Watch Jeff Jarvis talking to a room full of Guardian Journalists. You will see a curious thing (in part 2). Here is a guy standing in supposedly the UK’s, if not the world’s, leading left-of-centre newspaper, talking about ‘flexibilising journalism in the new link economy.’  In plain English, he is advocating that journalists – including Guardian hacks – will have to work with absolutely no safety net, no pension, no social security, nothing in this newest world order. They all sit and nod sagely. This may be because it all seems so inevitable, a future which flows naturally from the nature of the technology. Does it have to be that way?

Four out of five countries with the most personal computers per-capita are small, with strong social safety nets. The fifth is the US, the most technologically advanced nation on earth, and the clear exception that proves the rule. Whilst America is built around what Isiah Berlin might call “negative liberty” that is freedom from constraint and interference (though not from health insurance companies it seems) most other civilised countries also put an emphasis on the sorts of positive freedoms that arise from the collective, or in other words the ways in which a supportive state makes it possible for its citizens to realise their potential. And this is not all about the bend-over-and-hold-your-cheeks politics of flexibility.

Turning to entrepreneurialism  - would you rather risk all to start a new business in a place like the US where if you lose everything you may end up, literally, with nothing, no health-care, no decent schooling for your kids and so on? Or would you choose a society where, if all else fails, the state (or strong social networks)  will take care of you? This is precisely the kind of free-thinking and risk-taking that the internet is supposed to foster, but do we want innovation to derive from desperation, as in the India of Adiga’s White Tiger, or be nurtured by a confidence in the system? The list of countries with the most new businesses per capita is full of small to medium sized countries with strong social safety nets, or small Asian countries with very high levels of social cohesion.

So should we expect technology, on its own, to make the world a better place - a web-2-opia? It is clear that the foundations of freedom are not manufactured by businesses, but created by well-run, uncorrupt states. Neither the UK nor the US, whose anglo-saxon definitions of freedom are singularly defined in economic terms, are notable examples. So the future of the web, like the future of religion, the future of finance and the future of the environment, is increasingly unlikely to conform to the American dream.

When the Food and Agricultural Organisation says that another 40 million were pushed into hunger in 2008, what images spring into your mind? Is it possible to imagine that many people starving? Well imagine it or not, we had better get used to it. Because the other thing that the FAO announced was that to bring the truly mind-boggling 973 million people who are starving now into the land of plenty, we need to double food production by 2050. Quite a challenge, bearing in mind we also have to totally rejig our energy systems in the meantime.

Global food markets are effectively trade in water. Tony Allen coined the phrase “Virtual Water” to point out that water mainly travels around inside other things. And these other things are mostly food: a tonne of which takes 1000 tonnes of water to make. Another thing the food trade uses a lot of is oil. We are talking (in 1974) a calorie of oil to grow a calorie of food, and then you have to ship it. And even though a thousand times lighter than the water it embodies, food is still bulky. Think about the heaviest things that regularly come in and out of your house. It is lugging food shopping in and waste out that breaks up our sedentary lifestyles.

All that bulk gets moved around, a sample shopping basket of 26 imported organic items having travelled a total of 150,000 miles, or six times around the Earth. The US food system alone uses  as much energy as France and 80% of this is used outside the farm in transport and processing. This huge oil-driven industry is a way of redistributing water across the globe, albeit guided by purchasing power. The dry parts of the world rely on the food trade to a very great extent, and as it gets harder to grow food in the tropics under climate change, this dependency is likely to increase.

The IEA now forecasts that the production of conventional oils is likely to peak around 2020. That’s only 12 years away, and is likely to drive the price of energy up sharply across the board, as people try and substitute on type of fuel for another. This is bound to affect the food trade, partly because of the oil that goes into food,  but also because it makes it ever more tempting to use land for growing fuel.  The food price rises in 2008 were 75% caused by the increased demand from bio-fuels. It all adds up. The extra 40 million hungry in 2008 was with an oil price peaking around $100 a barrel. But the coming oil peak, dubbed “The last oil shock”, could raise the price to $300 a barrel. So this international trade in food (AKA water) is likely to get a lot more expensive. We could be seeing a lot of inflation (Thus Passim).

Countries will find it increasingly expensive to buy in the food they need. This will mean an increasing need, in the tropics especially, for countries to rely on the water they have in order to grow food. If you combine this with population growth in places like India, you get a worrying picture of massively declining amounts of water available per person even as you need more of it.

As if this were not enough to put you off your muesli, take a look at industrialisation. The US uses as much water for industry as it does for agriculture, and the EU uses twice as much. These are both areas with tight environmental regulations, particularly in relation to water pollution: This was the original cause celebre of the environmental movement, with the publication of Rachel Carson’s “Silent Spring.” And let’s not forget Erin Brokovich.

In many tropical countries there is not much water to spare. In India 80-90% of the water demand is already from agriculture. Whilst there are a lot of good environmental laws on the books, the enforcement is weak, what with all the corruption. In 2006, pushed on by the World Trade Organisation, the Indian government rushed through 2 new laws. The first allowed major sections of Industry to self-certify their environmental impacts, which is a bit like asking them nicely for a confession, pretty please . The other was a directive that all natural resources should be exploited to the maximum benefit of “the people”. How the people will get a slice of the profits is not made clear.

This all seems a bit schizophrenic, because the same government is so concerned about water shortage that it is proposing the largest development project in the history of humanity. This is a 1 billion US$ proposal to link all of India’s rivers together.  The joke being that without enforced environmental regulations, this is likely to turn into a national pollution network. So what to do? Buy food from abroad? Fat chance.

Well one thing is to get the existing environmental regulations enforced. This is a global problem, as the food-oil-water link indicates, so a global treaty about the enforcement of environmental regulations in international trade looks ever more urgent. Otherwise international organisations will keep on lobbying to weaken the laws that protect the increasingly scarce water in the tropics.

The other way is from the ground up. There are plenty of traditional crops in Asia and Africa that have been displaced by markets for “modern” “luxury” food. Millets and Ragi in India have suffered this fate, replaced by water-guzzling rice paddy. Promoting these crops, which can get by on 5 times less water than wheat, is one way towards food security. Another is to reduce oil dependence in food production, especially in poor countries like India, where farmers already face huge problems with debt.

However, until international policy-makers wake up to these issues, and moderate the market fundamentalism that got us into our current mess, these types of solution are likely to remain drops in the ocean. Doing things mainly by markets and purchasing power means it is cheaper to let the poor starve. So don’t you know, we’re talking about a revolution.

The only way out is to win a quiz show

Aravind Adiga’s Booker winner White Tiger and Danny Boyle’s Golden-Globe-harvesting film Slumdog Millionaire (based on Indian Diplomat Vikas Swarup’s novel Q and A) illustrate a “Shining India” that has long shown up in the statistics of those critical of the Globo-glorifiers. It bears repeating (Thus Passim) that 70-80% of India’s population cannot afford to feed themselves to international minimums, that is 2400 calories of cheap stodge per day, assuming they spend on nothing else.

Yet in the UK we continue to talk about “the poor” as if they live on council estates, and as if all they need is the chance to show how bright they are in order to climb up into our middle class paradise. Meritocracy may imply that the less intelligent ones should stay where they are, but what if they were dulled by malnutrition? The world is not made up of a series of Westminster villages, but being good nationalists, the policy makers and pundits seem reluctant to acknowledge this.

The implication of this is that national governments tend to live in a room full of mirrors, where all that they see is themselves, especially in rich OECD countries. Almost everyone uses the poor to justify their policies and positions in these compassionate days of media-conveyed suffering, yet our policy and political debates do not at all reflect their circumstances. This is a flaw of the Left as well as the Right. The legacy of Marx and the Union movement is that we see emancipation of the poor in terms of workplace rights, yet only around 8% of people in India have formal employment contracts, so this is mostly irrelevant and this is probably the case in most poor countries.

If people cannot feed themselves in the cash economy, as the numbers show, then they have to be feeding themselves in the non-cash economy. How can this be so? Where does food come from if not from shops? That’s because the poor are in the environment. Either an urban one, scavenging the remains and polishing the shoes of those visible to us, or a rural one, growing or gathering food under unpredictable conditions. But since policymaking is largely about economics, and economics largely about the cash economy, and the cash economy about people with purchasing power, and not the environment or the poor, these humans (of whom there are rather a lot) remain largely invisible. But what is the problem with them, and their environment, remaining invisible to policy makers, particularly in the rich world?

It gives us a totally misleading sense of the future. Economists, particularly historically oriented ones, write as if it is the swing of a pendulum that determines economic history.  Presumably this means that after this latest desperate burst of neo-Keynesianism we will turn back to more liberal and less risk-averse approaches once times are good again. But that invisible thing, the environment, is changing, and it will impact on all of us, but mainly on those other invisible things, the poor, so that our whole perception of risk, and thus how to organise ourselves, will have to change. We are not going back to a nice cosey stable world with seemingly unlimited natural resources, and we are not replaying the Industrial Revolution in countries like India, even if our policy makers have been Oxbridge-raised on a diet of social thinkers from the steam-engine age. We can talk about public spending as a way of stabilising things until we are blue in the face, but how do we propose to get money to those really at risk under our undoubtedly changing circumstances?

Via NGOs? Well they are not coping well with spending the fraction of the 0.7% of GDP put to aid budgets efficiently. Via business? Well their track record of behaving well in the absence of strong regulation is not so good. Via governments in poor countries? To quote Aravind Adiga’s lead character in White Tiger, “what a fucking joke.” Survival of the fittest in a world where pro-poor leaders in the poor world, particularly those that interfere with rich world access to natural resources tended to “dissappear” has left a legacy of governance that does not exactly channel funds to the needy as a first priority.

We can perhaps hope that our rich world “Social Mobility” thesis works in poor countries, and the poor can suddenly help themselves. Sadly the post-industrial boom in India seems not to be creating lots of jobs, so the whole 1950′s rich world idea of mechanising agriculture and shunting people into the cities is creating shanti towns rather than a lovely unionised industrial base. Also, it takes rather a lot of planets, at current levels of inequality, to lift the poor out this way.

So we have a big problem that our current policy debates are simply not up to addressing. We don’t know how to think about the dependency of the poor on the environment, or how to support them in the face of environmental change or indeed how, in short, to stabilise the world through the coming times of trouble (Thus Passim). There is the  Keynsian idea of a “Green New Deal”, but this is not a cyclical issue we are facing, actually the problems are likely to grow gradually but inexorably over time, so a short-term spending strategy won’t do it (though long-term rural employment guarantees may help a bit, even if dogged by corruption).  Maybe we in the rich world should look to the artists for answers, because right now, it looks like our wonks are all out of ideas.

We need a Global Climate Deal right now, but when even a Greeny like Al Gore worked hard to dilute the Kyoto Protocol, you start to wonder if the Americans have a collective death-wish. The answer, of course, is no. But why then the insistence on oil? Why the crazy misadventures in the Middle East, when the time (and money) in between could have been spent on re-fitting our energy systems or getting ready for bad weather? Much though I like having a moan with John Pilger, (each to their own, JK) and have personally enjoyed many a tirade against American power (ibid), one of the things that Climate Change really hammers home that we are all in this together. Hence, perhaps, the rather weak sounding position of the UN’s chief climate negotiator, Yvo de Boer, that Americans have economic interests they need to protect, and that we must to respect this. He is right though. We cannot expect even a relatively worldly President like Obama to ignore these interests. The EU are currently negotiating target carbon emission reductions of up to 40% by 2020, but if America continues to pursue a retrograde energy policy, the developing world can hardly be expected to line up with Europe.

America’s conundrum in relation to oil actually goes right to the base of their power-position in the world. America got into the position of being the main global power in the aftermath of the two great European Civil Wars (WWI and WWII as we like to call them.) The American negotiators were in a position, in the 1945-1948 period, to largely set the terms to the bankrupted powers of the old world. The deal negotiated was not Keynesian, as many say, but was created by the American negotiator, Harry Dexter White.

Keynes recommended a world currency. We got the dollar instead. It was fine for a while but . . .

Two crucial points emerged from this. The first was that, against the advice of Keynes who wanted a new global currency, international finance would be built around the Dollar. The second was that European powers, particularly the British, would start to hand over the international seaways and strategic control of areas such as the Middle East. This was partly through the dismantling of formal Empire, but also through the opening up of key sectors to American investment, oil extraction in the Middle East being an area that emerged as crucial in the subsequent decades.As this new international system bedded in, and as the postwar industrial boom took shape, the link between oil and the dollar emerged. Countries needed a continuous supply of fuel- increasingly oil, and you could only 100% reliably purchase oil in an emergency if you held dollars in your national reserve. Thus the dollar strengthened as a global reserve currency. This was very much as Harry Dexter White had planned it, since it gave the US an ongoing economic advantage. All the dollars that were printed in America and spent abroad meant goods and services for free. That is for as long as they were held abroad and not spent back into the American Economy.

But here lies America’s central problem: These dollars are now sitting abroad in overseas banks, but what happens if the dollar-oil link unwinds, and these overseas dollars come home to roost?  Hyper-inflation of the scariest kind. Even the International Monetary Fund’s insistence that foreign reserves be held in dollars does not re-assure American policy makers when Saddam and OPEC start discussing trading oil in Euros, so this is clearly a major percieved threat.

De-carbonising America is not impossible

Now climate science demands that we move away from an oil-based global economy astoundingly fast, we are talking de-carbonisation rates of 3-6% a year here. To put this in context, the decarbonisation rate of Russia as it collapsed economically under Yeltsin was 1% per year, so this is a huge shift. How could America survive such a rapid lurch away from oil? One way is to make it look like oil can in some way be made green. You stick with the same infrastructure, and keep the trade going by using a liquid fuel with green credentials to try and dilute the impact of your power-base. In other words, you back biofuels. The FAO has just released its State of Food and Agriculture 2008 report, and it is clear that biofuels are part of what is currently pushing up starvation rates around the world.  So the current American strategy looks like building a house of cards (Thus passim) since it involves making the lives of those at the bottom of the Global Economy even more unstable.

There is  another way out but it requires a level of innovative thinking about the economy beyond even that presented in the recent Green New Deal, and way outside the scope of what is being considered in the current economic summits. The only way I can think of avoiding the unwinding of the dollar (which would probably make us all suffer) without sticking to an oil base (which will definitely make us all suffer) is to allow the conversion of foreign reserves of Dollars into a new Global currency. The crucial point is that this conversion process needs to take these overseas dollars out of circulation whilst retaining the value that they held. So the new currency will need to be tradeable for oil in the very short-term, but designed so that in the longer term it phases out international trade in fossil fuels.

I am no expert (look here and here for some), but my main point is that there is a need for this kind of blue sky financial thinking. If we do not in some way take into account the difficult position that America faces and try and find solutions, then America and its rulers will be forced by circumstance to keep us running towards the precipice. Despite people trumpeting the “End of History” and the “End of Ideology” (Thus Passim) we actually need to rethink and to some extent politicise our financial systems in order to get through the roadblock that we face.

This looks like becoming a major nuclear flashpoint.

However, since this issue is about the decidedly mundane business of growing food, it is part of the world of the silent majority. The narrative of Kashmir as a Holy Land, Kashmir as terrorist stronghold for Muslim Fundamentalists fits into prevailing elite discourses about global religious conflict – good Christian democracies verses bad Islamofascism. The idea that the root of this problem might be about food, water, feeding poor people, the environment and climate change, simply does not fit the story. What if people were united by material rather than religious concerns? My God, you might even have to think about the circumstances under which people actually live.

End wurreld famine wid cluster bombs, W?

Thanks to Jack Roberts of Big Idea and the Herald Sun for pointing out that Saint Bob Geldof charged $100,000 to speak in Australia recently about ‘the tragedy of world famine.’ Guests weren’t told that it was a paid gig, by no means the first, for Geldof, friend of the man who has done a lot to reduce the world’s population and wealth of late. 

The Spoils of War

According to the Observer, “Tony Blair has earned £12m since leaving Downing Street, including speaking fees of £200,000 a time; by contrast John Prescott earns £30,000 a year from after-dinner speeches” (but probably eats at least an equivalent amount). A triple header with Tony and George seems a natural (already done, I believe). Any suggestions for the remaining horseman? Robert Mugabe? Bono? Omar Al Bashir? Gary Glitter?

One concept that has been leaving me speechless recently is how many people will die due to resource shortages if we keep on with this free-market stuff. How do you put this kind of thing into a word or phrase? Well, I entered “genocide by economic means” into my trusty dictionary and the first result was: Supply Side Economics. Who would have thought it? A dictionary with a sense of humour.

I also have to admit to being a wonk (though hopefully not a wonker). But this issue is so huge, it really bears explaining, and also a word of its own. Jared Diamond pointed out that there are a few things that often characterise civilisations on the brink of Collapse. Generally there is a party going on at the top, because this is the point on the exponential curve of resource usage where consumption is maxing out. But at the same time, as basic resource shortages bite, people at the bottom are starting to feel the pain, as basic neccessities start to run short. The problem that Diamond identifies, the one that is a killer risk for civilisations, is that those at the top do not pay attention to the problems of those at the bottom, because they are having such a great time. They  are too consumed by hubris to address the emerging problems. It all sounds eerily close to home doesn’t it?

But here comes the really deadly bit. What happens to the price of a resource in shortage?  Economics 101 says it tends to go up.  What does trying to implement a global free market do? It tries to make prices the same for everyone everywhere, free from distortions. What does this do to people with little purchasing power (the poor) as basic resources run short? It kills them, efficiently.

Now this could be the most efficient killing machine ever invented by human kind, so surely it deserves a name? Genocide is not quite it, because, as people endlessly argue, it implies a deliberate intention to mass murder, and this particular form of wipe-out seems unplanned. We could go from the idea of manslaughter, which is applied to such unplanned or accidental killings by negligence, and generalise it out: mass humanslaughter perhaps? However it is, at least to begin with, a selective kind of killing, so how about mass poorslaughter?

None of these phrases really trip off the tongue, so perhaps we should use the words of Jean Zeigler, the UN special rapporteur for the Right to Food, who described biofuels, which turn land over from food to energy production, as an “Agricultural Crime Against Humanity.” Although I think there is an even snappier way of summing all of this up. Stupid.

Now I hate all the guilt and the wringing of hands as much as the next person, partly because I think it’s displacement activity, if we are not going to do something about it, then we may as well stop pretending and get on with enjoying ourselves. But there is an issue of political imagination in all of this. Every time we make statements about the planet, or about “life” or being human, we are also making statements on behalf of these people. People who probably don’t speak English and so don’t have any access to our elite discussions.

We depend upon these people, they make our cheap Chinese goods possible, and fuel the service boom in India. In many ways they manage inflation on our behalf, since they are, well, so cheap. Since we depend on these people, if we want to chart a political future for ourselves that is stable, then we need to take into account the realities of their lives. Take the food price crisis: How much have we spoken about the price of milk in Tesco? And yet how little have we discussed the possibilities of food riots? The last trade round fell on this point: The developed world just could not get their heads around the developing world’s insistence that their population had to eat, come what may.

In order to have an accurate political imagination, to help us chart our way through the turbulence of climate change, and avoid crunching on the rocks of natural resource shortage, we need to think beyond our discussions where we mostly talk about Us. We also need to get beyond the current war-time mentality where we think about Them as terrorists or usurpers. We really do face tests that are way beyond what our current mentality is geared up to. Thus we need a new political imagination that is beyond Them and Us.