a way, given beef's environmental/climate impacts among other things. Unfortunately consumption is only likely to keep rising, at least for a while yet, in some other countries like China.

A new study has found that only about 12% of people in the U.S. consume more than half of the beef eaten in the country on any given day. According to the researchers, the highest consumption was more likely to occur with men or people aged 50 to 65...

The survey collected information of what more than 10,000 adults ate within a 24-hour period. The researchers were surprised to find that so much beef consumption was coming from a small percentage of people.

“On one hand, if it’s only 12% accounting for half the beef consumption, you could make some big gains if you get those 12% on board,” Diego Rose, corresponding and senior author of the study and professor and nutrition program director at Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, said in a statement. “On the other hand, those 12% may be most resistant to change.” Rose also noted that beef is high in saturated fat, which raises health concerns. - EcoWatch

Will AI create or destroy jobs?

Heck if I know. I consider it impossible to predict with any confidence, at this time. This is from another take on the matter.

A new study by the International Labour Organization (ILO) has concluded that Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) is more likely to increase jobs than destroy them by automating some tasks rather than taking them over entirely...

The study, “Generative AI and Jobs”, argues that most jobs and industries are only partially exposed to automation and are more likely to be complemented than replaced by the latest wave of generative AI, such as chatGPT.

Therefore, he argues that “the biggest impact of this technology is likely to be not job destruction, but rather potential changes in the quality of jobs, in particular work intensity and autonomy”...

The study, released by the ILO from its headquarters in this Swiss city, documents notable differences in the effects on countries at different levels of development, linked to economic structures and existing technology gaps. - Pressenza

Massive fossil fuels subsidies continue, in spite of it all

In theory, what we could use in this country is nationalization of Big Filthy Fossil Fuels. This would help in getting them phased out more rapidly, and in neutering them politically. Forced buyouts actually wouldn't cost us taxpayers much, if they're done in the manner of the sorts of leveraged buyouts beloved of "free marketers." "In theory" because something so sensible is highly unlikely to happen any time soon.

Imagine a bunch of people who are kidnapped and tortured by being put in a hot room, and their tormentors keep turning up the thermostat. So the prisoners stage a revolt and grab control of the thermostat. But they turn it up on themselves, making the room even hotter, and black out from heat stroke.

It isn’t a very satisfying thriller because the prisoners act in a bewildering way, joining in to torture themselves.

It is, however, the thriller we are living, however bizarre the characters’ actions.

The International Monetary Fund reports that the nations of the globe indirectly subsidized fossil fuels, the sources of dangerous greenhouse gases causing global heating, to the tune of $7 trillion in 2022. In other words, we’re acting like we are brain dead. So report Simon Black, Ian Parry, Nate Vernon at the IMF. - Informed Comment

Artificial intelligence and getting public benefits

I’m still an AI skeptic, at least of many of the claims that are out there. Remember how the internet itself was going to totally remake our lives, like “paperless offices,” the total end of traditional retailing, etc., etc? (Though certainly some people made a great deal of money from pronouncements like that being taken very seriously. Other people lost a great deal of money, too.) We will have to deal with AI, of sorts, in some ways, though.

One critical area that will almost certainly see dramatic changes in the years ahead is that of accessing public benefits programs — a realm already fraught with systemic barriers. While AI brings great potential to streamline burdensome processes and expand access to critical services, it also poses significant risks if deployed without care. As we stand at the precipice of an AI revolution, it’s critical that policymakers, tech companies and advocates work collectively to steer these technologies towards empowering people in need, rather than further isolating them. The promise is real, but far from guaranteed.

These developments come at a moment of growing recognition of how critical a robust, accessible safety net is to building and maintaining a prosperous society. Analysis on the expansion of the child tax credit during the Covid-19 pandemic found that increasing the benefit amount and making it available to more people lifted 3.7 million children out of poverty. In contrast, the addition of work requirements to enroll in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly known as food stamps), as proposed by Congressional Republicans early this year, would have reduced enrollment by an estimated 52% if it had been enacted, by making it more difficult for families in need to access the benefits. Given that SNAP is credited with keeping 3.3 million children out of poverty every year, this change would have drastically increased the number of children in poverty. These outcomes have major ramifications, not just for the families involved, but for society at large, as the long-term impact of child poverty has been calculated to cost more than $1 trillion every year. - In These Times

A (probably brief) respite of sorts for the Colorado River water crisis

"A respite of sorts" is far, far from "solved." The latter ain't happening.

The water shortage crisis on the Colorado River is improving, but it’s far from over.

That was the message from the Biden administration on Tuesday, as officials announced they would loosen water restrictions on the river in 2024. Thanks to robust winter snowpack that provided about 33 percent more moisture than the average year, the water levels in the riverʻs two main reservoirs have begun to stabilize after plummeting over three years. This has lessened the need for states in the Southwest to cut their water usage.

The total cuts will be about 20 percent lighter than they were last year, requiring three Southwest states and Mexico to save around 600,000 acre-feet of water — enough to supply roughly 1.2 million homes.

Even so, the administration left some mandatory restrictions in place to account for the fact that the reservoirs, Lake Mead and Lake Powell, are still emptier than they have been at almost any point in history. That’s due in large part to a millennium-scale drought that researchers believe was made much more likely by climate change. And even as federal officials eased up on mandatory restrictions, they were also preparing to dole out billions of dollars to the region’s farmers and cities in an effort to further reduce water usage on the river. - Grist

Yes, it's past time to start getting rid of the bosses

But making it happen is proving to be very challenging. That's no reason to give up, though.

Do our corporate CEOs deserve all those millions they annually pocket? Can a modern economy somehow survive without the “incentive” these mega millions provide? Do we, in effect, need our top corporate bosses pocketing more in a day than their workers can take home in a year?

We’ve been asking — as a society — questions like these ever since CEO paychecks started soaring in the late 1970s. Back in the 1960s, America’s CEOs averaged about 20 times what their workers were taking home. Today’s CEOs, analysts at the Economic Policy Institute detailed last October, routinely pocket 400 times and more what their workers are making...

But that executive greed — despite the spotlight on it — seems as entrenched as ever. And that reality has some analysts going beyond attacking how much our corporate chiefs execs make. These critics are increasingly wondering whether we need these chiefs at all. - CounterPunch